What can any one tell me about Belgian made MHs.
I have what I think is a Mk 111 dated 1886.
It looks just like my Mk 1V but with a very slightly different but stock profile.
Printable View
What can any one tell me about Belgian made MHs.
I have what I think is a Mk 111 dated 1886.
It looks just like my Mk 1V but with a very slightly different but stock profile.
Just thought I would get this back to the top as
the post Thursday delivery of a Martini 'Muscate'.
by Anzac15 raises the topic of the Belgian MHs.
any one care to tell me more about them?
I have only once been able to inspect a Belgian M-H, which was made by Francotte, as it was being used in a French BP competition. The quality was excellent, but that is not a blanket approval of all Belgian M-Hs, just an observation from personal experience.
Whatever you do, do not buy an M-H solely on the basis of photos. The market is awash with Nepalese of very variable condition and quality, hand-carved Khyber Pass copies, Indian examples that may have a conglomeration of parts ...and just once in a while, a good, genuine example.
In short, hands-on inspection is mandatory for a Martini-Henry.
It took me 4 years to find a good one, and it was sitting in a rack next to a fake that was suspicious because the markings were too good to be true (photo-etched, I think!) On photos alone, I might have judged the fake to be the better one!
I second what Patrick just said. The number of 'Khyber' copies at the guns shows here now are staggering. I mean they're everywhere! And yes, the markings on them are getting better. That said, in regards to the differences in Belgian and English MHs, they appear to be small. I put my Muscat next to my British MkII, and it does appear that the receiver and the cocking lever seem to be, well, smaller. Not by much, though. Also, the shape of the lever on the Belgian version seems to be shaped a tad differently.
Quality of the Belgian version? I can only say that mine looks to have been through hell and high water, but it still seems very tight and very well made. I can only imagine what it was like when it was new. Had to have been an extremely dependable and accurate little carbine. I would love to see pics of yours, although I suspect yours is probably a 'Khyber' version. You mentioned a date of 1886..I've seen tons of these copies with that date on it. Is it .303? I bought a copied carbine last year just to add to the collection as an example, it was .303, and 1886 was stamped all over it. From a distance you couldn't tell the difference, that's how good the markings were. Then you get it apart......
---------- Post added at 11:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 PM ----------
Also, I failed to mention that my Muscat carbine was/is a commercial variant. In fact, most of the Belgian MHs I've seen (which have not been many) have been commercial models. And all of those have had a Francotte action. This one does not. It has the cocking indicator, and field strips just like the British version.
There is nothing wrong withthe Belgian Martini's. The are every bit as good as the British guns.
You do not have a Mk III made in Belgium. The Mk III is a sealed pattern of the British Military Martini Henry. You may have a Belgium made Martini built to resemble the British MKIII but it is not a MKIII.
Hay now we are off to a good start.
First I made a mistake the date is 1884 not 1886 as I said in my first post. ( I had 1886 on the mind at the time I think as it is the year of the first smokeless round and it was a French one )
I had to replace the firing pin and the rear sight.
I replaced them with british MH ones from a uk dealer.
They fitted first time no problems.
I went to add a trigger guard sling mount, but it will not fit
as the guard has a slightly different profile, it is very nicely rounded.
It is a short lever.and has the thumb rest on the top of the block.
I will take a few pics when I can, the markings are well worn
so not sure how well they will show up.
I bought it from a French dealer at an arms fair here in France.
He goes to the uk to buy arms, he only knew it was a MH,
it was in a bad state and cost me 125 euros 100 qiud at that time.
Looks like "Fabrique Liegois des Armes de Guerre", i.e. the Liege factory that became FN (Fabrique Nationale des Armes de Guerre)
But according to my information (Greenhill) this company was officially formed on 3. July 1889, somewhat late to be making Martinis, and indeed the company was primarily set up to manufacture the Mauser 1889 model to re-equip the Belgian army.
Maybe the name was in use before? Francotte was perhaps the most prominent Belgian manufacturer at the time, had shares in the new company (later sold to Mauser or Loewe, I think) and certainly made Martinis. You are going to have to search carefully for other marks.
Update: it appears that Francotte was still making sporting Martinis in the 1900s. We really need overall photos and detail photos of any markings.
Wow! That's really unusual..I've never seen that before.
Yes, please, more pics!
Taken a few pics.
Sorry not very good with a digital camera.
The only mark I can find without taking it to bits is one
on the top of the barrel that looks like a 23. In the last pic.
Is it the rare carbureted model MH?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They got up loaded when I resized the pics.
Managed to remove them.
OK the MH is a 577/450.
The front sight is different to the MH.
The rear sight is a replacement from a british MH.
The rear stock comb is a different profile to my british MH.
My wife and I both see the Belgian MH as being a little thinner / finer / delicate in shape.
It is about 15/20 grams lighter, and 5mm longer overall with barrel length within 1/2 mm the same.
The Belgian MH has a short lever
The front of the trigger guard is flared outwards as it meats the bottom of the block where the sling swivel fits.
Is there anything any one wants me to look at?
Patrick.
My other MH is a Nepalese one. Dated 1886. In very good shootable condition.
