Irish (?) contract No4 rifles

Well folks have been debating this entire No4 Mk II Irish order for some time now so I suppose it is time to summarize the research data collected to date, the sample of rifles and conclusions reached.

Here are the primary sources and what Information is contained in them (summary form):

1) Letter from the Irish archives to Graham Priest in April 2000 confirming that they purchased 50,000 No4 Mk II rifles between 1954 and 1956 with the following serial ranges:

PF 301548 to PF 405415
UF55 A152 to 55A A21266 (some in this range, not every one)
PF309348 (official start of Irish range) was purchased by Irish Army, sold in 1994
None were supplied in the PF 35x,xxx range

2) In same letter confirmation on No 9 bayonets being used for Karl Gustav M45 submachine guns.

3) Letter from MOD to Irish researcher, shared with me that show the official sales and when they were made. The data is as follows:

1991 5,889 including .22 cal rifles
1993 20,000
1994 8,000
1996/1997 16,000
Total: 49,000 (~889 of the first sale were .22 cal Mk III conversions)

4) Response on request of arms held as of 2004 in Irish Army stocks: Email provided informal survey of arms held in museums in Ireland as well as what remained in army stores as of fall 2003 (including No4 T rifles, Mauser 1871 and SMLE rifles at various museums).

5) Reference in document on adoption of the Karl Gustav M45 submachine gun from 1954 referencing that in addition to the trial submachine guns, 500 No4 Mk II rifles were supplied, makes reference to Indent to Britishhttps://www.milsurps.com/autolinker/images/link6.gif MOD regarding supply of these 500 rifles in summer 1953.

6) Records published on Milsurps regarding MOD sales of No4 MK II rifles to the trade in 1956, which contained the record of one Irish range rifle being sold to Alex Martin in May 1956 (serial number PF 314512)


From importers and folks in the Gun trade

7) Several accounts from former FCA soldiers involved in inventorying and packing the No4 Mk II rifles from Irish stocks in late 1996 to the final shipment in 1997.

8) Verification form Century arms they did import arms directly from Ireland and also the final lot sold in 1996 being imported into Canadahttps://www.milsurps.com/autolinker/images/link6.gif.

9) Information from Century arms on the countries they did, and did not import rifle from. Verification From Century employee that no Enfield’s were imported from Burma (reason for this will be clear later)

10) Email from Former FCA member as to marking of and use of DP No4 MK II rifles and their disposition (none were sold, all were dumped in Irish sea)

11) Discussion with Charles Stein of SARCO on the final sale of Irish guns from Century imports in 2002, lack of parts sales from Ireland, with the possible exception of No 4 MkII Forends.

12) Correspondence with agents in UK familiar with the initial offering of Irish No4 MK II rifles from 1989 to 1990. That confirmed how it came to be that Century got the entire order. Also continued information of the surplus sales coming out of Donnington in the 1989 to 1998 time period. Part of the problem with identifying a Irish No 4 Mk II rifles is that at the same time these arms were being sold off by the UK.

13) Information provided by German collectors on the 2 lots of Irish rifles that ended up at Franconia (one of SMLE and one of No 4 Mk II). These rifles show up in Germanyhttps://www.milsurps.com/autolinker/images/link6.gif and Austriahttps://www.milsurps.com/autolinker/images/link6.gif as identified by proof marks.

14) Correspondence with fellows involved in the export of Irish rifles from Century purchased stocks to Australiahttps://www.milsurps.com/autolinker/images/link6.gif in early mid 1990s. Explained why some of these rifles show up in New Zealand and Australia. As a side benefit an insight into the decline of Interarms in the early to mid 1990s

Collected Rifle Data summary:

As of 7 August 2015 a total of 930 No4 MK II rifles that fall in the suspected Irish lots are in the database, along with another 128 guns that fall near too, but are not likely to have been in that lot. All observations on identifying an actual Irish issued rifle are based on examination of these rifles and unique features they seem to have. ) Survey of all rifles coming up for sale in USAhttps://www.milsurps.com/autolinker/images/link6.gif, some overseas, posted on-line and seen at collector shows that Irish guns seem to come in 5 main blocks.

