Range Report 15FEB2026: .45 Caliber Rifle Shoot Off

My Martini Henry and Springfield Trapdoor with correctly packaged ammo.

People often like to compare Snider-Enfields to Trapdoors since they were both conversion rifles, and that makes good sense as long as they compare the Snider to the 2nd Allin Conversion Trapdoor, but the later Trapdoors were purpose-built rifles, not conversions, and were in .45 caliber, not .50-government or .577 Snider.  So the real comparison to be made for later Trapdoors is the Martini Henry in .577-450.  Both were purpose-built (not converted) single-shot rifles chambered in .45 caliber.  Both of my rifles were made in the mid-1880's, too, making for a perfect temporal match.

The most significant difference between these two rifles is the cartridges:  The MH cartridge was loaded with 85 grains of R.F.G.² powder under a 480-grain bullet which achieved a Muzzle Velocity (MV) of 1,353 f.p.s., while the Trapdoor cartridges after 1880 were loaded with 70 grains of 2F powder under a 500-grain bullet which achieved a MV of 1,317 f.p.s.  Thus, the original MH has a Muzzle Energy of 1,942 ft.-lbs., compared to the 1,926 ft.-lbs. for the Trapdoor; a frankly trivial difference.

My MH cartridges are loaded with 85 grains of 2F Swiss powder under a 475-grain grease-groove bullet (unpatched) and achieve a MV of about 1.340 f.p.s.  My Trapdoor cartridges are nearly perfect analogs for the originals, with 70 grains of 2F Swiss powder under a 500-grain bullet and achieve a perfect match in MV for the originals.

My MH cartridges.

My .45-70-500 Trapdoor cartirdges.

My plans for today were somewhat nebulous, I just wanted to shoot the two rifles head-to-head and see what results would be.

Shooting Conditions:  38 degrees, .mostly cloudy, winds 8-20 m.p.h (highly variable) from 3:00, humidity 80%. All shots were fired at 100 yards from a seated unsupported position using a full sight picture.

A word about the targets:  The target shown in ToF 1 is my recreation of the British qualification target from the 1860-70's scaled down for 100-yard shooting.  The other targets shown are recreations of the US Army qualification targets used in the 1870's and 1880's scaled down for 100-yard shooting.  My thanks to Bob Beck for designing the US targets for printing.

Note that the number of rounds I wrote on the targets for two of the pictures below (ToF 2 and 4) is incorrect, so I added the corrected information to the pictures.

ToF 1: Martini Henry.

Table of Fire 1: Martini Henry
String: 35.0 in.
Rounds: 9
String Test: 3.9 in./rd.

ToF 2: Trapdoor.

Table of Fire 2:  Trapdoor
String: 74 in.
Rounds: 13 (note the correction)
String Test: 5.7 in./rd.

ToF 3: Martini Henry.

Table of Fire 3: Martini Henry
String: 38.0 in.
Rounds: 8
String Test: 4.9 in./rd.

ToF 4: Trapdoor.

Table of Fire 4:  Trapdoor
String: 29.0
Rounds: 11 (note the correction)
String Test: 2.6 in./rd.

Conclusions
Let me start off with excuses:  I shot very poorly today, and have achieved much better scores with both of these rifles on other occasions.  I don't know what was different, but I am extremely disappointed.  The wind was pretty strong and quite variable, but at 100 yards that shouldn't have made this much of a difference.

In ToF 1 with the MH I was aiming at the bottom of the center black square; in ToF 3 with the MH I aimed at the bottom of the center black oval.  In ToF 2 with the Trapdoor I started by aiming at the bottom of the center back oval, but seeing how high the rounds were printing I aimed the last round at the bottom of the outer circle, which resulted in a bullseye; I took this same point of aim in ToF 4 with the Trapdoor which gave me a much better elevation (and thus a much better String Test), as the picture shows.

Actually, the best group of the day was ToF 2, but that was the worst String Test of the day showing once again that group size is a meaningless metric.  Had the Mean Point of Impact for that group been lowered to the middle of the target that would have resulted in the best String Test of the day.

The differences in these points of aim once again shows us that the Trapdoor has a battle-sight zero of 200 yards, while that of the MH is 100 yards, which makes quite a difference at these short ranges.

The clear conclusion is that my Trapdoor using my ammunition, is more accurate than my Martini Henry using my ammunition, but the difference is small enough that this can't be taken as truly definitive.  Moreover, the sample size, both the number of rounds and the number of rifles, is too small to make a broader generalization.  Frankly, my analog for the .45-70-500 cartridges is closer to the originals (literally perfect, in fact) than is my analog of the .577-450 cartridges (which are only fairly close), and that may explain much of this difference.

Another issue which may relate to the cartridges is that of the 20 rounds of .577-450 I tried to fire, 3 rounds failed to load--I just couldn't get them to seat into the chamber of my MH.  I'm not sure why this is, but I'm sure it has to do with the way I load them so I have to get better at the loading process.  Conversely, the .45-70-500s all loaded perfectly and easily.

What do I think about the two rifles after this process?  I think that, objectively, the Martini Henry is a better rifle if for no other reason than that there's no hammer to cock, which simplifies the manual of arms.  Balanced against that, however, is the lack of a safety on the MH, a point often glossed over in other comparisons.  And while the hammer of the Trapdoor does have to be brought back to half cock before opening the action, this is a nearly automatic action which takes place without thought or effort as the shooter lowers the rifle from the shoulder (for an experienced shooter), and so really doesn't add any time to the loading process.  Likewise, bringing it to full cock happens automatically and without thought or effort while raising the rifle to fire, and so, again, takes no additional time.

I did not do a time comparison for loading, and the videos I have seen showing people making such comparisons have usually done by people who fumbled a bit due to a lack of experience.  Another problem I have seen in such videos is that the person doing them often flips the door up without controlling it, which causes it to fall back down, which naturally adds to the loading time.  If you lift the door to a fully open position without just flipping it up and aim the muzzle down slightly as you do so the door never flops back down.

Frankly, I enjoy shooting the Trapdoor more than the MH.  It is more comfortable and the manual of arms (once I had drilled both of them enough) seems more natural.  On the other hand, the sights of the MH are quite a bit easier to see, making for a slightly faster, clearer sight picture, a very important point.

I have no real final conclusion about the objective merit of these rifles.  They are both excellent pieces of ordinance, well suited for their day and intended use, and my observations here relate to my subjective impression of both.