Treasures of the Khyber Pass - "Martini Henry" edition

[Patrick Chadwick]

Not all 100% fakes. The B.S.A.&M.Co. looks like a genuine receiver, the II being offset because it was upgraded from a MkI and the second I was added on the right of the first I.
The trigger looks original - compare it with the one in the second photo, which (as usual for fakes) fails to achieve the fine sweeping curve of an original. Same applies to the recess in the block.

The barrel could also be OK, although ever since I found an M-H with markings that were simply too crisp to be true, and under an eyeglass appeared to have in fact been photo-etched, I am very reluctant to give markings a positive verdict by a photo alone. (Once again, it was the inconsistency that aroused my suspicion in that case)

I think you may have missed a near-enough original M-H MkII there! The first rule of markets is "I may never come this way again" - as demonstrated in your case! I.e. sometimes one has to decide on the spot on the basis of incomplete information. But it was a long learning curve to achieve the necessary level of confidence before I dared to buy my M-H!

The problem is, for about 200 years everything in Afghanistan that could go "bang" has been recycled. As a result, many fakes include some genuine parts. Back in the 19th and early 20th century the primary aim was to "keep 'em banging", not faking. The out-and-out fakery for the souvenir trade is (my guess) post WWII.

My general rule in assessing old artefacts is to look for inconsistencies. But with guns out of Afghanistan it is almost the norm that they are inconsistent. If I was looking for an M-H I would be happy to find an original barrel/receiver/block combination as being the heart of the rifle, other components being replaceable or repairable.

BTW, please note how often I use wording like "seems/ appears/could be..." If I have learnt one thing in evaluating old guns over the years, it is that while one can often spot a fake on a photo, it is much more difficult to make a positive evaluation! So I may be wrong in my judgement of the rifles shown in your photos.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Sentryduty]

Not all 100% fakes.

That is interesting! I know at the time I had that one tagged as a possible real rifle, but lacking any real knowledge beyond being able to tell the difference between a Martini-Henry and an umbrella, I was not ready to gamble. If I remember correctly the seller's asking price was $500 (USD) but in the market everything was haggled down, the successful buyers later told me that about $225 USD was the rock bottom on any "gun" from a bazaar seller.

Arranging shipping was another hassle, DHL was handling outbound packages, there were a few paperwork hoops to jump through, and living out of a duffle bag and a couple barracks boxes didn't really permit a storage solution for a new rifle. The missed opportunity was bittersweet, and just not meant to be in my case.

While I don't have any photos, in a plot twist later in the tour, in Helmand province we seized a genuine Long Branch 1944 marked Lee-Enfield, although it was heavily jingled, underneath was a formerly nice light blond stock, and the action worked smoothly. A Canadian rifle being fired at us Canadians, the silly irony of it all was not lost on us lads.

[butlersrangers]

'Sentryduty' - Thanks for sharing your pictures of the 'Market Place' and for your service.

Years ago, (back in the 1970s and 80s), I had a .303 caliber Khyber Pass copy of a M-H Artillery Carbine. It was pretty convincing, until you looked at the "rifling" and upside-down #8 on the rear-sight leaf. Strangely, the breech-block and extractor were real British parts. Everything else was handcrafted. I kind of wish I had kept it.

Patrick seems 'spot on' in his observations. I am sure that 1875 B.S.A. Manufacturing. Co. receiver is real. I was pretty convinced of this rear-sight being authentic, until I noticed the 'hand stamped' 200 yard marking. (I took the liberty of re-posting a couple of your pictures) Thanks Again!

Attachment 68919Attachment 68920

[Patrick Chadwick]

Strangely, the breech-block and extractor were real British parts.

Not strange! If you were Ali Bubba hand-carving a Martini you would gladly use any original parts you could find, and save yourself a lot of work. And the contour of the depression in the block is one of those aspects that the "carvers" never seem to get quite right.

---------- Post added at 12:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:43 AM ----------

I know at the time I had that one tagged as a possible real rifle, but lacking any real knowledge beyond being able to tell the difference between a Martini-Henry and an umbrella, I was not ready to gamble.

A correct decision. The price was by no means an unrepeatable bargain offer and, if the barrel was bad, far too high for a wallhanger. Take your time (4 years, in my case) and learn what you can, so that when you do find "your" Martini you can make a quick but low-risk decision.

---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------

I was pretty convinced of this rear-sight being authentic, until I noticed the 'hand stamped' 200 yard marking.

And if the rifle in the first photo was "muzzle-up", then the backsight was mounted back-to-front. The shooter has to be able to read the slider when the leaf is up! And the vertical edge of the sight has to be towards the shooter's eye, for contrast. That alone does not prove it's fake - but it's a detail that makes you want to look more closely.