Shooting the Westley Richards
.577/.450 Martini-Henry Sporting Rifle

The Undeserved Obscurity of the Classic Martini-Henry

Adopted in 1871 as the standard service arm of the British Empire, the Martini-Henry rifle married the hammerless tipping block action design of Swiss inventor Friedrich von Martini (an advancement of the action design of American Henry Peabody) with the innovative patent rifling design of Scottish master gunmaker Alexander Henry. Originally intended to have a very long and powerful high velocity taper cased .450 caliber cartridge, the rifle was eventually chambered for a revolutionary bottle necked cartridge design based on the .577 Snider case necked down to .450 caliber (very revolutionary, considering that the cartridges were first made from coiled sheets of brass foil). This accommodated a heavy powder charge while making the overall length of the cartridge relatively short, and the large base diameter meant that it easily inserted down the sloping ramp and into the chamber. Compared with the .577 Snider, the new .577/.450 Martini-Henry fired a more streamlined bullet of identical weight (480 grains) with 100 fps greater velocity (1350 fps). It was an instant success and was fielded in prolific numbers to every corner of the Empire.

.577/.450 Martini-Henry cartridge on solid drawn brass case with 480 grain paper-patched lead bullet

As has been true with every service arm, it was not long before the civilians acquired the inexpensive standard service rifles for self-defense and sporting use and the gunmakers began turning out more elegant versions of the Martini-Henry as purposely built sporting rifles. From the 1870s until the 1890s, when the .303 Lee-Metford replaced it, the .577/.450 Martini-Henry was the predominant hunting rifle of the average man in the English speaking world. So prolific was its distribution that it was the basis of the ban on .45 caliber rifles, ammunition and loading components when fears of colonial uprising in India and the Sudan mounted in the early 1900s. And yet it remained immensely popular well into the 20th century, long after most of its blackpowder era contemporaries were ushered into obsolescence and obscurity.

I will grant that the typical firearms aficionado has a highly distorted impression of the sporting arms scene in the mid-to-late 19th century, the Golden Age of African safari and Indian shikari. Certainly I did for a long time. Most think that nitro express double rifles were the norm, when in fact the nitro expresses did not appear until the last decade of the century, and the more famous big bores did not appear until the first decade of the 20th century. Nor were double rifles the arm of choice for the vast majority of hunters. Additionally, we generally assume that the most prevalent sporting arms were chambered for classic cartridges such as the .450 Express or .577/.500 Westley Richards No. 2 Express, to the extremity that you will frequently see the erroneous allegation in print that Frederick Selous hunted with the .450 Express (double rifle) for the majority of his career. What Selous actually used was a military-match rifle cartridge called the .461 Gibbs-Metford, and what motivated him to have a single shot rifle built for him by George Gibbs for such a cartridge was his brief experience with the .577/.450 Martini-Henry. So why does the .577/.450 not receive its due regard?

Perhaps the reason for its relative obscurity today is my American perspective. Certainly the British recall it with great nostalgia. Films like Zulu Dawn are more familiar to British audiences. Still, American gun buffs are fond of history and gun lore, so I find the lack of knowledge and interest in the .577/.450 perplexing. The collapse of the British gun trade in the late 1950s dealt it a fatal blow, but that event did not abolish the repute of the notable expresses which suffered a like fate.

No, I think the true reason that it is not recognized today for its sporting success is that it received no great laud and praise in its day as a sporting arm. I think this is at once the same reason why we today have such a distorted view of the arms of the typical hunter in the late 19th century. Our view is largely informed by the preferences of the men who chronicled their exploits, and most of them were men of relatively ample means who used other, more costly guns. Selous was an exception in two respects: he was destitute at the beginning of his hunting career and although he preferred the newer high velocity military weapons, he happened not to use the Martini-Henry, preferring the Gibbs Farquharson. There were those who used and promoted the Martini, but they are rare voices. So, we come away from a survey of the sporting literature with the suggestion that the Martini-Henry was not popular, when in fact it was extremely so. A perusal of period arms and ammunition catalogs will answer that doubt. It was ubiquitous - and rightly so.

In order to better understand why that was so, let's look at what was said of .450 rifles in general by a devoted user of one of the Martini-Henry's better documented competitors, the Gibbs-Farquharson-Metford:

History, of course, has borne out the sagacity and far-sightedness of these judgments.

The Westley Richards Martini-Henry Rifle

I obtained the rifle from an online gun auction. The photos did it no justice and neither do these. While it had a lot of wear, the metal was in fairly good condition, with a nice brown patina and very little evidence anywhere of corrosion. It had a few dings and scratches from honest use, but no pitting or frosting of rust. My original purpose was to rebarrel the rifle and chamber it for the .577/.500 Westley Richards No. 2 Express. However, my brother prevailed against this plan and convinced me to keep it in its original form and caliber. It was after all a Westley Richards - not just some random Martini.

At the time I knew very little about the old .577/.450 cartridge, other than that it had been a British military mainstay for the latter half of the 19th century and was similar in performance to the original loadings of the .45-70 Government cartridge. When I began to research the .577/.450, I quickly learned of its prominence in the sporting field and its close performance with the better recognized cartridges of the era, namely the .450 Express and the .461 Gibbs. I realized that anything the .461 Gibbs-Metford could do, the .577/.450 Martini-Henry could do equally well. The same could be said for the .450 Westley Richards No. 1 and No. 2 Musket and .450 Deeley-Edge-Metford cartridges. In short, the .577/.450 Martini-Henry was fully the equal of its contemporaries and by far the most popular, almost certainly surpassing the combined production of all the others.

This was a true sporter action Martini, not a sporter version of the military action, as indicated by the "humpback" of the rear of the receiver. It also had a lever that was designed for a pistol grip buttstock, rather than the military style lever. The manufacturer of this gun is not clear. Although marked as a Westley Richards rifle, most of the name gunmakers outsourced the production of much, or in some cases all, of their firearms to smaller shops, reserving only the very high end guns for their own small team of craftsmen. Probably the rifle, or at least the action, was made by Auguste Francotte of Belgium.