Here is the summary of Irish No4 MK II issue:

The Irish army sometime in 1953/54 obtained 500 No 4 MKII rifles from the British. Exactly what was done with them and from what serial number range is not published. In 1954 a large quantity of rifles were received, followed by another lot in post August 1955 or early 1956. The rifles were first issued to the Irish army in early 1956, followed by the FCA in either late 1956 or early 1957. The only combat use was in the Congo in 1960/61. The regular army started the transition to the Belgiumhttps://www.milsurps.com/autolinker/images/link6.gif made FAL in 1961, the FCA did not make the transition to the FAL until the regular army was re-equipped with the Steyr Aug in 1988/89. With the full replacement of the Enfield in 1989, the first lot of used rifles was set up for sale in 1990, Of the 5889 rifles, 5000 were likely No4 MK II and 889 (or 989) were of the .22 cal No 1 MK III conversions (AM marked).

The second sale of 20,000 in 1993 included both used and new rifles. Of this lot some rifles were sold/transferred to Franconia in Germany. Most of the 3rd lot in 1994 and all of the 1996/97 were still in New-In-Wrap.

The rifles still in wrap were packed as follows when examined by Irish soldiers doing the inventory in 1996. 5 rifles were packed to a wooden case, each one enclosed in a sealed paper wrap, along with a Enfield 1954 No 9 bayonet and scabbard. Metal parts were coated with grease. In the inventory, part of the process was to verify each and every one of the serial numbers. As such each rifle was pulled from its case and the paper slit open over the action body so the serial number could be verified.

The final 16,000 were sent to Canada in 1997. After 5 years most if not all were transferred to the US, where they were announced in 2002 as being for sale.

Serial Numbered Bayonets:

There have been some questions as to if the bayonets were serialed to the rifles in the UK or Ireland. Based on the evidence collected the answer is Ireland. The reasons are as follows:

1) The UK did not serial rifles to bayonets at that time.
2) The Irish most certainly did, as evidence by the serialed No9 bayonets that have Karl Gustav serial numbers applied, all of which are Enfield locke No9 bayonets from 1953 or 1954 (3 samples examined out of 600). The stamp lettering/numbers are identical to those that appear on the Irish rifles. FCA personnel confirmed the bayonets had rifle serial numbers.

3) A number of serial numbers rifles that look identical in wear to the known Irish contract but in other ranges show up with the exact same serial pattern marked Enfield 1953 and Enfield 1954 bayonets. In particular a number of these rifles fall in the Burma contract numbers, and yet have identical Century Arms import markings. Because of this folks have thought that the markings on the bayonets must have been done prior to shipment overseas. A source within Century verbally indicated to me that no imports of Burma No4 Mk II rifles occurred post 1968.

4) A small number of the bayonets seem to show up with later serialed numbers, which can be determined by the fact that the stamps are of a different model.

What were the Irish No4 MK II serial ranges?
From the Irish Ministry of defense:
PF 301548 to PF 405415
UF55 A152 to 55A A21266 (some in this range, not every example)
PF309348 (official start of Irish range) was purchased by Irish Army, sold in 1994
None were supplied in the PF 35x,xxx range

So from the Irish Archives we end up with a range of 93,867 serial numbers in the PF range and 21,114 serial numbers in the UF55 A range for a total range of 114,981 of which 50,000 were accepted out of this range. The question then becomes, can that range be narrowed down?

So starting a number of years ago I stated collecting serial numbers of rifles that fell in those ranges. After a bit of time a pattern appeared and the following ranges of serial numbers seemed to show up:

Serial start Serial stop Action dates Interval Sample size
PF 309113 PF 309210 6/53 97 5
PF 301548 PF 302637 8/53 1,089 6
PF309031 -- Bayonet only 1 1
PF 361698 PF 370458 9/53 to 10/53 8,760 44
PF 37209x PF 374366 10/53 to 11/53 2,275 7
PF 309348 PF 326296 11/53 to 3/54 16,948 203
PF376084 PF 377307 4/54 1223 3
PF309911 -- 5/54 1 1
PF 336425 -- 10/54 1 1
PF 405396 PF 405415 3/54 to 11/54 20 1
PF 326606 PF340900 11/54 to 1/55 14,294 215
UF55 A152 UF55 A21266 1955 21,114 443
Totals: 65,823 930

One of the primary means used to verify a rifle in a range was Irish issued was the presence of a serialed bayonet, as long as that bayonet had the same font and stamp type as all others. In a few examples, it was apparent someone had stamped the bayonet to the rifle with a different pattern stamp. Those samples were ignored.

