Have any of the experts out there heard of an IC II? It is marked HRB Co. 1894, and looks like a cavalry carbine. It is smoothbored, but that may be a later mod. My first thought was a Khyber Pass knock-off, but on close examination, it is indeed an authentic HRB Co. product. It was modified at some point with a butt swivel, and an extra band between the nosecap and middle band. The extra band is very crude looking, and is held in place by a pin on either side. I don't have a picture, but I might be able to get one next week. As I said, it looks like a standard cavalry carbine. ?????
M-h carbine ic ii ???
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Joined
·
423 Posts
10 Dec. 2008
11:15am
Provided it says “I.C.1” it’s probably legit. That’s capital “I” (for mark one, Roman numeral), capital “C” (for carbine) and the digit “1” (for 1st class arm). The stamp, “I.C.11,” would be wrong, however. HRB stands for Henry Rifle Barrel Co., which, despite its name, made complete firearms too.
India imported HRB cav. carbines in the mid-1890s, and many of these ended up getting smoothbored in the early 20th century for riot-control work. See the attached pic. This particular example, we can see, was converted to smoothbore at the Firozapur Armoury (bottom right of receiver).
Coggansfield
11:15am
Provided it says “I.C.1” it’s probably legit. That’s capital “I” (for mark one, Roman numeral), capital “C” (for carbine) and the digit “1” (for 1st class arm). The stamp, “I.C.11,” would be wrong, however. HRB stands for Henry Rifle Barrel Co., which, despite its name, made complete firearms too.
India imported HRB cav. carbines in the mid-1890s, and many of these ended up getting smoothbored in the early 20th century for riot-control work. See the attached pic. This particular example, we can see, was converted to smoothbore at the Firozapur Armoury (bottom right of receiver).
Coggansfield
Okay, that is almost the same carbine, but this one is marked " IC II. I'm guessing now that it was downgraded to a second class arm when it was smoothbored. If I'm not mistaken, this carbine was marked RP with a date in the same position where yours says F.A. I guess Rawalpindi converted them, too. The carbine wouldn't be worth much, now. It's in really awful condition. It took hours of cleaning just to read the markings, and the wood is all cracked.
Joined
·
423 Posts
10 Dec. 2008
3:30pm
Sounds interesting. RP would definitely be Rawalpindi. I suppose it could well be at the II was added to indicate second-class status, though generally a 2 stamp was used for that. I'm interested now. Have you got a photo?
Coggansfield
3:30pm
Sounds interesting. RP would definitely be Rawalpindi. I suppose it could well be at the II was added to indicate second-class status, though generally a 2 stamp was used for that. I'm interested now. Have you got a photo?
Coggansfield
Joined
·
14,769 Posts
For that matter, a smle barrel has the SAME threads as a martini.
What would be required is making the extractor cuts, and a chamber reamer would be needed as the Enfield barrel does not have a recess for the cartridge rim.
What would be required is making the extractor cuts, and a chamber reamer would be needed as the Enfield barrel does not have a recess for the cartridge rim.
Not worth the effort, the action is heavily pitted inside. It would need all new internal parts. I had a Citadel .303 rifle once, that was made from a Mk.1 Martini action. It seems to me that it had a smaller firing pin, and a smaller trough in the breechblock. It shot well, I wish I still had it....... 
Martini IC II
Martini Carbines are marked "AC" ( Artillery carbine) "CC" (Cavalry carbine,) and "IC" (Infantry carbine.
The Mark Number (in Roman) comes After the type designation., not before...
So, IC II is , "Infantry Carbine Mark II"
Being a HRB product, it is most likely a Colonial or Administrative acquisition, not a W^D (War Department) Purchase, although these later contracts may have used left over Enfield or BSA Parts in their assembly.
As mentioned, lots of these ended their days as smoothbores in various local calibres, for Local Police and Gaol Gaurd use, as had the previous Enfiled MLs and Sniders.
And if "Mark II" is not a British W^D classification, it may be a Local (Indian Administration) marking, especially if it has been taken out of normal "Military" Service.
Regards,
Doc AV
AV Ballistics.
Martini Carbines are marked "AC" ( Artillery carbine) "CC" (Cavalry carbine,) and "IC" (Infantry carbine.
The Mark Number (in Roman) comes After the type designation., not before...
So, IC II is , "Infantry Carbine Mark II"
Being a HRB product, it is most likely a Colonial or Administrative acquisition, not a W^D (War Department) Purchase, although these later contracts may have used left over Enfield or BSA Parts in their assembly.
As mentioned, lots of these ended their days as smoothbores in various local calibres, for Local Police and Gaol Gaurd use, as had the previous Enfiled MLs and Sniders.
And if "Mark II" is not a British W^D classification, it may be a Local (Indian Administration) marking, especially if it has been taken out of normal "Military" Service.
Regards,
Doc AV
AV Ballistics.
Joined
·
4,160 Posts
Over the years, I have learned that when Doc AV "speaks", I listen.
For the first time, I have to say, wait a minute Doc, I think you have that one wrong.
In referring to my copy of Treatise on the British Martini by Temple and Skennerton I can find no reference to an Infantry Carbine. In fact the treatise states that both MHAC and MHCC are marked IC1.
I also can not find reference to a IC11.