While it would command a high price in original condition in today's market, comparable to a Winchester Super Grade or a Ruger Express, it was marked as "D Quality", meaning the lowest grade of the better quality guns. It features light engraving on the receiver, lever and grip cap; also the full length rib is matted by engraved lines. Neither the (rather ill inletted) buttstock nor the forearm are original and I suspect that the very utilitarian buttplate is also a replacement. The safety, always an unreliable feature on Martinis, has had its lever bobbed and the spindle fixed.

Left profile of rifle showing classic Martini-Henry sporter lines

Right profile showing full length barrel rib

Left side of receiver showing the Westley Richards triangle trademark and barrel marking

Close up of barrel marking, Knox form barrel, matted rib and platinum lined express sights

Load Development and Shooting

Eccentricities of the .577/.450 Cartridge

The original military load for the .577/.450 cartridge consisted of 85 grains of Rifle Fine Grade No. 2 powder, coming about to the level of the neck, with a grease cookie sandwiched between cards and finally a long, round-nosed and cup-based bullet of 12-to-1 lead-tin alloy and .450 caliber, paper-patched to about .463 diameter. Its features reflected sound decisions based on the needs of the military. The grease cookie reduced fouling with repeated firing without cleaning, a necessity of military action. The cup base of the bullet and the relatively soft lead alloy allowed the bullet base to expand on firing and perfectly fit the bore, regardless of the variations in bore and groove diameter from manufacturer to manufacturer - other adaptations for military service. Additionally, the chamber neck and throat dimensions were extremely generous to permit the coiled case ammunition to be inserted even if it were mashed or otherwise deformed (the throat on my rifle is so large that after firing the case neck will hold a .480 caliber bullet). Finally, for reasons best known to gunmaker Alexander Henry, the bore of the rifle tapers from the chamber throat to the muzzle, having initial bore / groove diameters of .451 / .469 respectively and final diameters of .449 / .464 caliber (see illustration below). These dimensions hold for the Mk I through Mk III military rifles and probably for most sporting rifles. Apparently, this tapered bore was a common feature of Henry patent barrels (though by no means all) and intended to simultaneously reduce the problems of fouling while enhancing accuracy.

Original illustration of Alexander Henry patent polygonal rifling system

However well intended were these features at the time they pose difficulties for the reloader of today. The Henry patent rifling is particularly troublesome, consisting as it does of a polygonal section of odd-numbered flats with very narrow peaks where the corners should be. This defies conventional definition of bore and groove diameter and the dimensions that I offered above, while vouchsafed for by period drawings, are only an interpretation of the mechanical features. When one throws in the matter of the taper, then its hard to say (without some experimentation) just what the proper bullet diameter ought to be. Should it be .450 caliber? Or perhaps .469 caliber? Or rather .464 caliber? This system of rifling and others of curious form no longer encountered such as Whitworth rifling, ratchet or buttress rifling and Metford rifling, were all designed to minimize blackpowder fouling and provide accuracy with either slip fit soft lead bullets or paper patched bullets that would expand to fit on firing. Consequently, using hard cast grease groove bullets with modern lubes will generally result in poor accuracy and a leaded bore from base erosion.

All that said then, there are two fundamental approaches to loading the venerable .577/.450 Martini-Henry. The first is to adopt original loading techniques as closely as can be contrived, or at least to the extent necessary to obtain good results. This means using paper patched bullets. The second is to adapt modern techniques to the eccentricities of the .577/.450 cartridge. This means experimenting with bullet diameters, designs, alloys and lubes until you find something that works. Both approaches come down to the same problem: finding a bullet that fits that tapered rifling, providing accuracy without excessive fouling and leading.

Bullets

An examination of original loads can be instructive. I dissected some Kynoch nitro-for-black sporting ammunition that was manufactured in June of 1948. It consisted of a paper-patched, swaged soft lead alloy bullet atop two lubricated thick card wads at the bottom of the neck over 37 grains of long stick Cordite and a Berdan primer. The bullet had two cannelures, corresponding to the locations of the case neck and the crimping groove. The fascinating thing was that it had three distinct diameters, though appearing to be a straight cylindrical bodied bullet. In front of the forward cannelure was its largest diameter, at .464 caliber; between the cannelures it had a diameter of .458 caliber and behind the rear cannelure, where typically would be the largest diameter, it was narrowest at .454 caliber. The paper patch was disintegrating, but by measuring the thickness of two pieces I arrived at a probable patch thickness of .009 inches (two wraps, both sides) and an over patch diameter of .463 to .473 caliber. I confirmed this by measuring several intact cartridges for the maximum over the patch diameter in front of the forward cannelure (the part protruding from the case neck).

This is unique in my experience and so unexpected that I don't know what to make of it. Most British jacketed bullets from the early nitro era are tapered rather than cylindrical as we have today, but they taper toward the base, which is the maximum diameter. I suppose that the idea here is that the larger diameter right behind the ogive will engrave to offer some stability and resistance (other than mere inertia) for the back end to bump up, but why the back end should be any less in diameter is the perplexing aspect.

According to one internet forum source, the original military paper patched bullet loads had an over the patch diameter of .463 caliber. Consulting period catalogs for Kynoch and Eley, we find that commercial loads, especially some of the nitro-for-black loads, sometimes used plain swaged bullets in lieu of paper patched bullets. In these instances the bullet had a diameter of .463 caliber as well. Neither of these, then, would have fit the large .469 caliber throat. Later military loads for the Mk IV rifle and late production commercial sporting loads sometimes used a .462 caliber bullet patched up to .470 caliber to be fired in a .474+ caliber throat. These loads were also used with the older Mk I - Mk III rifles still in service, despite the significant increase in bore size. You couldn't do that today with jacketed bullets or even hard cast bullets, but using relatively soft paper-patched bullets it worked.