In any case the above allows the 50,000 accepted block to be bracketed into a ~65,000 range. From the above date we can arrange the serial number blocks into 5 ranges (see table below). With 930 rifles from a returned base of 49,000 we have a 1.89% sample, more or less. That is a sufficiently large sample to be able to make some assumptions on the number of rifles from each block.

Serial range Number of rifles Samples found percentage
PF 3015498 to PF 302673 1089 6 0.55%
PF 361698 to PF 377307 12,258 54 0.44%
PF 309113 to PF 340900 31,339 426 1.36%
PF 405396 to PF 405415 20 1 5.0%
UF55 A152 to A 21266 21,114 443 2.1%
Overall sampling Figure (of 49,000 sold) 1.89%

The first thing that jumps out is the UF55A rifles seem to be over represented. This makes sense for a few reasons:

1) Century bought rifles of this same serial number range from Donnington

2) There is a thread on Gunboards devoted to these serials; over 100 of them in the range of interest have been posted.

3) Higher value guns show up on Gunbroker more, giving the very high price these like new guns achieve on gunbroker, they seem to be over represented.

4) This affects all the rifles, the more unissued ones in a range, the more likely it is to be put up on gunbroker rather than sold locally.

As such the UF55 A series was ignored and the analysis done on the other rifles. Based on that the general expected distribution looks like this:

Rifle serial range Expected # out of 50,000 Expected # of 49,000 % of 49,000
PF 3015498 to PF 302673 ~500 ~490 1.22%
PF 361698 to PF 377307 ~4,500 ~4,410 1.22%
PF 309348 to PF 340900 ~31,150 ~30,530 1.37%
PF 405396 to PF 405415 ~20 ~20 5.0%
UF55 A152 to A 21266 ~13,830 ~13,550 2.1%
Total expected figure 50,000 ~49,000 1.89%

There are limits to the above analysis and these must be born in mind: Between serial number PF309348 and serial number PF 340900 almost all of the rifles in this block were sent to Ireland. Of a sample size of 418 rifles, only 4 of them seem to have been not in Irish service. One was sent to India, 2 was worked over by Parker hale and did not leave the UK. One imported from UK by an importer other than Century. So of the 31,552 rifles that fall in this block, around something like 31,150 ended up in Ireland. But much more than that cannot be projected

Final note:

Based on the above, most collectors want to know if there rifle has been or is likely to have been sent to Ireland or not: here are a few signs that a rifles has almost certainly been to Ireland:

1) The rifle is used and has an attached bayonet that has the serial number of the rifle, including the prefix attached. The only caveat to that is the serial number must be of the correct stamping font, which the interested user can research on line by looking at PF marked bayonets.

2) If sealed in wrap, then the following is required:

1) There must be a cut over the action body so that the serial number can be read
2) There should be a D-54 No 9 bayonet in an identical wrap included in with the rifle.

The bayonet will be wrapped in grease in an identical manner. The blade will be bright, not parked. The packing date on the rifle will be no later than August 1955. The bayonet may well be missing, as the bayonets while packed with the rifles, were not attached to the wrapped rifles.

As such the most difficult rifle to make a positive ID as Irish is any of the UF55 A152 to A21266 rifles.


Anyway that is the relevant research and results to date on these rifles. There are a small number of anomalies that I do not know quite how to quantify, such as the PF 309031 to PF309210 rifles (at least one in this range was Irish). The serial numbers also contain some anomalies such as out of sequence dating and rifles that seem to have not been ever to Ireland based on work done to them. I have a bit more data on the rifles such as expected odds of being issued from any given range, but as this post is a wee bit unwieldy I thought I would leave it at that.