I have put about 50 rounds through it so far.
See pic.
That Belgian MH is great! I wish I had more than that, but sadly my knowledge of these Belgian variants is minimal right now, at best. I'm reading up on them as much as I can right now, but you have shown me one I've never seen before. I'd swear that was a Brit version from a distance. Really like it, thanks for showing!
While I'm thinking of it, I'm sure Patrick will know, are all Belgian MHs of the commercial variety? Or did they actually fill official military contracts? The very few Belgians I've seen were bought up by militias, 'private' forces, that type of thing. That's always been the speculation about the Muscats, that they were built for the Sultan of Oman's forces, guards, etc. Though I've found no concrete evidence to support this.
This rifle needs to be stripped down and minutely inspected.
In Photo 12, for instance, the trigger looks good, with fine lines (fakes are usuallly much cruder).
The cleaning rod, on the other hand, looks rather home-made.
Photo 5 shows that the block comes up too far when the action is closed.
Photo 13 shows that the R-H horn of the extractor is missing or bent.
The rifle may a mixmaster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anzac15
I don't know for sure, but I suspect they were all commercial. Of course, any nation is free to buy up commercial rifles and distribute them to its security forces as it sees fit. But military contract Belgian M-Hs? I don't think so. A military contract rifle is usually marked with a national crest or some other indication of the end user nation or military organization, as a proof of ownership. I have not yet seen such a Belgian M-H, which is, of course, no proof that none ever existed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by read6737
And that looks like a very good one!
OK quick reply as I have to get out to work.
The action is loose when not cocked thus the high block.
It is OK when cocked.
The extractor is not broken both claws are there.
The cleaning rod was a devil to get out, but I don't think it is hand made.
The MH was in a bad state when I got it.
The outside had had a light clean.
The inside of it action and chamber was full of grit and rust, not heavy rust though light ish.surface. Took ages to get it out, now just looks and feels aged.
As yet I have not taken the wood off, a few tight screws to undo.
I am taking my time as I can be a little ham fisted if in a hurry.
Is there a trick to showing up hard to read markings?
I know zero about the Belgian MHs.
and I only know a little about the british ones.
Yep, I'm learning just as you are, Read..in fact, I think you should just go ahead and sell me that Belgian so that I may research it even further! :)
Got the wood off without breaking anything.
What a mess under the cannon. Gunk dust and rust.
There a few under the cannon. by the block looks like Nos 374? may be a 5 or 4
then what looks like a V or a Y think it is a Y.
then a very round O I think there may have been something in it an X may be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by read6737
You could be looking at a proof mark and/or a maker's mark. Please post a photo.
Was taking pics as you posted.
Hope you like them.
The first one looks interesting.
Very strange. If this is a Belgian rifle, there must have been proof marks on there somewhere at one time. The 374 will just be a number from a batch, and the others have me baffled.
The Y is a Y, and if the thing in a circle has the same orientation, then it could be a monogram: W inside G.
I can only find one Belgian gunmaker's name that fits - William Grah. Who did, in fact, make sporting Martinis.
But where oh where are the proofmarks???
Where would the proof mark be?`
On the top of the cannon in front of the block?
What should it look like?
Te W in the G does have the same orientation as the Y.
OK 3 more pics.
1 and 3 of the top of the cannon next to the block.
What does the 23 mean?
What is the small mar to the right?
2nd pic underneath same place.
There is something next to the block on the left.?
Now finding that was hard for me as I have 5.5/10 vision at best and not very good focus.
The W in the crowned G is Witten, a German manufacturer, I believe. What it's doing on a Belgian MH is a mystery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anzac15
Very interesting. Where did you find that?
A friend of mine owned a gun shop near me, had a huge library of firearm related books. One was a book on MHs, can't for the life of me remember the name of it, but there was a section on MHs and components manufactured by countries other than Britain..that mark was in there, always kind of stood out. I'm guessing that this Belgian manufacturer bought German barrels and used those? But why would they? The Belgians were always pretty darn good at making those themselves!
Think we have a very interesting subject of conversation here, gents!
---------- Post added at 02:44 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:42 AM ----------
And...can't really tell from my phone here, but is that a small Maltese Cross at the base of the barrel?
Ok, here I am, getting NO sleep. I decided to Google 'Witten Martini Henry'. Take your pick on what to read! Apparently they made rifles for Romania, then South Africa. Also appears that they made just barrels at some point.
Just when I think I know something about MHs, or any other firearm for that matter, something like this pops up! It's maddening, and I love it!
Amazing! And thanks for the tip Anzac15.
Now I know what I am looking for
I have found this after the tip from Anzac15. Thank you.
This what I found.
Unusual Martini in Martini-Henry Forum Forum
Looks just the same but in better condition.
Just took the block to bits.
The Nos match 374. Loading / cocking Lever 374, Sear 4, Trigger block 374.
The only one that does not is the pin / spring carrier, it has 838A on it.
Just seen on the back of the dropping block the 838A again it also has 374 on the side.
There are 2 stamps on the dropping block that I will try and take pics.
Looks like the stamps ether side on the dropping block are the same.
I remember that I did not change the pin now, it was the flat trigger spring.