UK v US Rifle Question.

Tintime.

Which could be seen as the better rifle? The British Martini-Henry or the US Springfield Model 1873? Both fired a round of a similar type and had, more or less, the same rate of fire.
Or course each rifle is next to useless without the man behind the gun given good training, but it we take that out, which was the best?

If a mod thinks this question would be better off in Non Pol chat, could they please move it.
 
Martini - Henry is technically the better weapon, though there were reliability issues with the .450 Boxer cartridges when the weapon was first introduced, these issues were eventually resolved by adoption of drawn brass cartridge cases & a longer operating lever to provide more force to extract stuck Cartridge cases.

The Springfield 1873 By contrast was originally a conversion of civil war Muzzle loading Rifle muskets, analogous with the British Snyder breech loading conversation for the 1853 Enfield. However most Springfield 1873's were of new manufacture instead of conversations, like the British Army the US had numerous reliability issues with the inside primed copper cased 45-70 cartridges introduced with the weapon. And these issues were not resolved until the substitution of Drawn brass cartridge cases in the mid 1880's.

Ballistic wise the Martini - Henry had a slight advantage due to a larger charge of powder. Although how much that translates into battlefield performance is probably academic. More important is the training and quality of the Munitions & supplies available, along with leadership and morale of the rank and file soldiers.
 

iddt3

Donor
The Martini Henry also had a brutal kick and a tendency to melt said cartridges. A lower powered cartridge would probably be better from a sustained firing perspective. It would probably also encourage accuracy as less kick=less flinch when you pull the trigger.
 
The Martini Henry also had a brutal kick and a tendency to melt said cartridges. A lower powered cartridge would probably be better from a sustained firing perspective. It would probably also encourage accuracy as less kick=less flinch when you pull the trigger.

I think the kick was shorted out with the long leaver version, also a less powerful cartridge. But plenty good enough for shooting Zulus, yet when facing a modern army things would be different.
 

iddt3

Donor
I think the kick was shorted out with the long leaver version, also a less powerful cartridge. But plenty good enough for shooting Zulus, yet when facing a modern army things would be different.

Checking Wiki, the Mk. IV used the same caliber cartridge as the Mk. 1, the Mk. IV didn't arrive until *after* the Zulu wars as a result of combat experience. The Mk. IV included a thicker cartridge case and said longer extraction lever. It looks like the Springfield also had sticking issues early, but they were fixed much sooner with just a stronger cartridge.
 
Checking Wiki, the Mk. IV used the same caliber cartridge as the Mk. 1, the Mk. IV didn't arrive until *after* the Zulu wars as a result of combat experience. The Mk. IV included a thicker cartridge case and said longer extraction lever. It looks like the Springfield also had sticking issues early, but they were fixed much sooner with just a stronger cartridge.

Cheers mate.

I thought it was very much like you have said, but you can only look up so much and watch so many youtube vids.
I, myself, haven't fired any of the single shot ones. I have shot both the Springfield Model 1855 and the Pattern 1853 Enfield. These were repros, even so the Enfield didn't misfire once.:D
 
Top