A question for Captain Laidler on AM contract .22 SMLE conversions

Sir, I have seen you upon occasion comment upon the AM marked .22 SMLE MKIII conversions; it seems to be your opinion that the rifles were converted for an “Air Ministry contract”. After examining a number of these rifles, I doubt that story for a few reasons as follows.

1) The action body is not marked as No 2 MK IV rifle. From the Parker-Hale markings that are on all of the rifles I have seen, the rifles were converted in 1936 or later. Having seen one No 2 MK IV with a dated RAF stock disc from 1937 that does have the NO 2 MK IV marking (not one of the AM contract), the lack of No 2 MK IV marking seems troublesome on a rifle intended for the RAF or any British service.

2) Having seen a RAF marked No2 MK IV from 1937, why are none of the AM-xxxx serial range rifles marked with any sort of information on the stock disc? Not one of the rifles I have seen has any RAF or other unit markings, which seems to be common these rifles.

3) The action ring was ground on every rifle I have seen to remove the previous serial number range and so mount the new AM-xxxx serial number range. You have previously described in depth how the REME regulations always required the old markings to be visible, and that old serial numbers were always lined out.

4) The rifle barrels I have examined on the AM contract are all Parker Hale rifles, that is sleeved old .303 barrels. Every other variant of (lithgow, Isahapore, Enfield) No 2 MK IV barrel I have seen has had a solid barrel. Not sure if that is at all significant, but I have never seen a tubed barrel on a British contract No 2 MK IV rifle.

5) In Ian Skennerton’s book on British contracts from 1935 to 1945 he identifies two contracts from Parker Hale, one for 2000 rifles recovered from DP rifles and one for 2,975 rifles taken over from Enfield. Ian Skennerton does mention in his book that these contracts might not be complete listings. I have seen rifles of Parker Hale vintage that match the characteristics of both of those contracts (some DP marked, with those marks lined out and other No 2 MK IV rifles without any DP marks visible). Both of those rifles types meet all of the other No 2 MK IV characteristics, including the action body markings and all retain the old serials numbers 9though I have never really looked for sleeved barrels on these rifles). As such I doubt that the AM-xxxx marked rifles fall within either of these contracts.


Of course I do not have the background or access to information that you have, and as such I was wondering if you could address these issues. Is there a clear contract for these rifles from the “Air Ministry” and if so how did they end up in Ireland? I ask as a student and if you do not have the answers that is no problem, but I am curious if you have some information on these rifles that might not be currently common knowledge.

Thanks in advance

Frederick 303

First, I want you to tell me where you are based, what size sample you are relating your information to and a little about yourself.

Sir,

I am located in Pennsylvania (United States)

The sample size I am talking about is over 20 rifles from serial number AM 621 to AM 1534. (I do not have my list in front of me at the moment) I have heard about rifles outside of this range, but have not seen them directly. As far as other SMLE .22 caliber No 2 MKIV rifles, 2 Parker-hale rifles built on DP marked actions, 1 on a rifle not DP marked, 3 Lithgow conversions (Post WWII), 2 Ishapore (post WWII) conversions and 5 Enfield conversions between 1933 and 1938. The 1937 RAF marked rifle I referred to was on a 1936~37 dated barrel Enfield conversion if my memory is correct.

As far as myself I am primary interested in Lee Enfield target rifles, though anything Lee Enfield is of interest to me. At the moment I have been researching Irish Lee Enfields, which is why I asked you this question. I have most of the standard works, all three editions of Skennerton’s works, a signed copy of your No 4 sniper booklet, your booklet on the No 32 scopes (bought from Mr. Payne) and a copy of your booklet on Disc markings. I have Maj. Reynolds 1960 Enfield book and quite a few small bits related to regulation and target tuning of all the Lee Enfields. This line of questions falls out of any of these texts. Not sure if that is what you are looking for regarding me personally, if there is something specific, please feel free to ask.

If you need a reference, Ed Horton knows me indirectly through his son. We have corresponded in the past, live within a few hours of each other but have never quite managed to meet.

Now you have my curiosity, why did you want this information? Did the manner of my question offend? If so that was not my intent. Should I PM you directly?

Thanks for that Fred303. I like to know who I'm writing to if it's a Q and A. And no, I don't take any offence at all to any question or doubt. None at all, being too old and wise for that.

My answer earlier was based on me, like you, having seen about 20+ or so of these AM prefixed .22" No2 rifles. Those I have seen and noticed have passed through our big workshops in the past and until as recently as the 90's or so and usually all came from the big Public School CCF's and the RAF ATC Cadet units (these are MoD funded Cadet corps).

