Irish (?) contract No4 rifles

I recall the sudden disappearance of 303 surplus around December of 1979. Prior to that you could buy surplus, at most gun shops. A firm called Paragon had it by the case, still in the 288 round chests. By late 1981 it was hard to get. By 1984 to 1985, I recall going to a store in an out of the way place to pick over their loss Interams .303 which had the 174 grain bullets pulled and replaced with 150 grain soft points from Finland. That all changed in the late 1980s, right around late 1988 when suddenly it appeared on the market again.


That said, back to the Irish connection: Where if anyplace doe the official documents provided by the Irish archives go wrong? I for one would like to know. None of the disposition records of the Irish Army support a sales date for any No4 MK II rifles prior to 1991. The Russians pulled out in 1989 if my memory serves me right. If a direct answer is not forthcoming, well I will have to respectfully disagree with Capt. Laidler’ assertions regarding the 50,000 order not being completed.

This story is getting better every day. It's starting to explain the Lee Enfield's role in the cold war. All we need now is a little Ian Fleming and some good 007 Bond music. A couple of questions:
1) Why didn't the CIA:
- get the Greek HXP 303 ammo that we are now buying for surplus ( or maybe they got most of it. All my HXP is dated '69 and '75. Maybe the CIA got all the production from all except those years)
- buy the Irish surplus rifles?
- buy stocks of Ishapore Enfields that were in abundance and nearby in India?

2) Were Interarmco and/or Century Arms working as front for the CIA? (Buying large stocks of surplus, then diverting some of it to hot spots?)

Interested in small tid-bits that can be pieced together as well as "big stories.

"My uneducated guess is that there were huge stores of these new rifles that were never delivered. Not just rifles supposedly destined for for the IDF."

Not only that batch, I had some notes somewhere showing how No4s in made in 1955 got to stores in December and then were sold out within a few months (Jan/Feb) to Parker Hale and rifle associations. I also have one gun that has sold out of service marks but has a serial number in an unknown range. I have also read about "make work" for the Faz plant so I just wonder if all these batches being done for "african nations" etc was make believe, simply odne to justify keeping the plant going?

---------- Post added at 06:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:13 PM ----------

Fredrick, it maybe that many were done, just that the irish never ordered that many, it was make work, see my comment above.

---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:15 PM ----------

Oh and I have what I think is an Irish gun PF320178 converted to sporting spec awaiting me restoring it but the metalwork looks "as new" hence its worth it. It had been stored in a guy's dad's safe for 35 years and not used and not much before that. So sold off piece meal springs to mind.

SSJ, re-read my first post on this thread. The Irish Army says:

1) They bought 50,000 (1953 to 1955)


2) They sold ~49,000 (between 1991 and 1997)

3) They still had (as of late 2003) 840 plus 50 snipers

4) DP rifles were never sold, they were dumped at sea (between 140 and 240 rifles)

First 3 came from Irish Army records. Last point not from official Army letter but individual in FCA.

If Captain Laidler is correct, the records are................altered

In spite of these 'records' - that no one else seems to have had sight of, yet, you STILL havent managed to give even a slightest sniff of a reason why long prior to these 'recorded' dates, large batches of these 'Irish' rifles turned up in (presumably.....) 80's British Ordnance supplied stocks in the hands of Afg hands. And why they STILL turn up on ex British Army marked rifles, recently sold off into the US, as I explained.

I appreciate that the Irish issue is being clouded by some of the red-herring respondents here so far, but the simple facts thus far just seem to speak for themselves.
Why would a neutral state with (and let's not mix words here.....) with a tiny Defence Force and financial budget* to boot want more rifles and MG's than the British Army of the same era?
Why have these rifles turned up elsewhere.

* Their Def Fce budget was so small that they couldn't afford to buy 250 Sterling SMG's in 1956 and Sterling couldn't lower the already cut-to-the-bone price

( amended: Para 2, line 4 not worded right but you get the point)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

This story is getting better every day. It's starting to explain the Lee Enfield's role in the cold war. All we need now is a little Ian Fleming and some good 007 Bond music. A couple of questions:
1) Why didn't the CIA:
- get the Greek HXP 303 ammo that we are now buying for surplus ( or maybe they got most of it. All my HXP is dated '69 and '75. Maybe the CIA got all the production from all except those years)
- buy the Irish surplus rifles?
- buy stocks of Ishapore Enfields that were in abundance and nearby in India?