So what inferences do we draw from the original loads? First, that the nominal bullet diameter more closely matched the final groove dimensions (ie, major diameter of the Henry rifling) at the muzzle rather than the throat. Secondly, that loads which conversely matched the throat dimensions also worked, with soft alloy bullets.

The problem with these properly sized (~.462 to .464 caliber) bullets is that they will not be held tightly by the case neck, and if they were held tightly then the working of the brass on firing and resizing would be so excessive that neck splits would be a certainty in just a few loadings. Given that .577/.450 brass is among the most expensive made, this is a scenario to be avoided. So, you end up with something akin to what the military refers to as "semi-fixed ammunition", in which the charged case and projectile are not rigidly connected. It works, but its awkward.

The alternative approach is to use bullets either cast and sized or patched up to fit tightly in the case neck and throat (conveniently the Lee sizing dies are dimensioned to resize cases to hold a bullet of roughly .467 caliber). As mentioned before, the cast bullet needs to be relatively soft or pressures may mount excessively as the bullet is squeezed down .005 inches in the tapered bore and unless the bullet fits perfectly (a difficult thing to define with Henry rifling) then base erosion may cause heavy leading.

Paper patching solves both of these concerns rather neatly, but is more work than if you cast and lubrisize your own bullets. On the other hand, paper patching is felt to be susceptible to accuracy problems if a rough bore (as is found in many old barrels) or the presence of hard fouling from something like Hodgdon H-777 damages the patch.

One of the necessities of using cast grease groove bullets is to have a gas check behind the bullet unless the bullet fits the throat well. A bullet that must bump up in diameter on firing to fit the throat is particularly vulnerable to base erosion. In plain based lead bullet loads there is a card disc over the powder charge and a lubricated felt wad under the bullet base, but this would not provide any real protection against base erosion or leading of the bore. Original nitro-for-black loads often used "metal based" bullets, which were just grease groove bullets with unusually tall gas checks attached.

The consensus view of experts including Graeme Wright (Shooting the British Double Rifle) and Paul Matthews (The Paper Jacket) is that grease groove cast bullets work best with nitro-for-black loads but that paper patch bullets are best for blackpowder loads, particularly in the case of Henry rifling. Part of the theory to explain this is that nitro-for-black loads typically deliver equivalent performance to blackpowder loads with lower pressure and a more moderate ramp up to peak pressure and that this prevents proper sealing of the bore by an undersized bullet. Theoretically speaking, if the foregoing is true, then using a proper fitting bullet obviates this concern, as would a load that gave equivalent pressure characteristics.

A wide array of bullets is available for loading the .577/.450: On the far left is an original Kynoch 480 grain RN sans paper patch; Next are Montana Precision .450-510 gr PP, Buffalo Arms .448-540 gr Gibbs style, Buffalo Arms .458-545 gr Creedmoor, Buffalo Arms .459-480 gr RN PP (bare & patched), Buffalo Arms .469-480 gr RN, Lee .459-405 gr FN (bare & patched), Hunter's Supply .477-412 gr WFN and Mount Baldy .458-350 gr Gould bullet (Lyman 457192)

Propellant

Although some will vehemently argue that the only safe and sane propellant to use in an antique blackpowder firearm is blackpowder or a blackpowder substitute, there are sound reasons for looking beyond blackpowder.

Even in the old days they made nitro-for-black or "Light Cordite" loadings in commercial cartridges that were intended for blackpowder arms. Contrary to widespread misconception, nitrocellulose propellant does not produce a "pressure spike" at an earlier time, nor conversely does it maintain high pressure farther down the barrel. When the proper burn rate and quantity is selected, it burns pretty much exactly the same as blackpowder. The difference is that it releases more energy in the combustion products at any given pressure and you should be able to get better performace from a correct nitro load at lower pressure than from the original blackpowder load.

The old Cordite nitro-for-black loads used a granulated bulk powder that Kynoch offered for handloaders and which was loaded on a volume for volume basis as compared with blackpowder. The nitro-for-black formula with Cordite was between 36% and 54% of the blackpowder charge, depending on the cartridge.

.577/.450 Martini-Henry cartridge with nitro-for-black Cordite load (signified by red paper)

The closest thing today to a smokeless bulk powder for general blackpowder reloading is Western Powders' Blackhorn 209, which is a true nitro/nitramine-based propellant (look at the Material Safety Data Sheet) and not, strictly speaking, a blackpowder substitute along the lines of Pyrodex or Triple-7, which are merely alternative formulations of a blackpowder using potassium salts for an oxidizer and some organic energy source (dextrose, carbon). Blackhorn 209, as the name implies, is intended only for muzzleloaders than can use a No. 209 primer in an inline ignition system, but works with no problem in cartridges. There are applicable loading data for Blackhorn 209 that would enable its use with the .577/.450 Martini-Henry, however, I would caution anyone who attempts to use it because it appears to burn appreciably faster than the typical choices for nitro-for-black loading and may produce unacceptably high pressures if fillers are used. Consequently, the manufacturer's recommended loading procedures with Blackhorn 209 should be strictly adhered to. I have never used it and cannot comment further on its performance in this cartridge, but it should work well for duplication of standard performance.

Hodgdon's Trail Boss is another bulk smokeless propellant that is often used with some old blackpowder cartridges, but this powder produces shockingly high pressures in large capacity rifle cartridges for rather poor velocities because of its extremely fast burn rate. It is not a blackpowder substitute. Notwithstanding Sherman Bell's success with it (as published in the Double Gun Journal, Volume 20, Number 4, Winter 2009) and his cheerful recommendation, I would hazard that his experience was attended with success (and safety) chiefly because he was using very light express bullets in his loads (325 grains), not heavy bullets of 480 to 570 grains. According to Hodgdon data for the .45-120 Sharps (similar case capacity to the .577/.450 Martini-Henry) a charge of 29 grains of Trail Boss under a 350 grain bullet (Lyman 457122) produces 1320 fps for 20,500 CUP, but the same charge under a 500 grain bullet (Lyman 457125) produces a paltry 1105 fps at 24,300 CUP. Taking it to the full case 32 grain load added a mere 51 fps to the 350 grain load but increased pressures to 24,400 CUP; under a 500 grain bullet the same charge would likely produce at least 28,000 CUP and still fall far short of the standard military loading velocity.

