| Date | Original Topic |
| 19th November 2002 | Captured Rifles
By Melvin Hunt
Does anyone know how many of the rifles captured at Isandlwana were recovered by the British Army, or put it another way, how many must there still be hidden away these days in various villages and kraals?
What are the legalities involved if, say, one was offered to you for sale during your travels in Zululand? |
| Date | Replies |
| 20th November 2002 | Peter Ewart
Buy it - but if you ask for a receipt I suspect you'll get your head snapped off with:
"Hang it all man, you don't want a requisition for it now, do you?" !!!
PE |
| 20th November 2002 | Melvin Hunt
Nice one Peter.
(No one else has responded to my questions.
It must mean that I'm the only one NOT to have bought one.) |
| 22nd November 2002 | Barry Iacoppi
As it is difficult to I.D. one Martini (MKI MKII) from another I suspect that any recovered rifles went back into the pool for reissue. As a result it is possible that if you own a standard MKI or II it �could� have been used on that fateful day. Some rifles had regimental markings and serial numbers are for most under the wood. It may be possible to prove that a rifle was not there but not that it was. |
| 23rd November 2002 | Adrian Whiting
Melvin,
As barry says, it it far easier to show that a rifle wasn't present ! Both 24th Battalions were issues with the Mk1 rifle, and the 1st Battalion are likely to have undertaken any upgrade to Mk2 locally whilst in Africa (the upgrade process was designed for the Armourer to carry out locally). Rifles were Regimentally (Battalion in reality) marked on the right hand side of the butt. These markings have usually mong since worn away. Rifles were also stamped with a sequential "rack number" so that there was a ready means of checking all rifles were accounted for. The rack number was not the individual soldier's service number, as I have seen one or two people suggest, so the (usually) three digit rack number does not assist in identifying which soldier carried the rifle (unless you happen to have the Battalion issue record!).
I have done a couple of articles on Martini markings and identifying 24th Martinis, which the Victorian Military Society have published. You are welcome to electronic copies if you contact me outside of this forum. |
| 23rd November 2002 | Barry Iacoppi N.Z.
Very enlightening stuff Adrian. Thank you. I for one will be contacting you direct for more details. I own 5 military Martinis and their lack of an accurate individual history has on one hand allowed me to speculate and day dream about their possible pasts and on the other I'm frustrated by the mystery.
One has to ask if there are any known documented rifles that were used at R.D. or Isandlwana?
|
| 24th November 2002 | Martin Everett
Dear Barry,
I have the rifle numbers (battalion allocated not serial numbers) of C Coy 2/24 who were of course not at either action. |
| 24th November 2002 | Melvin Hunt
Dear Martin,
Can you throw any light on my original question about the number of captured rifles that were recovered? |
| 24th November 2002 | Barry Iacoppi NZ
Thank you Martin. My small collection starts at MKIIIs so I am confidant that none saw action at that time. However I�d be grateful for those numbers as I am in contact with other Martini collectors who would be interested.
Melvin. It would appear from the above correspondence that the captured rifles were not documented before they were captured. The chances of identifying them after they were recovered is therefore remote. However don�t give up your quest. On a dusty shelf some where there just may be a document listing such things. |
| 25th November 2002 | Julian Whybra
I don't know how many were recovered but I do know that 1200 in total were lost. |
| 27th November 2002 | John Young
I've been beavering away at this one since the so-called "engineers" managed to disconnect the wrong line.
Rifles were recovered at Khambula and Gingindlovu - mainly they are referred to as "a number of rifles" - one report has it that "some bore the mark of the 24th Regt."
Applying simple mathematics to this, as Julian says above "1,200 in total were lost" - I conclude that between January and June some two hundred rifles may, and I stress the word may, have been recovered.
This is because the modified demand from Chelmsford, made at the end of June to the Zulu peace delegation, only demanded 1,000 rifles taken at Isandlwana, in lieu of the surrender of a Zulu regiment. Had the British forces actually recovered two hundred rifles, prior to this? I can't say for sure, but I can at least with my layman's knowledge at least conject it.
John Young,
A.-Z.W.R.S. |
| 27th November 2002 | Adrian Whiting
John,
Are there any records of Chelmsford ever getting any rifles returned ?
Adrian |
| 27th November 2002 | Melvin Hunt
John,
Where would we be without you?
Thanks for the reply.
