[rjadam]

I have little experience in these old Martini Enfields and understand that there are a lot of forgeries coming out of the Middle East but I found this one at a gun show and even though I need to replace a part or two it was for a price that I couldn't pass up. I was wondering if you guys could help me figure out whether or not it is a forgery and any other information involving this gun would be much appreciated.

 

[mowen]

That is a beautiful rifle! Some find them tacky, but I've always loved rifles with Middle Eastern art or inlays. Could we get pictures of the lever and barrel markings? I would estimate you have a rifle made with a mix of homemade and British parts.

 

[richardwv]

The lath turning marks readily seen on the rear of the receiver marks that part as a forgery. Without detailed pics of the marks on all of the metal and what is under the barrel I wouldn't care to speculate further. However if the receiver isn't authentic, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for the rest of it.

 

[FGD135]

Are those "lathe turning marks" or are they simply ornamentation? The photo is too fuzzy for me to distinguish clearly what they are or are not.

 

[rjadam]

The barrel under the stock is just a solid patina I can take pictures if you want but I am not exactly sure what you are looking for. These are the only other markings I can find on the gun.

 

[Short-Sighted]

Hi,
If this was once a MH Mk II, as indicated by the stamps on the right hand side, why has it now got a forend hook? This was a feature of the MH Mk III ? Did they ever convert the Mk II body to takea forend hook?
Regards

 

[Short-Sighted]

Hi,
Is this a London 'view mark' on the rear of the block, if so why are there two of them?

http://forums.gunboards.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=760595&d=1395133514

 

[richardwv]

The answer to all of the above is that this is a forgery of a Martini-Henry MK II, plain and simple. Those are lath marks, no they never converted MK II to MK III, the key stamps are missing from the right places...etc., etc. To put the best face on it, call it native art......but a Brit Martini-Henry it is not.

 

[John Sukey In Memoriam]

Even if it is a fake, keep in mind the locals would still have used it.

 

[Neil]

Reading about forgeries....today the UK have decided to replace the Pound coin with a new format (like the old truppeny bit) in the next 3 or so years as 3% of those in circulation are forgeries. The lesson is, no one looks at small change these days ( A pound is nearly worthless it seems) so they are passed on willy nilly. The amount of work involved by the craftsman on thís ME here is to be applauded & maybe he could be shipped over to the UK and start work on the 2 Pound coin (due to inflation) By all accounts the OP will have a centre piece to talk about for years, Just my two.... Ooop's, one cent worth.

 

[rjadam]

Thanks it is a bit of a bummer that it is a fake but it is still a neat gun and I am glad to have the information

 

[dondone]

I disagree that this is a fake. I have examined many (and owned a few) "Khyber Pass" guns, and there are always subtle differences that can be found, no matter how well done the fake is.

The Crown/Victoria/date/MKII are too precise and even to be hand applied; other inspector's marks are also too precise to be fake. What others are calling lathe turning marks are not, as close examination shows that some lines are not continuously aligned with others. They appear to be hand applied decorations, much like the rest of the engraving. (In addtion, the shape of the receiver does not lend itself to lathe turning.)

The engraving is definitely hand applied, and not all that well done, so most likely done by a local Pathan tribesman.

The cartouche in the buttstock is too precise.

Obviously, one or more parts have been replaced as an expedient repair (the aircraft bolt through the receiver).

At any rate, I am convinced that this is an original British MH, or at least the receiver is, and most likely the entire gun.

 

[Short-Sighted]

I disagree that this is a fake. I have examined many (and owned a few) "Khyber Pass" guns, and there are always subtle differences that can be found, no matter how well done the fake is.

The Crown/Victoria/date/MKII are too precise and even to be hand applied; other inspector's marks are also too precise to be fake. What others are calling lathe turning marks are not, as close examination shows that some lines are not continuously aligned with others. They appear to be hand applied decorations, much like the rest of the engraving. (In addtion, the shape of the receiver does not lend itself to lathe turning.)

The engraving is definitely hand applied, and not all that well done, so most likely done by a local Pathan tribesman.

The cartouche in the buttstock is too precise.

Obviously, one or more parts have been replaced as an expedient repair (the aircraft bolt through the receiver).

At any rate, I am convinced that this is an original British MH, or at least the receiver is, and most likely the entire gun.

Hi,
I'm convinced that the receiver is fake because it is a Mk III type, however it is stamped as a Mk II.
It may have been a Western European made Commercial Pattern Rifle, or all, or part of a British made military rifle that has been re-stamped, but not a MK II. (Refer to the photo of the underside of the rifle in the 2nd post by rjadam, there is no recess in the receiver, like all Mk IIs)
Yes the stamps are neat, but they look too fresh.
Regards

 

[dondone]

I see. I missed that. I was concentrating more on the markings themselves than the features. If this is a fake, then the person who executed it was an extremely skilled person when it came to applied markings. Very impressive. As I am advancing in years, I have been disposing of my collection and the only .577/450 MH I have left is a Mk IV.

 

[JB White]

The earlier "Khyber Kopies" showed markings easier to identify due to their lack of understanding. All they were doing is copying symbols as they saw them. With the heavy traffic in "antiques" since the war began on the rock pile, more educated buyers via the internet, and the need for foreign currencies, the forgers have become much better at their craft. Some marking stamps have been so good they look better than the originals. Of course they (local smiths) still aren't as well versed as need be. Hence the little giveaways such as the double view markings etc.

Th e forgers have the internet too and actually follow these discussions so they know where they are lacking. So, while we have been better educated the forgers have too. Up to a point.

 

[richardwv]

At any rate, I am convinced that this is an original British MH, or at least the receiver is, and most likely the entire gun.

There really isn't a single part, including the wood, that doesn't diverge from Brit standards. The rifle is a forgery and I seriously doubt any part of it was British in origin. As stated, the forgers are getting pretty good. However it is the little things that slip through. Since the mass produced forgeries (the bulk of the current problem) have many things in common....such as the lathe marks (and yes forgers often turn the rear radius of a MH on a lathe), a critical eye can spot the differences.

The harder to spot forgeries are those based on Brit/Belgian civilian and Kabul arsenal arms that have had original marks removed and fake military marks applied. While often one can see that some marks have been scrubbed....and the new ones are almost always too crisp for the overall condition of the arm, the forgeries are really quite good. This practice particularly irks me since they are defacing collectible arms (particularly the Kabul Arsenal ones) and ruining their collectability in their own right.

 

[3miles2G'burg]

For general reference - that number 32 inspection stamp should always raise your hackles. Not to say that there might be Martinis floating around with a legitimate 32 stamp, but that the odds are hugely in favor it is a fake stamp on a forged or fabricated non-british Martini. It is a red flag, and a pretty consistent one at that.

When I see this stamp, the very next thing I look for is the presence of the First Proof ("1P") and Second Proof ("2P") on the barrel........as I did on this one.

For the record - "1P" is missing.

 

[DoubleD]

FAKE!

Where shall I start?

Date misaligned
MK II not aligned
Action is a MKIII
Wrong shapeForearm bar for MKIII
Not a British military trigger guard
Wrong checkering on thumb rest.
Wrong Crown
Wrong format/spacing for Enfield lettering.
Barrel proofs in wrong place and not correct for a barrel
Breech block trough wrong shape for 577/450
Wrong view marks on breech block

This one is fake also.