So, a case full of Trail Boss in most old British blackpowder express cartridges would exceed the maximum pressure for which they were rated and run close to proof pressures, or perhaps even higher, while falling short of the original ballistics. Attempts merely to duplicate the original blackpowder velocity with Trail Boss in an old large capacity express rifle cartridge would stray into dangerous pressures. This is why Trail Boss must not be used as a blackpowder substitute. As incredible as it seems, it burns much too fast for that purpose. It was designed to give light recoiling reduced loads for cowboy action shooters in much smaller capacity cases and it does that well.

The standard nitro-for-black formula with modern propellants, as established by Ross Seyfried and Sherman Bell, is 40% of the blackpowder charge (by weight) using Hodgdon 4198, or alternatively IMR-4198. A maximum load might go as high as 45%. These powders have a burn rate very similar to, but perhaps just slightly faster than, the granulated Cordite used in original nitro-for-black loads. This formula will generally duplicate original velocity and do so with lower pressure than the standard blackpowder load.

With reduced charges of smokeless propellant in large capacity cases, a large quantity of filler material is necessary to fill the empty space in the case snugly to ensure consistent combustion. The most popular material is Dacron polyester fiber (but see what I found hereafter). In some situations, using reduced charges incurs the risk of chamber ringing. Chamber ringing, which has nothing to do with fillers and will occur without them, is caused by localized pressure amplitude spikes resulting from pressure wave addition at the point where the pressure waves reflect off the base of the bullet, and is prevented by 1) using a full or nearly full case, 2) allowing combustion to occur evenly along the chamber length and/or 3) using a filler that interferes with wave propagation. All that said, the real risk of chamber ringing seems to be most acute with very fast burning powders that are normally associated with pistol and shotgun loads. Fast to medium burn rate rifle powders like IMR-4198 or slower have not been definitely shown to cause chamber ringing, as far as I have seen. For a number of reasons, I would strongly discourage the use of pistol or shotgun powders in nitro-for-black loads (i.e., anything faster burning than IMR-4198).

Before leaving the subject of using of polyester as a case filler, I will note something that I discovered when I had to pull a bullet. I have never read about this in any discussion of using polyester. The part of the wadding that was compressed in contact with the powder had the appearance of a slightly melted mass of plastic, as if it were being dissolved (see the photo below). More concerning, the entire quantity of propellant, not merely that in contact with the polyester filler, appeared to be chemically altered; its deterrent coating either stripped off or modified. Below is a photograph of the propellant from the pulled cartridge (on the left) beside a pristine quantity of the same type of propellant straight from the can.

Dissolved appearance of Dacron polyester fiber filler from extended
contact with single base nitrocellulose propellant

Comparison of single base nitrocellulose propellant removed from cartridge
with Dacron polyester fiber filler (left) and original (right)

I think this behavior is due to the residual acids on the propellant or perhaps the propellant chemistry itself (being a nitrate ester). Polyester binders are used in some nitrocellulose based propellants, so its evidently soluble in nitrocellulose. I don't know whether it presents a definite danger, but having a chemical reaction involving your propellant is not a good thing; it almost certainly has an effect on the burn rate of the exposed propellant. I considered putting a small sheet of tissue paper on the propellant, to separate it from the polyester, but since paper is cellulose and the primary constituent of nitrocellulose, I don't know if that would work out any better. Ideally you want an inert material. In a straight case you could use a waxed card over the powder, but in a bottle-necked case that is more awkward (though common practice by the Brits with Cordite loads). Another alternative that I have used more recently is open cell polyurethane foam.

This 40% with 4198 formula works fine and there is nothing wrong with it by any means. However, as good as it is, there is room for improvement. Whether you want to get slightly better performance or simply get the original ballistics with lower pressure to be kind to your antique firearm, there are other propellant choices to deliver this result.

Accurate A-5744 is another powder proferred as a solution to the problem of achieving blackpowder pressures with capacious cartridge cases, but in my experience and estimation it can only be used to duplicate the original blackpowder ballistics; anything beyond that pushes the pressure over the limits. Accurate A-5744 has a slightly faster burn rate than IMR-4198, so you will reach max pressure quicker with it than with IMR-4198. And you will still need to use polyester filler to get consistent results because its bulk density is not that different from other powders, and although it ignites better than some in reduced loads, a lack of case filler results in wild pressure and velocity variation at nitro-for-black loading density. Its a good powder, but no better than IMR-4198 or H-4198.

Although it is hypothetically possible to find a very slow burning propellant which would fill the case and yet ensure low pressures, propellants like H-4350 and H-4831 will not burn completely at the operating pressures of old blackpowder express rifles. So, the best propellants to use in order to achieve a modest improvement on H-4198 would be medium burn rate propellants such as IMR-3031, IMR-4895, IMR-4064, Hodgdon Benchmark, H-4895 and Varget, Accurate A-2015, A-2495 and A-4064 and Alliant Reloder-7, Reloder-10X and Reloder-15.

Primers

I normally don't fuss much over primers, but in this instance I will weigh in with some observations. Many folks advocate the use of magnum primers, notably the Federal 215, for the .577/.450 Martini-Henry, whether when loading with Hodgdon H-777 or with reduced nitro-for-black charges, but I have found that the heavy cup on these primers is a contributor to the pernicious and infuriating problem with misfiring that my rifle has exhibited. That problem became far less common when I switched to standard rifle primers and I have never had any ignition problems; if the primer went at all, then I got a good shot. In fact, I have also used standard pistol primers with complete success. These have even softer cups than rifle primers and in this cartridge, where the maximum chamber pressure is less than 26 ksi, they are perfectly safe. Of course, nothing like a magnum primer was used in any original loads.

