Paul;
I have been casting bullets over 55 years. I still get a "rush" when I see a pile of excellent bullets from my bullet moulds. Shooting, casting, and reloading is truly a lifetime sport.

As they say, "Welcome to the club!"

Dale53

Hello Folks

Great Discussion.  Now I know we must respect our hosts in the USA but if we take a wider view then Mr Belgium Martinis choice is faultless (despite the fact I also love 'Walls).

From a technical and user perspective name me one other rifle that you might have in your gun rack like mine that was  first proofed in '73 (thats 1873) and modified in 1899, still in common use today shooting a high velocity smokeless cartridge (that has been in more battles, shot and probably wounded more game than any other) worldwide.

The martini was "the" rifle in service when "the sun never set" on a global empire.

Like a Stevens, Wall or any other it has its faults, but they are mighty easy to live with unless you want to scope it !!

Cheers

In the words of Kipling,

     "When 'arf of your bullets fly wide in the ditch,
     Don't call your Martini a cross-eyed old bitch;
     She's human as you are -- you treat her as sich,"

So THAT'S where the other 'arf of my $#%^&#@ bullets went.  Somebody slipped me a Martini!   

I repeat my comment from nearly a year ago, 

     "...the single shot rifle that was acknowledged by the market as   
     the most popular of all times (from a commercial point of view) 
     the Winchester Single Shot in high- and low-wall configuration. 
     With over 130,000 of them sold, they are the undeniable champs 
     in popularity.  Only the military rolling blocks and trapdoors are 
     more numerous."

Note the phrases "from a commercial point of view" and "Only the military..."  So I left out the name of the Martini, I still say that as commercial, civilian designs go, the 'walls win levers down.  There is a reason they are called WINchesters.  Besides, they are 'way cool!   8)

OK, now for the disclaimers, the statements above are the opinions of the author (though shared by thinking shooters everywhere) but YMMV because not everyone's tastes are as refined as mine.   

Froggie

I'm afraid someone will have to tell Froggie that there also is an 'outside the US' - and there was not a single manufacturer of Martini's, but lots of them - both military and sporters, volunteers, target and hunting rifles etc.  The number made, even in sporters, would have been quite large - with quite a lot of British, German, Swiss and Belgian manufacturers turning out lots of them, I'm quite sure the actual number produced must have exceeded 130,000, even when only counting the non-military rifles.  They weren't all that popular in the US, that's true - even if Providence Tool did its best.
Tentman is actually completely correct that the Martini system is still in use on "modern" firearms (not talking "replica rifles" here) - like Free pistols.  In its day ( which was the 1980's, and today too...), the BSA int'ls weren't just retro rifles, they were top-class competitive rifles, regardless of action type.  Just like those free pistols now.
OK, I'll get of my rocking horse now    Of course, I just might be a bit prejudiced.....

You know, I've always wondered why the Martini was illegal for BPCR. True it doesn't have a hammer but it is historically correct and as such should be excluded from that requirement. Technological superiority shouldn't occlude such an historically significant firearm. Perhaps fear of "lock time" gets in the way...........

The Martini was the rifle I was thinking of when responding to Frog's "bellowing" --how does he come up with the magic figure of 130000 as being the yardstick to measure the success of a rifle, wouldn't these stats work just as well=  if Winchester produced 130000 rifles and Stevens produced 12000 44 1/2 rifles does that mean it took Winchester 118000 more rifles to get it right. On page 39 [?] of the Campbell book on Winchester's there is a factory drawing for  a future singleshot rifle that looks for the world like a Stevens 44 1/2--proving that they were on the right track.  signed the Frog's favorite nemesis-----leadball

    Mr. HST (and others) could probably answer this better than I but it is my understanding that there are two reasons for the Martini's exclusion from BPCRS. First and foremost, it was not of American manufacture. Done, over with! Second, IF it were American made, it has no external hammer. One can argue the metits (or lack of) of this rule but my understanding is that it was put in place to keep things within the spirit of period. (And yes, I know the rules have been bent to allow certain actions but I am referring to the original intent.) 
    I personally don't have a problem with this. True, the Borchardt should/could have been included. However shooters being what they are, give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Allow a hammerless, striker-fired action and someone will show up with a Hall benchrest action or a Miller. The other side of this is, of course, that legal actions having faster lock times (the "walls" and the Steven/CPAs for example) do not guarantee winning. Evidence of this is the number of championships won with the Sharps with that big old slow side hammer. When it