Irish (?) contract No4 rifles

a letter is indeed a primary source. if that letter exist and is authentic. yes it is a primary source.

a memory of what is written in a letter is not a primary source.

between bias, failed memory and paraphrasing the content of a letter.... none of those are considered primary sources

Often , you can get assistance from researchers who may be able to do your research for a fee,or help at least locate sources. They could do this for you prior to your arrival and make research go deeper or more smothly. College kids would love to do thisand you might benifit fro it because they know the system and the ins and outs of research. Maybe contact them prior to your arrival and yo could cover enourmous amounts of ground to vast depths in the resolutionof this issue. Either way It would be interesting no matter the outcome. Are you writting a book? I'd be very interested in that as well whenit comes out?

Kinda fun to find out the facts what ever the outcome. I am as concerned as anybody that the grey area's in this matter are bulked out with unsubstantiated speculation. It seems harmfull to control information to the point of distorting it simple to weild power as the pupet master. research is always more interesting and fun.

I have a copy of the letter. Mr. Graham was kind enough to send me a copy. His book, "The Spirit of the Pike" I very much like and strongly recommend.

I have a direct print out of the data from the Irish researcher on the disposal sales. I gave him the information on the Irish purchase, issue and disposal of the US M1917 for the LDF. On that topic I was able to find the US diplomatic letters regarding that sale. He also is a gentlemen. I have not posted his name as I only l know him by Email.

As Century Arms and the US ATF were very unhelpful on the US side, I have had to rely on folks in the business and their recollections. At times those recollections do not quite fit exactly. For example the UK rep. for the first sale recollection for the first tender does not exactly match the date put forward by the Irish Archives. Also taking to folks that were involved in the disposal on the Irish side seemed to indicate that the number of DP and part salvaged No4 Mk II rifles were more than 140 (likely) or 240 (unlikely), which is what the records indicate was the maximum number of rifles that could have been destroyed. So it is true that some of the statements made could very well be in error with this method or research. But the information put down was the most consistent with all of the inputs.

Now it is true that anything put out there by anyone asserting something should be picked apart. That is a good thing. But if you are going to do so you should do so on the basis of knowledge that indicates you see a mistake in someone work. Your assumptions and sarcasm are becoming downright rude. I am tempted to say "go do your own dammed research". Stop and ponder what you have written, it does not come across very well. That said if you have facts that indicate something put up here by anyone is wrong, please, by all means say so and provide your sources or reasons for doubt.

I am not so much planning a book as publishing this material as I find it. I have promised Badger a booklet as soon as some of the nagging issues that remain "Unbekannt" are resolved.

Kind regards

The beauty of the Frederick303 Capt Laidler discussion on this thread is that it has illustrated some good points about the problems of historical research. Documents v a 'Reality Check' which is always a good thing. In a lot of cases sensible people will have to realise that there is no 'Correct' / 'Proven' answer but two or three 'Possibles', with each 'Possible' having it's own set of evidence and it's own supporters and detractors. The reader then has to use their own judgement as to which 'Possible' they think is lkely. This is where it can get emotive or messy. If we have 3 'possibles' A/B/C and they all seem to have valid points we not only have to look at ther points but to see if there are any 'Motives' behind these points or those who support them. These motives can range from financial to political and from the very minor, bullshiiting a customer into paying extra for a rifle to the more serious, selling a 'Drill Purpose' dangerous rifle as a rare 'Dublin Police' issue rifle. Then we get the very serious such as the Cleveland Child abuse 'Scandal' started by a Dr looking for a £30,00 grant and a TV presenter whose contract had not been renewed and who was desperate for publicity. Other examples are the credible fgures for land mines that need to be dealt with and the use of 'Guestimate' figures. This, at it's worst, led to more being spent on high profile conferences than grants to clear land mines. A good historian will present their facts, sources, and above all REASONS for their conclusions. In my opinion both Frederick303 and Capt Laidler have put up either valid research or opinions and reasons, and have done so without being abusive. It may well be that we never get a 100% answer one way or the other.

Mike, I'm interested to see that you mention that the Irish Republic returned some rifles to the U.K. in 1940 after the fall of Dunkirque which is the first time I have ever heard it suggested but it does not surprise me. Does any-one have any further information on this matter or of any other weapons being returned to the U.K. in 1940? Although the Irish Republic was a neutral country in WW2 there are a number of instances of the Irish Republic being very helpful to the U.K. during WW2 such as turning a very blind eye to interned U.K. servicemen leaving internment camps to return home. Does any-one have any idea of the numbers of Irish Republic citizens who served in the U.K. armed forces in WW2? I'm guessing it's in the many thousands???

Mike 16,

first let me apologize for my intemperate post. I am sure you are trying to get at the truth. I hope you will accept the apology.

My issue was , you posted a number of, shall we say incorrect assumptions, such as the Irish No 1 MK III rifles almost all being FF marked (they were not, only rifles sent back to the UK for re-barreling or rectification were), while rather offhandly disregarding posted information that was from pretty good sources. That is while impugning others work you posted gross generalizations that were obviously wrong if you had read and digested all of the posts in this long thread.