Cases

I have used Bertram brass exclusively. Jamison brass is much less expensive but has mixed quality reports (I observe that Midway has discontinued all of their products). Some Martini-Henry savants use the CBC / Mag-Tech 24 gauge shotshell brass, trimmed and resized, instead. This case has more internal capacity and yet a much less substantial case head (although not a true folded or balloon head) and so it can't handle the pressures accruing to a larger charge without distorting the base. The CBC brass also takes pistol primers. Its utility is I think mainly limited to those who wish to shoot blackpowder loads duplicating the original military ballistics or even reduced loads. Its not the best choice for working up express sporting loads.

With proper loads no case resizing is necessary, other than the neck, and I have tested some paper patched loads that would fit in an unsized case neck, but I think this entails squeezing too much material down in the bore - even if it is paper. I set my sizing die to only resize about 3/16 inch of the neck; just enough to provide a bit of grip on the bullet. If you need to resize the base of the case then the loads are probably too warm, although if you have a rough chamber it can help with feeding.

While on the subject of dies, let me put in a vote for the Lee Precision dies. They are inexpensive, very well made and most importantly they were dimensioned on the basis of a comparison against a broad selection of Martini-Henry rifles, which have widely varying chamber dimensions.

These dies are too large to screw into the standard 7/8 inch x 14 pitch threads, but some reloading presses like my Redding Ultramag have a removable adapter for the standard thread size, which when removed allows the larger 1-1/4 inch x 12 pitch thread size to be used. Otherwise, you'll need a new press or an adapter that fits the threads for those presses with die collar threads larger than 1-1/4 inch x 12. You may have to shop around for a shell holder that fits the rim properly. I seem to recall that I used one other than the one that came from Lee, but I don't recall.

As previously stated, the chamber dimensions are grossly generous due to the original military requirements for reliable chambering of the coiled case cartridges. Unavoidably, the neck must be resized to bring it down from the .480 inner diameter to the neighborhood of .468 caliber and that amounts to a lot of cold work on the brass, so annealing is recommended. Some anneal after every loading, others do so after every five shots.

Load Development

There is no published, pressure-tested load data for the .577/.450 Martini-Henry cartridge that I have ever seen. You might manage to dig up an old issue of Handloader or Rifle magazine with a few loads in it, but otherwise you'll have to develop nitro-for-black loads on your own.

Some guidance may be derived from the range of loads offered by British ammunition manufacturers. While Eley offered some sporting express loads using lighter bullets with heavier charges in both blackpowder and nitro-for-black, Kynoch only offered the standard military rifle and carbine loads. When the two companies were merged under the Imperial Chemical Industries brand the express loads were retained. Its interesting to see how the Cordite loads with the 480 grain bullet went from 44 grains in the oldest catalogs to 38.5 grains in the 1920s and 30s (and presumably only 37 grains by 1948). The velocities are advertised to be a consistent 1350 fps, so either progressively faster propellants were used over time (unlikely) or the advertised velocity is not correct. My guess is that the oldest loads were hotter than the later ones.

I have never seen a specification for the maximum chamber pressures of original .577/.450 Martini-Henry military loads, but they almost certainly generated 10 tons per square inch of pressure by the old British system of measurement. The Martini-Henry sporting rifle action was routinely chambered in both the .577/.500 Westley Richards Number 2 Express cartridge and the .577 Express (2-3/4 inch case), which are loaded to 10 tons per square inch of pressure and have the same case head dimensions. Using the British ton of 2240 lbs, this seemingly works out to 22,400 psi - but that's not the end of the story.

According to the Commission Internationale Permanente pour l'Epreuve des Armes 'a Feu Portatives, better known as the CIP, the European firearms proofing and standardizing authority, the .577/.450 Martini-Henry is rated to 1750 bar, which is found to correspond to exactly 10 tons per square inch by comparing the CIP maximum average pressure (MAP) for the .577 Nitro Express, which is 2450 bar for the original measure of 14 tons per square inch (and similarly for a host of other old British cartridges). This is an important starting point.

A pressure of 1750 bar works out to be 25,380 psi using simple metric to English conversion. If we then convert psi to CUP using a correlation that I have developed from data for American cartridges published by the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI), the result is about 26,800 CUP. This seems a bit high (it would be almost 12 tons if one simply divided by 2240 lbs per ton), but that is a function of the difference in the modern piezo transducer method and its placement relative to the chamber (i.e., sidewall or radial) as compared with the 19th century British copper crusher method using base or axial placement, which is acknowledged not to capture the true peak chamber pressure and gives a lower pressure reading than even using copper crushers with sidewall or radial placement. Differences like these are the reason why some folks insist on dogmatically stating that there is no conversion from CUP to psi, which is rubbish as the two necessarily have a correlation. The real difficulty lies in drawing comparisons between pressure measurements that were made in very different ways - they may literally not be measuring the same pressures.

Read the discussion in Graeme Wright's book Shooting the British Double Rifle, of the different methods used between Kynamco, the British Birmingham Proof House and the European CIP lab. Kynamco developed a pressure measurement configuration that enabled them to simultaneously take copper crusher and piezo transducer measurements in both axial and radial mountings, permitting a clear correlation to be established between historic load limits and modern measurements. Too bad he didn't include all the measurements so we could appreciate that correlation. The table below is my attempt to illuminate the differences and correlations between the three distinctly different measurements. Anyone familiar with SAAMI maximums for the modern American cartridges can see that the correlation between the CIP specifications and my CUP equivalent is very close (.30-06 = 60,000 psi, .300 H&H = 54,000 CUP, .340 Wby = 53,500 CUP, 7mm STW = 65,000 psi); there is as much difference between SAAMI and CIP specifications for the same cartridge as there is between the CIP and my conversion.

