doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com E.M. Reilly; History; Chronology; Serial Numbers

I do not believe there was ever a “Martini-Henry” patent as such.

When the British Government adopted the new rifle using the Matini Patent action it was decided to rifle the barrels with Henry Patent rifling.

The resulting rifle thus being known as the Martini-Henry.

The neat little .44-40 Reilly rifle you show is clearly a Martini. It should only be described as a “Martini-Henry” if it has Henry’s rifling.

Thanks Para; you always pose pertinent questions. We explored this once before: Nothing was resolved.
https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=627833

Wikipedia claims Peabody retained patents for the falling block action; Martini for modifying it into a hammerless action. But did the British government pay Peabody and Martini? If so, how much and when? Was it for use on the military rifles only? What would happen if Enfield supplied actions and barrels covered under the military use agreement to private commercial makers such as Braendlin or Greener?

What is clear is that on numerous Reilly marketed / Braendlin-made Martini-Henry's there is a patent use number. To whom were these royalties being paid?


Government paid Henry for his patent (how much and when?) and a possible supplement of £5000 in 1872 for use on Arsenal military rifles. However there are stamps on commercial/sporting Martini's-Henry of Henry patent barrels (which presumably expired in 1878 as mentioned). It looks like these royalties were paid to Westley-Richards but how much, how many (no patent use numbers)


This "Squiggle" (on a Reilly .22 LR M-H) supposedly shows the British government paid royalties to Henry (presumably the barrel was covered under the agreement with Henry?). Again not clear:


The research is confusing. One thinks that someone - some Martini enthusiast - might want to think about coming up with a definitive catalog of Martini and Martini-Henry markings. It would be very interesting.

Edit: I would like to add a thought. I've had a couple of Martini-Henry users talk about the difference between a "Martini" and a "Martini-Henry" and several other nuances. However, looking at 19th century Reilly advertisements over 20+ years, I only see advertisements for "M-H",...not variants. So I'm inclined to think that these modern-day distinctions, even if real, were not present back in the day. It looks like the general public knew what was being advertised at that time and this is what this type of gun was generally called: - perhaps something like "Xerox" or "Formica"?? Again just an observation - worth more research.


To summarize the open questions which the Martini community might answer:
1) Did Peabody who held the falling block patent get paid by the UK government for its use? How much? When
2) How much was martini paid for his hammerless modification of the Peabody? When? Did Martini continue to be paid for sporting variants?
3) How much was Henry initially paid when his barrel and rifling were officially adopted in 1868. Did this agreement include payment for arsenal produced barrels sent to commercial makers? What were the marks on the guns showing this?
4) When did the Martini action patent expire?
5) Who controlled the commercial patents for the Martini action?
6) Who controlled the Henry shallow-groove rifled barrel for this gun before expiration of the patent in 1878?
7) Were there "Martini-Henry" rifles built 1871-1895 which did not use Henry barrels?
8) What were the proof marks and patent stamps used by the various commercial firms for sporing rifles?