I only noticed the prefixes in the same way that any Armourer would soon learn that some Brens, Stens and, say No7 rifles carried an LB or VS or BS prefix. That these rifles carried an AM prefix, came from the old RAF ATC units and the RAF part of the School CCF's would indicate to me that they were provisioned by the RAF in the early 50's from their training stocks. On the other hand, if anyone out there can offer a better explanation of the initials AM, indicating Air Ministry, as it was known before the Air Ministry was absorbed into the MoD, when applied to RAF issued kit, then let me know. While I'm not a historian, I am always willing to learn.

Same as the seemingly ground body where a previous serial number might have been. I said that ARMOURERS would not grind out the old information. What the manufacturers choose to do is a metter for them and the Air Ministry

As a fuurther matter, the large RAF Station at Abingdon had an medium sized armoury full of these, No2, 7 and 8 rifles for the local Cadet Forces (and yes, I did make sure my No7 had afull compliment of spares before they closed it down......) and while these were a mixed bunch, a lot(?) were also numbered AM as were some of the No8's marked AcrownM on the butt socket. Air Ministry or just coincidence................?



As to how so many came to end up in Ireland, it's anyones guess. Maybe the Air Ministry sold them hundreds in the 50's.

Sir,

Thank you for your very good information, which does clarify some questions I had about these rifles and pretty much establishes the conversions were done in the UK. Unfortunately it also leaves other questions, as the FF marked .22 conversions all seem to cluster in one range at the high end of the serial number range.

Have you seen rifles with serial numbers higher than AM 1534?

Frederick,

this link is to a web site where I have listed rifles by serial numbers along with comments of the owners

http://home.earthlink.net/~smithkaia...lists/id2.html

It may be of some help to you.

Regards

Amatikulu

This link is to parts used on a spitfire fighter plane during WW2. Note the number of parts that have a serial number starting with "AM" - It might be circumstantial but sure looks to support the "AM" indicating Air Ministry.

http://www.warbirdsite.com/museumspitfire.html

And another linking AM to Air Ministry

http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/aviati...ape-axe-11010/

This is just my 2pence worth but I can tell you that in the RAF we dont like having differnt items with similar numbers. As the .22s were conversions of full bore .303s, they would not like having the original numbers present as this can cause confusion as to what weapons they were. The cadet units weapons were looked after by a parent unit, in the case of my old ATC unit in the Lake district, they are looked after by the Parent unit RAF Leeming (Coincidently, I was posted to the Armoury at Leeming when I joined the RAF) which is 70 miles away (present day) which is about 1 1/2 hours away due to traffic. The everyday weapon checks and issues were carried out by the ATC Officers and NCOs of the Volounteer reservists who had little to no training. It makes sence to me that all previous markings were removed to prevent paperwork being f**ked up!

Its also worth rembering that the RAF had seperate contracts to the Army and probably had diffrent criteria, just like the DP No4s, I never once observed a L59, all we had were RAF DPd No4s with the big hole bored top to bottom through wood and metal alike, and the firing pin was cut short. The bolts were all standard bolts, not the copper plate special weakend bolts. When I was about 16 I took my No4 in to the cadet unit and swopped the bolts (For ****s and gigs) and there was nothing to stop it.

We RAF just love to be special!

It just occured to me that being the Stiff upper lip Brits that we are, and loving all things British, perhaps the A.M. signifies its a Aston Martin contract!! Found in a green velour and leather lined gun slip, custom crafted into the boot (trunk) lid.

That made me chuckle BP. British sense of humour too! In keeping with the AM and why some (?) of these rifles came from Ireland, I am reminded of the fact that when the little Sterling company (of SMG fame) were producing the Mk4 gun for sale commercially, many nations told them that they didn't want the Mk4, they wanted the British Army version, the L2A3. The Sterling company told them that the Mk4 WAS the L2A3 but certain property rights meant that they couldn't call the commercial gun an L2A3. So a compromise was worked out that you'll see to this day whereby the commercial/non UK Government Mk4 Sterlings have L2A3 in brackets after the Mk4.

Maybe other buyers wanted the same No2 rifle that the RAF had so they got them with AM numbers. Same meat just different gravy so to speak!

We used to make a certain machine for commercial sale and we also made a special for the MoD, which had a NSN. The only difference was a lock and a key to disable the programming function. We sold it at a substantial premium, even though to buy the locks in must have cost about fourpence, and many other customers bought this version just because it had a NSN.