Without a pressure measurement system or pressure tested data as a reference, developing loads that exceed original ballistics is dangerous. What I have used as a basis for development is load data from comparable cartridges operating at comparable pressures. In the present case, loads for the .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield (18,000 to 21,000 CUP) provide a good reference as regards minimum performance at the proper working pressure, while the .45-120 Sharps (3-1/4 inch case) provides a good reference for the upper limit since it has very similar case capacity (using starting loads only because it operates at higher maximum pressures of 28,000 CUP versus ~26,800 CUP).

The Lyman Reloading Handbook 49th Edition provides pressure data for appropriate cast bullet loads not only for the .45-70 Trapdoor Springfield, but also for the .45-90 Winchester and the .45-100, .45-110 and .45-120 Sharps cartridges. This is an excellent reference because it gives data for bullets ranging from the Lyman 457122 Ideal Gould 330 grain HP up to a 535 grain Postel style match bullet and the starting loads are well suited to the .577/.450 Martini-Henry. Accurate has posted data for A-5744 and some other powders for a similar range of cartridges, although the starting loads do not list pressures, so this data is less useful. Hodgdon also has .45-120 Sharps pressure data for H-4198, Varget and H-4895 with 350, 405 and 500 grain Lyman cast bullets.

The relevance of this data is that the .577/.450 Martini-Henry cartridge has the same exact capacity (in Bertram brass) as the .450 Express (3-1/4 inch), which is slightly more than the .45-120 Sharps (3-1/4 inch) case. This should perhaps not come as a surprise since the original "Cartridge, Small Arm Ball, Boxer Henry, .45 inch, Martini Henry Rifle, Long Chamber (Mark A)" is a 3.22 inch long paper tubed, iron based cartridge case that is the progenitor of the .450 Express. This cartridge was abandoned in favor of the "Short Chamber (Mark I, Pattern 1)", which is the familiar .577/.450 bottle-necked cartridge, because the latter fed more easily into the chamber. Consequently, loads which are at or below the maximum average pressure limit of the .577/.450 in any of these American cartridges should be safe in the Martini-Henry. In theory there should be a clear progression of charge weight and velocity with a corresponding indication of how pressure is affected with the increasing case capacity from the 2.1 inch to the 3.25 inch case. In practice, its more complicated...

There are worrisome anomalies in the comparative published data. It is hard to explain how a 1 grain increase in propellant results in 9,000+ CUP increase in pressure in a significantly larger case, or again why the same charge produces more pressure in the larger case. This is a recurrent theme in comparing the Lyman data between the .45-90 WCF and .45-100 Sharps. You see a similar situation between the .45-110 and .45-120 Sharps data. Clearly the pressure measurements are not both correct, but which (if either) is? At the very least we must say that the methods (or more likely the equipment) used are sufficiently different as to make the comparison between apples and oranges. I include all of this to illustrate the pitfalls and hazards of load development for a new cartridge and the necessity of gathering multiple sources of load data. If a load looks too good to be true... The safest course is to rely on the more conservative pressure data.

The table below illustrates this problem for one propellant and bullet combination, Accurate A-5744 and the Lyman 457132 Postell 535 grain. The .45-70 data is not very relevant, but demonstrates how quickly pressure can surge in a small volume even though velocity hasn't increased by all that much. Look though at the differences between the .45-90 WCF and .45-100 Sharps data; the velocities are essentially identical, yet 3 grains less propellant in a larger case has a significantly higher pressure measurement. The .45-110 data is in reasonable agreement with the .45-120 data if you reckon that the reduced charge and larger case correlates with a drop in pressure. Similarly, you could argue that the charge weights between the .45-90 and .45-120 delivering comparable velocities with slightly reduced pressure in the larger case might make sense. Is the .45-100 data then the only set that has issues? Or is it the only one on the right track? Look at the data published by Accurate for the .45-120, showing a lower maximum charge that produced just under 30,000 psi, well over a safe max load in the Martini. If correct, then even the Lyman .45-100 pressure data is too low. Being in the majority doesn't necessarily make you in the right.

If there were not enough confusion already, we may add the pressure testing of Graeme Wright for the .450 Express (3-1/4 inch), which ought to be extremely pertinent data. Here we find a load of 52 grains of IMR-4198 under a 350 grain cast bullet producing 1930 fps for only 7.5 tons of pressure as measured by Kynamco. QuickLoad predicts a similar 2003 fps for 52.6 grains at 20,000 psi, lending some support. However, Sherman Bell's tests using strain gauge equipment suggested a pressure of ~25,000 CUP at this load level with a lighter bullet (300 grains). Make of those disparities what you will. Perhaps it is largely explained by the aforementioned difference in the pressure measurements obtained by base copper crusher methods as compared with radial measurements (let alone strain gauge measurements). Maybe 7.5 tons per square inch (CUP) at the Kynamco lab really is equivalent to ~25,000+ CUP using strain gauge measurement in the US - but I very much doubt it. Bell did use a cork gasket on the powder, creating a large air space in the case - a scenario devoutly to be avoided and known to create high localized pressures. Nevertheless, using my own implementation of the Powley internal ballistics computer, which I have modified to include powder burn rates in the same manner as Load from a Disk and QuickLoad, correlates 52 grains of IMR-4198 with about 2000 fps for a 350 grain bullet, but at a pressure level of 30,000 CUP.

Research has led me to conclude that the safe limit on improved performance is about 5% to 10% in muzzle velocity over the original blackpowder ballistics when using the slower powders. Some propellants will probably deliver that, but without any pressure data from your loads you won't know if you are at or above the pressure limit.

I would further caution anyone who attempts to develop nitro-for-black loads using a software tool such as QuickLoad that in my experience these analytical methods can be risky when estimating loads that are far off the normal range of pressures for which the algorithms were developed; that is to say well below 45,000 to 65,000 psi. Linearity is a good assumption over a short distance, but going from 45,000 psi down to 25,000 psi may result in significant error. I attempted to use QuickLoad to develop loads for the .577/.450 Martini-Henry and, even though the maximum pressure was set conservatively to 20,000 psi, the suggested maximum loads appear to be much too high in some cases. A second data set that I obtained with a maximum pressure of 15,000 psi looks more realistic, but the velocities still seem too high so I don't know what to make of the data. An analytical tool such as this can serve as a guide for indicating which propellants should provide the best performance and most complete burn, but a larger than ordinary dose of safety margin is called for when using the load data.

