rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Different ammunition question about Rorke's Drift

Posted: Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:38 pm

Hi

Would it be safe to assume that the only ammunition held at Rorke's Drift was for Martini Henry rifles.

Based on the fact that the NNMC fled after firing only a few shots - one reason given they had expended their carbine ammunition - surely their officer (Henderson?) would have thought to re-supply, had carbine ammunition been plentiful.

Additionally, an officer borrowed 11 rounds of revolver ammunition from Bromhead which seems a strange number - if there was a good supply of revolver ammo in store. Yet Bromhead allowed Hitch to use his revolver, later in the battle and reloaded it for him (or helped to reload it)

Was all the carbine ammunition up with the main force at Isandlwana (and obviously with Durnford's column that had left Rorke's Drift in the morning)?

Cheers

Simon

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:32 am

Simon

Each Imperial Company carried its own reserve of ammunition, and one of its two wagons was allocated for this. This would have been MH ammunition. However there was a NNC Company at the Drift and it would have had its own ammunition (either MH or Snider Enfield), though I�ve never seen a reference to this.

You are correct in assuming there was no carbine ammunition at the Drift, basically because there were no cavalry units based there. The carbine ammunition for the cavalry units with the column would have been at Isandlwana, and, as you say, Durnford brought his own when his column moved up to the camp.

With regard to revolver ammunition, officers were expected to provide their own revolvers together with suitable ammunition. There were thus quite a variety of types and calibres in use during the AZW. Bromhead considered he only had 11 rounds to spare, I don�t think there�s anything significant in the number. There was NO reserve of revolver ammunition held in the store.

I�m presuming Bromhead lent Hitch his revolver due to Hitch�s right shoulder wound, which would have prevented him from firing a MH.

Bill

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 8:13 pm

Cheers Bill

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:30 am

I don't quite agree with that, Bill. My understanding is that officers were supplied with revolver ammunition as long their personally purchased weapons were of the suggested caliber. Obviously, Smith-Dorrien and Bromhead both had the same caliber pistols and my thought (for what it's worth) is that Smith-Dorrien was in a hurry to get back to Isandlwana so Bromhead simply gave him all of the cartridges he had on him at the moment in order to save him having to take the time to requisition some from stores back at the post. Hence the peculiar number of eleven. Bromhead afterwards refilled his pouch after filling out the necessary paperwork -- at first anyway.

Further, Martini-Henry rifle ammo works just fine in a Martin- Henry carbine. The only difference is that the carbine ammunition carries a lighter load (410 instead of 480 grains with proportionally less powder). Still, the rifle ammo chambers and fires the same, although it kicks even worse than the proper carbine ammo. The NNMC were carrying MH carbines, so there was no shortage of ammunition that could have been used by them.

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 9:04 am

Saw

I�m still not quite convinced ! I�ve read the interesting discussion on revolvers/ammo on the Victorian Wars Forum that took place towards the end of 2008. There is no doubt that revolvers were issued to certain units in the Army and it makes logistic sense to have those all in one calibre. It would then make further sense to suggest to officers, who had to buy their own revolvers, to get ones in that standard calibre. On campaign, it should then be possible for officers to get extra rounds from units that had revolvers issued to them. But was this ad-hoc, or were officers actually officially issued with revolver ammunition ? What evidence is there on this � are there any orders/regulations ? Perhaps our �weapons experts� can find something on this ?

From memory, I can not recall boxes of revolver ammunition being listed among the detailed wagon loading lists for the centre column, but I�ll check these out on the weekend.

As to firing MH rifle rounds from a MH carbine - this has been covered in detail before on this site. Yes, theoretically it is feasible. However, I would not be too keen to stand close to you if you were attempting to do this, having witnessed one or two breech explosions in my time !

Bill

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:49 pm

Bill and All
The Ammo was designed to be interchangeable in emergency, the breech area on the MH Carbine (although as I have written before is highly unlikely to have been used in the first three months of the AZW due to production and logistics issues) is actually stronger than the Rifle.
The MH IC1 carbine had a double hump knocks form, above and below the barrel, which beef's up the chamber area heavily. Unlike the MH Mk1/2 rifle which had a top hump only, a variation though found on the M-H Mk3 rifle of Aug 1879. This gave enhanced grip when used by the armourers gunmetal vice. The chamber pressure per foot ratio drops hugely in the first 6" of the barrel on firing so a ligtherweight barrel is not a weak point.

The Sight ladder on an IC1 carbine is dovetailed into the top of the barrel and then has a drilled and tapped hole to hold the screw, at this point the barrel is really quite thin.

The IC1 carbine ammuniton was first introduced in 1877, and was modified over the next three years. Only the labelling on the boxes gave away the variation. In 1881 the patch was altered from white to red paper as a ready identifier, the paper was also slit with three cuts as it did not de-laminate from the bullet due to the short travel on the barrel.

The Swinburn Henry Carbine had a lighter-weight barrel, again with round interchangeability, but this does jump about abeit with a full rifle load. As the Swinburn became available around 1876, and was procured from Private dealers such as King and V & R Blakemore (not the Military) the only real scource of ammunition for colonial troops for that rifle would have been commercial suppliers such a kynock, I am unaware if they produced a carbine load at the time, as the military were still trialling it. So without the benefit of primary source I would punt they just used Rifle rounds, but no proof.

As the Revolver ammuniton was a standard issue, it is highly likely that quatermasters would have to take this into consideration. Packaging was the same as rifle. I will check in the LOC tonight to confirm the outer box and packing quantities and labelling of such.

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 7:53 am

Neil

As ever, thanks for the detail. One question - once a carbine had been regularly firing carbine ammunition, would the introduction of a rifle round increase the strain on the breech, more than the situation if the carbine was new and hadn't fired either round ?

With regard to the revolver ammunition, I think what we are looking for is some evidence that an Infantry battalion Quartermaster would officially carry revolver ammunition to resupply the 20-30 revolver armed officers in his unit.

Many thanks and a Happy New Year to you.

Bill

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:28 am

Hi Bill,
No, the 60 grain difference between the loads would not make that much difference to the barrel

The Rifle and the carbine was proofed with the same proof round, a 718 grain bullet and 110 grains of powder!, this is like fitting a quart in a pint pot without spilling it. If it isn't going to blow with that, nothing will. Armourer sgts could aqquire proof rounds from stores to test fire rifles & carbines after maintenance.

In respect to the Adams Revolver. on 21.sept 1877 a new ammuniton box pattern was sealed as "box ,wood, Ammunition Small Arms:Adams Revolver" as the Mk111 box. It contained 240 rounds of ammunition in twenty packets of 12 in a hardwood, tin loined box 8.3" x 5.25" x 4.2". As the .450 revolver was standard issue I find it difficult to think that provision for issue to officers etc was not taken into consideration.