Posted on 12/12/2010 8:12:54 PM PST by Pan_Yan
Earlier this year, as part of the tools of war series, At War published photographs of Taliban small arms from Helmand province, along with data on the types of firearms in insurgent use. The photographs included images of bolt-action rifles, including one, a Lee-Enfield rifle, that dated to 1915.
In spite of their advanced age, Lee-Enfield rifles, along with Soviet Mosin-Nagant bolt-action arms, have seen continued service in Afghanistan for two reasons: they offer greater range and accuracy than the assault rifles in more common circulation, and their ammunition remains available on Afghan black markets.
Many readers wrote with questions about that old Lee-Enfield. Some asked what else we might be seeing. Today we return to the collection with the publication of an even older rifle seized from the Taliban.
The rifle in question, also collected by Marines in Marja, is a standard-issue Martini-Henry rifle. The Martini-Henry predates the Lee-Enfield by a more than generation. It was first fielded in the 1870s and was carried by British colonial troops to far-flung corners of the world. Like the Lee-Enfield line, and like well-made infantry rifles generally, the Martini-Henry rifles proved sturdy and have lasted, when well-cared for, for more than a century.
C.J. Chivers/The New York Times
A Martini-Henry rifle, collected by Marines in Marja, Afghanistan, had fallen into neglect.
C.J. Chivers
The factory stampings on a Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifle made by the British in 1915.
(Excerpt) Read more at atwar.blogs.nytimes.com ...
I am given to understand that the Afghans hand-built many different kinds of rifle, back to the Tonkin-Jazail. (CF Rudyard Kipling)
DG
Lyudmila Pavlichenko: Not guilty at all.
There are many places in Afghanistan and Pakistan where few of the people have ever been so far as the next village. These people are more cut off from the outside world than those on the most remote Pacific island.
SVT-40?
I have never been able to get past the idea that the Lee-Enfield just looks plane ugly to me. I have got maybe one or two places left in the safe, so will probably pass. I realize this is not a rational decision.
Boating accident?
Oh, I never for a moment disputed the fact that the Lee-Enfield does not have the graceful looks of the Mauser family. Even the “sporterized” Lee-Enfields of the early twentieth-century have an awkward quality. I just love those rugged, ergonomic qualities and that rock-steady, glass-smooth action.
And like I said earlier, the aperture sight of the final variant is one of the best darn iron sights on any rifle anywhere.
The Afghan jezail was infamous for outranging the British musket in the First Afghan War.
Like I said, it is not rational. I have not even handled one.
I understand that rechambering the Martini-Henry was popular early in the century. I recall reading that the .450-577 cartridge had been considered and dropped by the Ordnance Dept. in favor of the .45-70 as the Martini-Henry round was judged to be an overpowered shoulder-beater.
Aesthetic considerations never are.
I used to think so too. But their real beauty is their functionality. For instance, name another bolt rifle whose headspace problems can be cured by screwing on a replacement bolt head. Not the Mauser or Springfield.
The slickest bolt action I ever found is the Krag. Slick as oiled ice.
I am getting a lot of info to reconsider my bias about the Lee-Enfield.
If you were to only buy one Enfield, I would suggest a No. 4 Mk 2. They are the culmination of many years of refinement and are very rugged and accurate. Their peep sights are greatly superior to open sights.
Thank you.
WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!!!!
Thank you, sir! You have educated me. I hadn't picked up on that, obviously.
Well done.
K.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.