Below are the data for my own load development. The sequence presented is based on bullet weight; in fact, my load development began with Accurate A-5744 and an exchange with Johan Loubser, the ballistician for Western Powders, manufacturer of Ramshot and Accurate brands. After an attempt to try a slow burning propellant (in this case IMR-4350) that would nearly fill the case and deliver improved performance with low pressure I got spooked, dropped nitro powders altogether and started loading with Hodgdon H-777. Even though I had based my loads on comparisons with similar loads in the .50-70 Government, .50-90, .50-110 and .50-140 Sharps cartridges, as well as an endorsement of the approach by Johan Loubser, the margin for error was too large and the risk too high. It was uncharted territory and I just didn't know where I was.

For a time I was content with Hodgdon Triple 7 and for anyone looking for the easy answer, this is it. H-777 is fantastic stuff. It burns cleanly, leaving very little residue except for the notorious crud ring, which in my rifle was chiefly caused by the roughness of the throat. It cleans up faster than some of the nitrocellulose powders I have tried. Usually 5 patches wetted with Shiloh Creek Blackpowder Solvent will have it spotless. Best of all, H-777 is hopped up with a small amount of potassium perchlorate, which makes it perform like the old 19th century blackpowder. Contrary to popular web mythology it contains no nitro compounds (i.e., nitrate esters, nitramines, etc.). Look at the Material Safety Data Sheet if you have any doubt; compare it to the MSDS for nitrocellulose powders. All nitro compounds are toxic and would be required to be disclosed on the MSDS by federal law. Potassium perchlorate is more powerful than potassium nitrate and that makes the difference.

My H-777 loads were guided by loads published in web forums for the Martini-Henry, but I never tried any mixtures with cornmeal or cream of wheat. My starting loads and reduced loads used some cotton filler, enough to be snug but not to compress the propellant, which Hodgdon strongly warns against doing. Still the capacity of the Bertram brass is such that some kind of filler is required with anything close to the standard military load of 85 grains of blackpowder, even with card wads and lube. Note that the FFg equivalency that is indicated in the notes refers to my blackpowder volumetric measure, not necessarily a blackpowder ballistic equivalent. Based on my testing I judge that the maximum load for heavier weights of bullets (480 to 540 grains) is about 74 grains (actual charge weight) and for lighter bullets from 325 to 405 grains the maximum load is about 78 grains. I tested heavier loads than these but I think they were too much of a good thing, even though I never saw the sudden increases in velocity and recoil that others reported.

At length I decided to return to nitrocellulose, armed with better data. The result you can see below.

Disclaimer

Warning: Use this load data at your own risk. No liability is assumed for the use of this data in any other firearm. It appeared to be safe in the test rifle, but was not subjected to pressure testing. Exercise safe reloading practices. Starting loads should always be reduced by 10% from the maximum load.

Shooting Notes and Accuracy

Achieving accuracy with this antiquated fusil has been a quest beset by a seemingly interminable series of defeats. My attempts to duplicate original loads as closely as possible were an utter failure as far as accuracy was concerned. That is not to say that it wouldn't work in your rifle, because I have it on good authority that such loads will work well. However, it did not work in my rifle. Here are the combinations that I tried with the best loads highlighted in blue:

There were three instances in which I got very good results on one day and never after could repeat that feat. Looking back, I could perhaps ascribe this to the whimsy of statistics. With a small enough sample, almost any trend can be observed, but if you shoot enough shots the truth will be revealed. Even an inaccurate load will occasionally fling two shots close together by random chance.

Then again, maybe it is that I did not apply enough rigor to the study at times. I say that because one of the big revelations came late in the game when I found that (perhaps unsurprisingly) accuracy is highly sensitive to the load. When I say highly sensitive, I mean that there will be a very accurate load in the midst of a series of load increments that all produce terrible accuracy. Finding that accurate load sweet spot requires trying a lot of loads, but holding all other variables constant (same bullet/patch combination, same lube, same propellant, same primer, etc.) while also isolating any disturbing element that prevents any load from working (e.g., patch thickness, lead hardness, lube under the patch or soaked through the patch, etc.).

The gorgeous load in the photo below gave some of the worst accuracy of anything tried, a single hit on a poster board at 100 yards. This was the .450-510 grain Montana Precision paper-patch bullet (pure lead alloy) overwrapped with 24 lb Southworth, 100% cotton resume paper. You don't know how much I wanted that load to work. It would have been perfect. I took that photo before heading to the range, just knowing that it was a sure thing. It had every reason to work: a pure lead, cup-based bullet, a paper jacket that brought the diameter up comfortably over the throat diameter and a coating of Rooster Jacket to boot.

Paper-patched 510 grain bullet handload on my copy of F. C. Selous' Travel and Adventure in South-East Africa

There are various arguments as to why these did not work. Most of these paper-patched bullets were smaller than throat diameter, but the one that was just over throat diameter gave the absolute worst accuracy. In some, the paper patch may have been too thick and, being softer than metal, lacked the necessary grip on the rifling. Or, the SPG lube on the grease groove bullets may have adhered to the patches, causing them to separate erratically, resulting in a tipoff of the bullet. Or, the bullets may be too heavy to stabilize in the 1-in-22 inch twist, although I doubt that. The odd thing is that on a single day, two of these load combinations did work very well, but I was never able to recreate that success thereafter. Those two loads covered all the likely faults of undersized diameter, excessive patch thickness, lube in contact with the patch and excessive bullet weight. For that day, none of that mattered. Neither did H-777 versus nitro-for-black, as some would argue. I tried both. I should have gone back and performed a much more involved test series of loads built around those two, because something subtle was happening there.