Out of the 1000 rifles demanded by Chelmsford do you know how many were in fact surrendered to him?
Mel |
| 28th November 2002 | John Young
Adrian & Mel,
I still working on the facts, made even more difficult due to an injury at work means I'm currently doing a Durnford - I only have the use of one arm!
One definite recovery I have is at 3.15 p.m. on 28th August, 1879. When Major Richard Marter, 1st (King's) Dragoon Guards in an umuzi in the Ngome Forest, recovered four Martini-Henry rifles and a bugle all marked to the 24th Regt.
He did also capture a Zulu King at the same time, hence how I can be so precise.
John Young,
A.-Z.W.R.S. |
| 29th November 2002 | Barry Iacoppi N.Z.
Oh well done John.
Soory to hear about your arm. I do hope that it comes better soon. |
| 30th November 2002 | Bill Power
Query to Martin Everett;-I assume there're no extant Regimental records of rack numbers issued @ the time of RD?! Thus,any recovered rifle could not be assigned to an individual?? Further,were the Regimental markings embossed[carved] in the buttstock or rather an embossed brass disc screwed on! I would think all the unrecovered rifles have, long ago,turned into nought but rusted out sewerpipes,given the corrosive nature of BlackPowder & the fact that BLO & Rangoons are not indigenous species! TIA Regards! Bill |
| 30th November 2002 | Martin Everett
Dear Bill,
I do have the rack numbers not rifle serial number for C Company 2/24th at June 1879. As you konw this Company were with Lord Chelmsford on 22/23 January 1879. No other lists have survived in the Regimental Archives. You can always hope - the C Company list only appeared in January this year! |
| 1st December 2002 | Bill Power
Thanx,Martin. If the Regimental markings were only the brass disc,rather than carved into the "furniture",I would think those rifles not handed in were"sanitized"! |
| 1st December 2002 | Adrian Whiting
The regimental ownership markings were stamped into the right hand side of the butt itself.
The rifle serial number, applied by the manufacturer, was for the manufacurer's use in monitoring completion of the orders for the production of the rifles and consequently were not applied in a position readily visible when the arm was fully assembled with it's wooden furniture.
Typically Martinis were serial numbered on the front face of the action block, completely obscured by the fore end when assembled. In any event the serial number was of little interest to the battalion armourer/storekeepers, since they wanted a sequential number for all rifles on charge to the battalion, in order to account for each one. Consequently they applied a rack number for this purpose. The rack number was applied in addition to the regimental ownership marking, so any individual rifle could be identified by its regimental stamp and then its rack number.
The Lee Metford and first Lee Enfield rifles overcame the problem of the regimental stamping wearing away by having an extended butt tang, onto which the marking could be stamped. In due course this was replaced by inletting a brass disc in the butt. At that point there was a programme to apply similar butt marking discs to existing arms of Martini pattern, which is why many can be found with the discs on the butt, however the discs were not in use in 1879.
I have only come across a very few Martinis with still visible regimental markings. Since the rack numbers were sequential, every battalion would have been stamping the same numbers on, so simply finding a rifle with a rack number of, say, "266" still doesn't help establish which battalion's it was - you still need the ownership marking - sadly! |
| 1st December 2002 | Ron Lock
When counting up the number of Martinis captured, recovered and required by Chelmsford to be surrendered, don't forget the additional 200 or so that were taken from the 80th at Ntombe (Intombi, eNtombi) Drift. |
| 3rd December 2002 | Bill Power
Topnotch info,Adrian! Many thanx! The whole question of when the disc marking started has bothered me since I first saw a MH! All 4 Mk's I own only are stamped in the wood! Curiously,my Snider-Enfields are stamped in the metal of the buttplate tang! Incidentally, the stamps on my 1874 MkI are crisp&legible,but this was issued to professionals! Thanx again! Bill |
| 4th December 2002 | Adrian Whiting
Bill,
Sounds like a very impressive MH collection you have there !
Interestingly the markings were originally to have been applied to the tang of the butt plate, when the butt plates were made of brass. Hardened steel was then used for the butt plate, causing the army to decided to apply the marking to the butt itself, since this was easier. However, since the rifles typically stood "edge on" i.e. with their butt toe towards the wall, butt heel towards the viewer, many armourers persisted in marking the tip of the butt plate - it being easier to see at a glance than the side of the butt. |
