Martini 303 action qualify to be shipped to anyone, or

[TCLouis]

do they have to be shipped to a FFL?

This the Large Martini Action and is Stamped 303 on the side plate

[bruce drake]

Is the receiver marked somewhere prior to 1898? They (Martini-Henry rifle receivers) were made in the UK from 1878 to 1902 but the original re-design dates from 1878 and the first 303 Martini was built in 1879 with its blackpowder loading but the arsenals were kept converting older rifles for a long time afterwards.
Here is a link that details the identifiying characteristics on these rifles to better help you in dating your rifle.
http://www.martinihenry.org/index.php?route=product/category&path=61_59

Bruce

[Boz330]

What Bruce said. Most are dated in the 1870s and converted in the 1890s so predate the limit.


Bob

[TCLouis]

THX Bruce, I will peruse the site and see what I can find out.

I will have to dig around and find it so I can check it closer. I thought it was "purpose built" 303 as it is stamped as such on the side.

Original plan in the 80s was for it to become a 45-70 and then I came to the realization that single shot rifles are properly fitted with an exposed hammer for the shooter to cock.

[pietro]

.

I could be in error, but AFAIK, if a firearm of ANY age is chambered for ammunition readily available through commercial channels (the .303 Brit is), interstate transfers of them must be received by an FFL holder.

Best practice demands checking with the horse's mouth (the BATF website).

.

[EDG]

That is NOT correct.
You can buy anything through commercial channels. I have an 1895 Chilean Mauser made before 1898. It is considered an antique even though you can buy the 7X57 ammo anywhere.
The pre 1898 guns only require that you comply with local regulations. The Feds do not regulate them.

By you reasoning an original 1873 Trapdoor in 45-70 would be treated like a modern gun and they are NOT.


.

I could be in error, but AFAIK, if a firearm of ANY age is chambered for ammunition readily available through commercial channels (the .303 Brit is), interstate transfers of them must be received by an FFL holder.

Best practice demands checking with the horse's mouth (the BATF website).

.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

.

I could be in error, but AFAIK, if a firearm of ANY age is chambered for ammunition readily available through commercial channels (the .303 Brit is), interstate transfers of them must be received by an FFL holder.

Best practice demands checking with the horse's mouth (the BATF website).

.

The people who disagree with this are right. You have described the criterion as it is in the UK - a chambering for ammunition not normally available , although it then extends up to 1939. But in America it is simply a matter of date of manufacture. It sounds like a pre-1898 Martini converted post-1898 is an antique, but would be worth checking up on with the authorities first. They can cause you a lot of aggravation even if you win.

Logic says an early 20th century government conversion to .303 is more in the spirit of the legislation than last year's .444 Marlin. But what does that have to do with anything?

[EDG]

The date of manufacture of a receiver is all that counts.
So an 1894 Winchester can be an unregulated antique if manufactured before 1898.
It can be a rifle made between 1898 and 1965 which is 50 years old or older and can be purchased with an 03 Curio and Relic license.
If it is post 1966 production it is less than 50 years old and has to be transferred with a form 4473.
The same gun each as deadly as the other yet they have 3 different statuses under the law.

The unwitting could sell a DWM 1891 Mauser and a Ludwig Lowe 1891 Mauser through the mail. You could go to jail for the DWM and the Lowe is totally unregulated because Lowe became DWM in 1896. So all Lowe marked rifles are pre 1898.

A GEW 88 or Chilean Mauser can kill you just as dead as any modern rifle yet they are not regulated by the Feds.


The people who disagree with this are right. You have described the criterion as it is in the UK - a chambering for ammunition not normally available , although it then extends up to 1939. But in America it is simply a matter of date of manufacture. It sounds like a pre-1898 Martini converted post-1898 is an antique, but would be worth checking up on with the authorities first. They can cause you a lot of aggravation even if you win.

Logic says an early 20th century government conversion to .303 is more in the spirit of the legislation than last year's .444 Marlin. But what does that have to do with anything?

[Drm50]

The best policy on the type guns that have been continuously made from pre 1899 up into recent
times, is to do the paper. Better to err on side of caution. Most big dealers will not split hairs.
unless it is definitely pre 1899, they book it.

[Boz330]

The best policy on the type guns that have been continuously made from pre 1899 up into recent
times, is to do the paper. Better to err on side of caution. Most big dealers will not split hairs.
unless it is definitely pre 1899, they book it.

I bought an original Trapdoor several years ago and the dealer wouldn't even consider not doing the paperwork. Said they do it on every gun, period.

Bob

[Ballistics in Scotland]

No matter which country, mistakenly assuming the worst is a little trouble for the customer, but mistakenly assuming the best is hugely worst trouble for the dealer.

[Sur-shot]

Actually the US regs are even more simple, if it was made as a BP gun, it is a BP gun forever, regardless of what you do to it. Virtually all of the Martini Cadet guns are BP and Most of the big frame guns are BP. It is exactly like a trapdoor.
Ed

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Most, but a few large-frame military Martinis were purpose-built for the .303 cartridge. I think the date of manufacture is what matters, and black powder is a side-issue - or how could there be any danger with any 7mm. Mauser.

So far as I know, any British military Martini should have a date of manufacture, although civilian sales and foreign ones probably won't. Belgian firearms, beginning long after the US cutoff date, are likely to have a year letter in cursive script. If it doesn't, and is a Martini-Metford, with the early segmental rifling, you have something to argue with, both on the score of date (that rifling was superseded in 1895) and of black powder - although the intention always was that the .303 would use "chemical powder" like the French Lebel, and the sights were calibrated for a velocity the black powder stopgap fell a little short of achieving. If it has the conventional Enfield rifling it is 1895 or later, and made expressly for smokeless powder.

Some of our Australian members may know better, but I believe all the Australian contract .310 Cadet Martinis were twentieth century, but .297/.230 rifles by Francotte either can be or have to be nineteenth century.

[Col4570]

Caution when thinking about converting an ex 577 450 Martini to .303.The 303 had a differing Breach Block to support the smaller Cartridge Head.

[Drm50]

I did a Smokeless 7x57mm Remington Rolling Block to 45/70 with a Numerich Buffalo Kit. The
smaller Smokeless action just barely has clearance to insert the 45/70 cartridge. But if you use
a Large BP action, you have to keep loads down with smokeless powder.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Caution when thinking about converting an ex 577 450 Martini to .303.The 303 had a differing Breach Block to support the smaller Cartridge Head.

Indeed they did, although I believe it was just a matter of deformation progressively producing hard opening, rather than catastrophic failure. Some blocks were successfully converted, by dovetailing a strip of harder steel across the block face, and a means I have thought of but never tried, would be silver soldering a sort of turned steel funnel inside the firing-pin tunnel. Either could be used to reduce the size of the firing-pin tip, if this was considered advisable. If the latter prevented the available length of spring exerting enough oomph to the firing-pin, a piece of square-wire spring, as used for separating injection moulding dies, could be substituted.

What was never done was to make the new block with a smaller diameter groove in the top, to suit the .303 rim, to increase the amount of metal there. From this I deduce that the solidity of the rest of the block was never a problem.