For example your post from page 12 of a NRA reprint, which came out of a 1963/1964 article published in the American rifleman by Charles Yust. Charles Yust was a noted cartridge collector, not an expert on Irish rifles. He states in that article that the Irish provided arms to the UK for defense of the home country. His comment was ....wrong.... period. As in mistake. As in an incorrect assumption. The fact was in 1940 The Irish were begging the English for arms, not providing them arms. The English were not all that wild about supplying the Irish, not because they were anti-Irish but because they felt that in remaining neutral and in not allowing use of the former Irish treaty ports to be used for anti-sub patrols that Ireland was holding up their part of being a part of the commonwealth. That said the English did end up supplying sufficient arms for Ireland to have two effective divisions.

There is a wealth of writing(primary sources) on the Irish pleas for small arms in the June 1940 to September 1940 time frame. the issue was eventually settled in late 1940 with the US providing 20,000 M1917 rifle to the English along with 5 million rounds, which the English then transferred to the Irish. Why it went that way is a story in and of its own, but it had to do with the Irish making a play to align themselves with America rather than English and the decision of both the US and the English not to yield to that idea.

At the same time the English promised, though the colonial secretary to provide the Irish with 10,000 SMLE rifles when practical. There is no record of the English providing these rifles in the official lists of equipment provided to the Irish during WW II. That said there is evidence that the Irish either had some arms exchanged with the UK and that the Irish received supplies of spare parts that they used to refurbish some of the unserviceable rifles in their stocks. The indents for spare parts exist, and sure enough a lot of the parts indents such as forearms and safeties show up on Irish SMLE rifles. By late 1941 there is an Irish parliament speech where the help from the UK is acknowledged. In any case any arms sent to the UK were sent for exchange or action body replacement, not to help the UK.

Now you will note while I did publish a summary of the rifle use from 1923 to 1939 I have not followed up with the WWII period. That is because there are still too many open ended questions. For example the records show that the Irish sold 21,169 SMLE MK III rifles in ~1960, with a further ~10,000 in 1984~87 (approximate date). Yet in the survey of rifles I have in the known Irish serial number range (which encompasses ~ 27,400 serial numbers), only 179 show up, while of the 10,000 ER, CR and G rifles 227 have shown up, with known sales of 4,105. So something is not quite right when it comes to the register of WWII serial numbers, there should be a lot more out there. They should be almost as common as the No4 MK II PF serial number range (31,552 in range) with 425 in the database. That is part of the reason for a trip to the archives.

In any case Mike, no intent on my part to belittle you, just point out that if you want to poke holes in folks posts, you should do the research or at least read what has already been written in the thread ahead of time and make sure your post does not contain incorrect information. But as far as poking holes in posted information, pointing out omissions or where there is a logical inconsistency, have at it.

kind regards

Frederick,

Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see an explanation of how some of these guns found their way to Afghanistan. Do you know?

I am pretty sure there were no quantities of No4 MK II’s there in the early to mid ‘80’s. IIRC, the Enfields provided by the CIA to the Muj back then came from the Israelis along with the stocks captured Soviet type weapons.

There are no official records that indicate such as officially the sales occurred after the soviets withdrew from the vacation spot that Afghanistan is. I think this gets down to the entire issue that Capt. Laidler is alluding to regarding his doubts, as apparently more than a few of the official serial number range shows up in places unexpected.

These lists do still exist somewhere but they're quite lengthy and contain details of large amounts of of weapons that have been captured, seized or confiscated etc etc. Including large numbers of No4 Enfields from those serial number batches. But being restricted, you'd be a braver man than me to release specific details..............

Frederick in Post 95 I'm delighted to see you cooling things down in one direction so please don't inflame them in another!
After Eire broke away Great Britain became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is made up of FOUR countries. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The citizens were BRITISH. The governement was BRITISH, the empire, at the time, was BRITISH.
We are, despite the efforts of some, still British. I say this as a Scot, a person born in Scotland of Scottish Parents, who can be called Scottish who is also BRITISH, just as someone born in England of English parents can be English and BRITISH.
Now I'm sorry if this sounds pedantic but if we are to research and publish history let's get the basics right! I do not think a Texan would thank me for calling him /her a Californian.
So any WW2 negotiatons were carried out between the BRITISH and IRISH governments.
Here endeth the lesson ;-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

You still haven't come back and said where anyone said anything insulting or even remotely horrible about the Irish yet Mike.

---

I think that letting it rest at this time is the best way to leave it. This forum is about the rifle. not the opinion of those who find fault, it seems,exclusively with the Irish. Normaly I would try to convince some of us that not all Irish are as stereotyped...but I might not succeed and this is not the venue.....Any way I have a 11/54 No.4 mk 2....Irish contract LE and uh oh! dare I draw wrath upon the Australians.... a 41 lithgow.