Cheers

Frederick

Anyone know how to get a table in or correct the formatting for columns?

Try taking a .jpg of the page using Scannit or a similar program, or scanning a paper page as a jpg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

So at the end of the emergency

---

what emergency?

I think only twice did the british sell enfields to the Irish.

First time was during thier civil war. Churchill was so enthusiastic about that that he wanted to sell them 18 pounders as well. he shared your view of the irish pete.

the other time was this 50 k rifle deal. wasn't Churchill Prime minister when that deal went through?
.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

Reading between the lines, the Brits, who, at the time, were less than trusting of the Irish (and vice versus), figured they could sell the Irish shed load of soon to be obsolete rifles and keep the production lines at Fazakerley running and the union happy. Obviously it required MoD to approve the sale, which made political and economic sense as well. MoD was probably quite aware of the phase-out/phase-in schedule for the new NATO rifles -- something the Irish were not aware of.

---

the problem with reading between the lines is that it allows a very broad spectrum of interpretation that allows us to argue almost any point of view. The reality is that the british may not have trusted the Irish but there is no evidence that selling them "obsolete" rifles supports this. The Irish trusted the brtiish only as much as they needed to.and there is no indication on the diplomatic front to indicate ta lack of trust. After all the british sold them the rifles didnt they. Probably both the british and the irish considered the possibility that the rifles could be used against the british and it was laughed off as almost inconcievable. I think that in the flawed context that most people think of. it was more likely that british soldiers were likely to sell thier rifles to the IRA than the republic in the south issueing them to the IRA. What many fail to realise is that the IRA caused as many problems in the republic as they caused in the north. and it was a relatively quiet time during the 50's. very few, some, but few of these Irish contract rifles every went north in aid of the IRA.

You may remember that the british were also selling the same rifle converted to 308. The Irish could have bought those rifles but chose the 303 most likely because they had stocks of other rifles and bulk ammo in 303. Considering who thier most likely enemies ( not just single unwed mothers) could be, there was no need to upgrade and modernise. It made economic and logistical sense. and the same descision was made in the US before WWII and by the british them selves just befor WWI. so with the same considerations involved why wouldn't the Irish make the same choice.

Did they keep the factory open to make this run of rifles? I dont know why I think this but It was my impression that the rifles were alresdy made and on the shelf the british were looking for customers. These rifles were made solely to keep people employed. there was never any ready made market for them and with so any weapons left over from WWII , America giving away modern rifles and new ones comming off the line. The irish had a vertually unlimited choice and yet they went with the 4/2's in 303. brand new rifles, well designed, in a caliber supported by thier logistics. at dirt cheap prices. the choice was clear, simple and correct.

the fact that the irish were not aware of the nato switch over to 308 is pretty much a myth. The 308 had been around commercially way before nato considered it. Several rounds were submitted to nato for consideration, not just the 308, the british and several other european countries submitted rounds for consideration. America;s submission was the 308. but at the time of the irish deal there had been no firm descision on a choice. Its safe to say that with the overwelming influence of the US the 308 was the clear choice. in retrospect but at the time there was no certainty. every member of nato knew this because it was such a big deal. many cried foul but caved in due to America's willingness to assist them in the conversion. The Irish themselves went over to both FAL's and 308 only a few years later and joined the UN, With America;s economic support, it made as much sense as the irish contract choice did a few years earlier. It impossible to view any of these descisions by them selves or in a vaaccuum.