There was a practice of marking the class of the weapons , but that was appliedbelow the MK of the rifle.
Now I am aware the treatise is only one reference and it has some errors, so Doc could be looking at another resource...if so could you share, Doc, I could always use another book in my library.
I think it will take a photo to resolve this curious issue.
For the first time, I have to say, wait a minute Doc, I think you have that one wrong.
In referring to my copy of Treatise on the British Martini by Temple and Skennerton I can find no reference to an Infantry Carbine. In fact the treatise states that both MHAC and MHCC are marked IC1.
I also can not find reference to a IC11.
There was a practice of marking the class of the weapons , but that was appliedbelow the MK of the rifle.
Now I am aware the treatise is only one reference and it has some errors, so Doc could be looking at another resource...if so could you share, Doc, I could always use another book in my library.
I think it will take a photo to resolve this curious issue.
IC II Doc Replies...
Having known both Barry Temple and Ian Skennerton for over 35 years ()since the early 1970s), and having all of their Published works, I would firstly say that if a marking is NOT in one or other of their well researched texts, then in all probablility it does NOT exist.
That is not to say that the aforementioned authors haven't "missed something" along the way.... But that is where a complete and thorough photographic examination of the Piece in question is necessary.
On the other hand, the oringinal description was not corroboated by a photograph, only a description...and as someone else mentioned, there is also the "Class mark" usually found "Below" the normal "Mark" indication...a confusion perhaps.
On top of that, Khyber Pass and "Local Armoury" marks raise their heads. Especially since we are dealing with a (small lot) HRB marked example (and not a Enfield or BSA large contract example...which could also have been "got at" by a local repair depot, in any case).
So that's where I stand on the matter...must run now,
Wife waiting tto go home.
Regards,
Doc AV
AV Ballistics (city office)
Having known both Barry Temple and Ian Skennerton for over 35 years ()since the early 1970s), and having all of their Published works, I would firstly say that if a marking is NOT in one or other of their well researched texts, then in all probablility it does NOT exist.
That is not to say that the aforementioned authors haven't "missed something" along the way.... But that is where a complete and thorough photographic examination of the Piece in question is necessary.
On the other hand, the oringinal description was not corroboated by a photograph, only a description...and as someone else mentioned, there is also the "Class mark" usually found "Below" the normal "Mark" indication...a confusion perhaps.
On top of that, Khyber Pass and "Local Armoury" marks raise their heads. Especially since we are dealing with a (small lot) HRB marked example (and not a Enfield or BSA large contract example...which could also have been "got at" by a local repair depot, in any case).
So that's where I stand on the matter...must run now,
Wife waiting tto go home.
Regards,
Doc AV
AV Ballistics (city office)
Joined
·
117 Posts
I.C.1. Another possibility
It would appear there may be another explanation for that "I" marked on the receivers of the earliest Martini-Henry carbines.
According to page 127 of Temple and Skennerton's, "A Treatise on the British Military Martini, The Martini-Henry 1869-1900", under the heading of, THE FIRST SERVICE PATTERN...
"This was a direct development of the sixth trials pattern carbine, and was approved for service on 24-9-1877 as the "Arms, Interchangeable, Carbine, Breech-loading, Rifled, with Cleaning rod, Martini-Henry, Mark I". It will be noted that it was not described as a CC, as at this stage it was intended that the artillery should also use it, in conjunction with a side arm - swords for garrison artillery, sabres for horse and field artillery."
This leads me to think that perhaps, I.C.1., actually stands for Interchangeable Carbine, Mark 1, and not, 1st class Carbine, Mk 1, (a marking style not used on any other British arm before or since, that I can find), nor, Infantry Carbine Mk.1, (another marking style I can find nowhere in any of my references.)
Realizing there are probably plenty of reference materials I don't have access to, I would be most happy to learn from what source these other theories are taken, but until then, I will trust Ian and Barry, as Interchangeable Carbine, Mark 1, seems to make a bit more sense.
Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah to one and all!
All the best,
Terry
It would appear there may be another explanation for that "I" marked on the receivers of the earliest Martini-Henry carbines.
According to page 127 of Temple and Skennerton's, "A Treatise on the British Military Martini, The Martini-Henry 1869-1900", under the heading of, THE FIRST SERVICE PATTERN...
"This was a direct development of the sixth trials pattern carbine, and was approved for service on 24-9-1877 as the "Arms, Interchangeable, Carbine, Breech-loading, Rifled, with Cleaning rod, Martini-Henry, Mark I". It will be noted that it was not described as a CC, as at this stage it was intended that the artillery should also use it, in conjunction with a side arm - swords for garrison artillery, sabres for horse and field artillery."
This leads me to think that perhaps, I.C.1., actually stands for Interchangeable Carbine, Mark 1, and not, 1st class Carbine, Mk 1, (a marking style not used on any other British arm before or since, that I can find), nor, Infantry Carbine Mk.1, (another marking style I can find nowhere in any of my references.)
Realizing there are probably plenty of reference materials I don't have access to, I would be most happy to learn from what source these other theories are taken, but until then, I will trust Ian and Barry, as Interchangeable Carbine, Mark 1, seems to make a bit more sense.
Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah to one and all!
All the best,
Terry
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