I also tried cast grease-groove bullets. The RCBS 465-480-FN (57923) is popular with Martini-Henry shooters. In practice, this casts a .467-510 grain bullet (some allege 530 grain). Western Bullet Co. supplies this as a hard cast, high temperature lubed item for its original intended purpose in the .465 Holland Nitro Express. Between being slightly undersized and very hard these did not obturate well and resulted in a heavy leading of the bore. That said, they were far more accurate than the early paper patched loads (apart from that one inexplicable day...). The accuracy was not acceptable, the shots were widely scattered, but there was no keyholing as had been characteristic of most of the paper-patched loads, only a slight indication of yaw.

Additionally, I had Mountain Molds cut me a custom bullet mold for a .468-550 grain bullet. These were air-cooled and lubed with Lee Liquid Lube as cast (i.e., unsized). I don't know what possessed me to request that diameter. I suppose I was thinking that it had to be no more than .468 caliber to fit the throat and would remain that diameter only an instant and then immediately would begin to taper. At any rate, the accuracy was not good, only around 4 to 5 MOA and evinced slight yawing. To be honest, it was the best accuracy of anything tried up to that point, just not very good. Yet, there seemed to be some promise of truly good accuracy, if it were a better fit. In an attempt to salvage my investment in this mold I tried a trick of placing two strips of aluminum tape on the mold face, one on either side of the cavity. This adds about 0.001 to the as cast diameter without creating a flash at the mold line.

Design for custom made Mountain Molds .468-550 grain FN

Mountain Molds .468-550 grain FN beside loaded cartridge

On a lark, I tried something crazy. There are readily available .475 caliber bullets for the .475 Linebaugh and .480 Ruger that perfectly fit the bill as an express bullet for an old blackpowder cartridge. Obviously, the diameter is too large by several thousandths, however the problem that I was encountering was too loose a fit coming right out of the case. Grease-groove bullets are a much smaller diameter in the groove bottoms, reducing the overall bearing length and providing a pathway for the oversized material to flow, and I reasoned that this would, if the alloy wasn't too hard, function more or less like the relief grooves cut into solid shank and monolithic copper bullets. Mind you, I did not envision this approach as a solution, merely an experiment intended to indicate a positive trend in terms of accuracy. I purchased a box of Hunter's Supply .476 caliber, 412 grain flat-nosed bullets from Midway. This is a good all around big game weight in this caliber range (.458 to .475). The hardness was more than I wanted, but at 15 BHN it wasn't so hard that it caused me concern. Now, this made me cautious nonetheless, so I reduced the powder charge to test these. I am sure that the over-sized diameter caused a bump up in pressure, but at this load level there is margin (the velocity was 1464 fps). Interestingly, only when seated out to an overall length of 2.94 inches (as in the photo below) would the ogive contact the rifling or the walls of the throat. This suggests that the throat on this rifle is substantially larger in diameter than .468 inches, and the gross expansion of the case neck on firing tends to corroborate this because a fire-formed neck can easily seat a bullet of .476 to .480 caliber. On one afternoon I got two shots with this load that had holes touching at 50 yards, before I maddeningly stuck the third round in the throat (because it was loaded too far out) and had to head home to clear it. On two other occasions, the accuracy was atrocious.

Hunter's Supply .476-412 grain FN beside loaded cartridge

Below are three loads that all should have worked like gangbusters according to conventional wisdom and reported experience. All have as-loaded diameters of .468 to .469 inch, which is a close match of the throat diameter of standard Martini-Henrys. There is no lube under the patches of these and the patch thickness is not excessive. The .459-480 grain paper-patch bullet is a pure lead, cup-based number that ought to bump up to perfectly fit the throat on ignition. The middle grease-groove bullet, also supplied by Buffalo Arms and modeled after the original military loading, is cast from 20:1 alloy (softer than the original military load) and lubricated with SPG blackpowder lube. The one on the right, the express load, is apparently a Lee 405 grain bullet cast in some relatively soft lead-tin alloy, most likely 20:1. I purchased it patched and ready to load from a caster who sells on Gun Broker.

None of these initially produced what I would describe as acceptable accuracy and the 480 grain weight bullets showed evidence of yawing in flight, meaning that they were not being stabilized by the rifling, which implies that the fit to the bore is too loose because the twist rate is certainly fast enough to stabilize the bullet. It was only with some load experimentation that I was able to find the sweet spot in the load series where accuracy is obtained. So, the big takeaway lesson here is that perseverance is necessary to find your rifle's accurate loads. Keep trying.

Buffalo Arms .459-480 grain paper patched, Buffalo Arms .469-480 grain and .459-405 grain paper patched

In summary, here are the guidelines that I derived from my experiments in developing accurate loads.

Rules for Accuracy with the .577/.450 Martini-Henry--

Finally, a word regarding recoil. The .577/.450 Martini-Henry has lively recoil from the bench with full power loads. My sporter weighs a little over seven pounds, so a 545 grain bullet moving out at 1350 fps makes it buck. The recoil itself is not bad, but what has given me pause is the potential for a very wicked pinch in the palm of my shooting hand between the lever and the wrist of the stock. A shooting glove is a smart accessory.

Restoring the Rifle

The goal of restoration was just that: to restore the rifle to an original state consistent with the standards of Westley Richards, preserving as much of the original rifle as possible. In this case that meant doing all possible to retain the barrel and its full length matted rib with the engraved maker's name. Frustrated by the loose chamber and bore dimensions of the .577/.450, I considered rebarreling at one stage early on to one of the proprietary Westley Richards cartridges, either the No 1 Express (.500/.450 x 2-3/4 inch case) or the No 2 Express (.577/.500 x 2-13/16 inch case). However, I would not have been happy with this result unless I could persuade Westley Richards to authorize the work and permit the new barrel to be stamped with the maker's name. In the end, I persevered in my load development work so that the rifle could be shot accurately in its original chambering.

Things to be done included:

However, I ultimately decided not to undertake a restoration and to devote my meager resources in other directions.

Classic Rifles, Pistols and Cartridges