It would be all but impossible to conceal this pending nato 308 choce from the irish. No. the nato round choice was actualy irrelevent to the Irish. The british were selling them a small quantity of existing rifles in a calible compatible with existing munition stocks.They sold them at almost give away prices and in an "obsolete " caliber. Considering Irelands foreign policy, it was unlikely they would be going to war with anybody anytime soon. Considering all the elements. the irish got the best deal. If those rifles were comming off the line in real time it would have made no difference weather they were 308 or 303. except to the irish with thier existing stocks of 303, No , the claim that the irish did not know...its a myth. They got a really good deal all around considering what was out there on the market.

is it so difficult to separate the "irish element" from the equasion and come to the conclusion that it was a wise and insitefull choice. Why is it that in every respect the Irish are characterised as idiots and all thier choices were mistakes. Military history suggests otherwise and yet we persist in the stereotype. Lets start with the supposition that every choice the irish made was in thier own best interest and not mistakes..... it make the choice to buy 4/2's in 303 all the wiser. Why are the Irish so foolish and gullible to by 50K rifles in 303 when the Indians continued to make the mkIII's in both 308 and 303 and FAL's.and the Pakastani's....OMG! they took existing tooling, dies and jigs and ramped up production of the same rifle when everybody was going to 308 and FAL's. and both the Indians and the Pakastani's continued production how long? how many addition DECADES? And yet its the Irish with thier paltry 50K rifle purchase are the idiots, the fools. the gullible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

who is one of the best primary sources we have and is as close to the internal working of Commonwealth ordnance would not be in possession of the “real story”.

---

Was pete in the Irish army when the choice was made to purchase 50K rifles.

was it he, according to the minuts recorded in the Irish Parlement who argued the choice to purchase these 50 k rifles? The transcripts of those minutes confirm this?

in accordance with the deffinition of primary source, he is a primary source?

I bow in reverence.

I sure hope niether himself or anybody else is trying to rewrite history. Its no fun being the pupet master when sombody pulls back the curtain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

If you read the entire thread, you will see some folks have done the primary research, including letters from the Irish ministry of defense archives. There is a paper trail on these rifles, both in terms of acquisition records and disposition records. The official published letters from the MOD say 50,000 were purchased. the disposition/sales records say 49,000 were sold between 1991 and 1996. Both sources are Irish army Archives.

What Capt. Laidler is saying, and considering that he has been at the heart of the British MOD system for something like 50 years when the good captain speaks most of us listen, is that this information is wrong. He has not elaborated on exactly why but has stated that serial number lists he has seen back up his contention..

Given that the number of Brens to rifles should be at a rate of ~10 to 1, and the Irish only bought ~ 2,000 Brens, and retained ~10,000 SMLE until circa 1984 to 1987, it does give one pause with regards to the official published 50,000 figure of No4 Mk II rifles procured. 2,000 Brens to 60,000 rifles seems kind of off.

In any case the final declaration of truth will come between 2021 and 2026, when the Irish archives will open the records on the sales and the serial number lists will then become available.

---

I read the entire thread thank you. I dont dispute the existance of the irish contract. The record will show that I claim to own one of these rifles. I appriciate that there is sufficient documentation to confirm the contract exists. my concernis that it seems the sole source of confirmatio comes from one source and the excruciating details of the contract come from that same source. Primary.....maybe. Factual......maybe. Ill wait untill the documentation comes out.

Surely, at some point the Irish Dail discussed this matter and the munuts of thoses discusions and thier transcripts are a matter of public record. surely those transcript would support the facts. Those would be primary sources.

Mike, if I understand your last post correctly, you believe that you own one of the 50,000 "Irish contract" rifles? If so are you aware of any markings on the rifle that are peculiar to the Irish Defence Force that are not found on rifles that have seen service only with other armies? It has been suggested by others that sometimes Irish army equipment is marked, if I remember correctly, with an FF stamp??? Does the rifle have any broad arrow markings as well? Other than the serial number there seems to be very little to go on in trying to decide if a rifle has seen Irish service or not. Do any forum members living in the Irish republic know of any No4 mk2 Le-enfield rifles on public display in museums etc within the boundaries of the Irish republic? If so any-photos that can be put on this forum would be very welcome, please. What would be great is a picture of the entire rifle and a close up of the serial number and also the location of the museum, please.

mine has no markings to destinguish it as Irish property , other than the sn that falls inside the irish contract range of numbers. no broad arrow markings either.

The FF markings often refered to were stamped , by the Irish on rifles sold to them or left behind by the British when they pulled out,in 1923.