---

Why buy from India (a neutral power during the Cold War, they weren't exactly with us, but they weren't against us either) when Canada, the U.K. and potentially other allies have a large stockpile of NIB rifles just ready to go (and depending on the circumstances might not have even had to buy the rifles as sometimes these things were given away if it was a 'good' cause).

I also imagine for the Greek HXP it was more the fact that everyone else had surplus ammo rather than just Greece (like we are seeing now).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Why would a neutral state with (and let's not mix words here.....) with a tiny Defence Force and financial budget* to boot want more rifles and MG's than the British Army of the same era?

---

Peter, what I'm going to postulate here is PURE SPECULATION, but it is based on some knowledge of the Irish-English antagonism that dates from the 1600s and only in the last twenty years has begun to wane, ever since the Good Friday accords of 1998 (the day was quite symbolic).

If we bear in mind that the Irish have a long memory of English antagonism (I personally understand this being of Irish-English heritage); and the Irish considered themselves enslaved by the British (every "real Irishman" can cite the Battle of the Boyne -1690, or the Potato Famine -1849-52, or the Bloody Sunday Massacre -1920 as defining moments in their history), then what I'm speculating has some relevance. Ireland saw itself as a divided country, with 1/6th of its land mass still partitioned off as Northern Ireland, a part of Great Britain. In Irish eyes, Northern Ireland sat as the site of an alien occupational force.

In 1949 Ireland was finally declared a Republic, receiving full autonomy of rule from England. Sinn Fein and the IRA were still very active (many of us still recall the IRA bombings in London only a few decades ago).

It is fully possible (although I have never seen documentation on this, and if there is any, it would be in the heads of the IRA) that Ireland was thinking about arming a citizen militia (much like colonial America did) to reclaim Northern Ireland with a citizen's force (lead by the IRA) marching on Belfast -- a liberation from the evil oppressor and a unification of the country.

Now this might seem far-fetched in today's world, but, as an amateur historian, I can say it would not be outside the realm of possibility in 1953-4. Obviously it didn't happen, and saner minds prevailed. But given the history of Sinn Fein and the IRA between 1949 and 1998, a "free Northern Ireland" initiative cannot be ruled out, and there are still scattered efforts for unification to this day.

Peter, this may explain your very astute and reasonable speculation.

Mmmmm......... Some, but not me you understand, with a view to a sympathetic market place might wish to capitalise on the sympathies associated with this enslavement, the British tyranny, heavy yoke of oppression and the sympathies that go with our tryrannical past might argue that the feisty Irish connection was a good selling point. But not me you understand.......

Captain Laidler:


Regarding no one else seeing the records:


Fair comment but prior to this no one has asked. So I will send you the 11 April 2000 letter to Graham Priest, whom I am pretty sure you know. That establishes the purchase quantity and remaining quantity of arms on hand as of early 2000. As this research belongs to him, I am not posting it on this site, but I am sure he would not mind if you had a copy. Please see your private Email.


With regards to that letter, it also establishes a method by which a rifle and bayonet combination can reasonably be assigned as being Irish issue. More on that in another post.


Also in all future posts I will also provide the source material for each and every assertion.


Regards

Frederick303

After reading some of Hansard's record of House of Commons debates I think I understand it. They rearmed the Irish government so it would be able to control the IRA and stop attacks along the border with Northern Ireland. Giving them Lee Enfields makes sense. It arms them but not strong enough to be a threat if the government should fall.

Commons Sittings in the 20th century (Hansard)

And by the way.

Lord TREFGARNE HL Deb 24 June 1980 vol 410 cc1475-7

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is disappointed about the Minister who is answering his Question today. His Question is, however, tabled to the Government and I answer for the Government, as do all other Ministers from this Box. As for military aid to the insurgents, which the noble Lord was suggesting, the Afghan opposition to the Soviet Union appears 1476 to be sustained without external assistance. The main source of weapons for the insurgents seems to have been those obtained from Afghans defecting from the Afghan army and also those that they have captured from the Russians. I should like to make it quite clear that the United Kingdom have not supplied arms to the insurgents, as has been suggested. Indeed, the suggestions that we and various other nations instigated the fighting in Afghanistan by supplying the arms are of course quite untrue.

Rick