The Bayonet in Zululand

The Times published this letter from " A Sergeant Major":- 
Sir, - we read that all at Isandula" the bayonet was found to be no match for the shield and the assegai"
How was that? 
We have been left to believe that the bayonet has been generally relied upon to decide almost every engagement. What, then, has caused the change?
Breechloaders taking the place of mussleloaders ?
Not with the case in point, for it is stated that the heroic , though luckless, 1st battalion of the 24th, having expended all their ammunition - 70 rounds-had to depend solely on the bayonet, which, however, was found to be no match for the shield and assegai of the Zulu warrior.
How, then, is the falling off in the practice value of the bayonet to be accounted for in this particular instance?
Easily enough, though it does not appear to have been pointed out to the authorities.
Now, every soldier who has fired from his Martini Henry( or, perhaps, any other breechloading rifle) only ten rounds, with any approach to rapidity, knows that the barrel is then so heated that he is unable to "grasp his rifle with his left hand round the stock and barrel" to bring it to"the charge".
If so, what could he do after having fired seventy rounds?.
At best he could only hold his rifle with his right hand around "the small" and allow the wood under the barrel to rest on his left, pinching it as hard as possible to keep it steady, but as to using the bayonet with any hope of effect, this is out of the question, for a child could almost knock it out of his hand.
I think the noble 24th must have been in this unfortunate plight, for undoubtedly they expended their ammunition rapidly against the host of advancing Zulus.
It is easy to point out an evil, not so to remody', however the latter in this case appears simple. 
Have a concaved, thin piece of wood ( or, other material) about 3in, long, fixed on the barrel between the back sight and lower band, not to thick, so as to interfere with its point-blank range; this would enable the soldier to grasp his rifle firmly, however hot the barrel, so as to be able to use the bayonet, with all its renowned deadly effect.
We're I not confident that the material across the barrel (where the hand grasps it) here in advocated is of great importance and urgently needed to be applied at once.
I should not have written this letter.
February 27.

THE ABERDARE TIMES, SATURDAY, MARCH 8 1879.

Now debate how this affected the outcome at Isandlwana.

The main premise you made sounds valid. Being 24 USArmy vet, I know full well about hot firearms. I also think that this battle was far different than what the rifle was designed for. Being American, I not an expert on the British firing drills/ manual of arms etc. The MH was not designed as a close in weapon. Isandlawana was a nightmare. The bayonet was effective mainly against an enemy likewise armed or for the the venerated bayonet charge. Bayonets allow you to keep the enemy far enough away till you can get the kill thrust. I can only assume that Zulu numbers in that swarming melee, rendered the bayonet useless. Unlike Rourke's Drift where the 24th was behind cover in the defense. Similar to the Gauls using long swords versus the Roman scutum and the gladius hispaniensis. What I'm getting at is the Zulu's would used their shields to parry the bayonet then used the assegai. Like the Sergeant Major in Zulu Dawn, you could wave it about one on one. It works. In the midst of 20K Zulu's? As we say in New York. Fuggedaboudit! (forget about it). Hopefully you understand my ramblings. Cheers.

Yes big P, having completed 23 years in the forces myself I certainly know and understand your ramblings.

Cheers Eddie