FF in a circle indicated Irish government property. Fianna Fail translates from the Gaelic into Army of destiny or Army of Ireland. Many FF marked rifles returned to England after Dunkirque. This information came from page 12 of an NRA publication British Enfield Rifles dated 2004.

Mine is a 4/2 and has no FF markings on it. I dont think any of the post war 4/2's had FF stamps on them. If they did its the first I ever heard of it.

wouln't some discuson of the purchase of these rifles have come up in the Dail or the Irish Parlement back when the purchase was considered? minuts of those discusions, are they a public record? Something must have been stated even if from an economic or financial context and as some aspect of the diplomatic dialoge and if not in the Irish parlement maybe the english parlement. The sale of these rifles may have showed up as very good news in the news papers around the same time consideing the employment/labor situation at the time. These sources need to be investigated too.

I 'm not understanding something here. Is it being claimed that the Irish contract never existed or that it was never completed and or that the rifles werenever delivered. or what exactly?

lots of people dont seem to realise that the FF marked rifles of 1923 and the later 1950's 4/2's deal were two different deals. Alot of people who dont know that also state other opinions as fact and confuse the issues. It is my understanding and that of many of us; that the "Irish contract" lee enfields refere only to the 4/2 deal in the 50's and not the 1923 deal. The 1923 deal included MkIII rifles, almost all of which were stamped FF in a circle. apples and oranges really

Just a few comments:

I am not sure why a letter from the Irish Army archives would not be considered a primary source, but checking the Irish Parliament debates might be worth while. That said on many of the WWII known Irish spares indents, the debate is over the sums of money, not each individual item on the desired procurement list.

As to special markings, the No4 Mk II rifles have no special markings. None are marked with the FF marking (to my knowledge). As stated above, the most likely indication of Irish service outside of the known contract range is a matching bayonet serialed to the rifle, in the correct font. As it would appear that virtually none of the UF55 A series were ever issued, only two rifles can be absolutely identified as being Irish that is Serial number A152 and serial number A21266.

In the list of rifles on display there is one No4 T rifle (deactivated) and one No 4 Mk II rifle at one museum, and one No 4 MK II was recently presented to I forget what organization ( I am away from home as I write this). As of the fall of 2003, the numbers of rifles left in stock were:

740 No4 MkII,
100 No4 MkII equipped with AJ parker TZ sights
49 No4 (T)

Since that time there is evidence at least some of the No 4 (T) rifles were broken up, as a number of the scopes have been put up for sale (~25) about 18 months ago.

In 2003 the Irish government had never sold any of the 1907 bayonets they had, some of which were rather rare models (all WWI pattern). I believe since then they were sold, but do not have confirmation on that.

At the time of the sale of the last sale of rifles in 1996, it was not legal for any center fire caliber above a .270 to be owned in the Irish republic on a firearm permit (not sure if they had a MOD permit). In any case the Irish soldiers involved in the inventory indicated in 1996 that none of the rifles were sold to soldiers who asked if they could purchase one.

In 2004 the Irish Free state allowed permitting of full bore rifles over .270 cal. If any of this remaining stock were sold after that to Irish I know not, but as Ireland is part of the UN arms treaty, the likelihood is rather suspect.

I hope to resolve a lot of the open issues on a trip to the archives this fall, and the results will be reported then. That is assuming the trip actually happens, as allowed by work schedule.

As regards the comments of Capt. Laidler: While the official records do not agree with his opinion, I do not disregard his opinion or say it is wrong. Far from it, I put down what records have turned up so he and others could poke holes in it. As stated previously, he has been at the center of the ordnance system since just after Lord Protector Cromwell, through the restoration, through the great fire of London in 1666, through the Napoleonic wars, through the Tower fire of 1839, The Sepoy rebellion, through all the rest since. He literally wrote the book on the Bren, the Sterling, The No4 T and the No 32 scope. To disregard his opinion would be very foolish indeed. He has forgotten more on these weapons than most of us will every know.

Correction: Capt. Laidler was an apprentice in 1963, not 1663. In any case the minor second digit error does not affect the validity of the argument.