Irish Contract No4 mk2

In the excellent book The British Enfield Rifles vol2 by Charles R. Stratton it seems to me reading the book to suggest that none of the 50,000 Irish contract No4 mk2 rifles were ever actually delivered to the Irish Defence Force. I have no idea where the information came from but it's the only time that I have seen it suggested that none of the rifles were delivered. I had thought that it was only the last few thousand that were not delivered from the last tranche. There seem to be a great deal of mistery and speculation about this.

search this forum, there was along thread about it in the last month or so.

Not my field but on the stuff that is, I am afraid that Stratton is far from error free.

Skip Stratton was working back in the early 1990s, at the very dawn of the internet age, at least as regards collecting oriented pages. He attempted to, (with what data he had) assemble a set of volumes to allow a fellow to figure out what parts were on his gun and where it fit in to the overall history. Of course with the ensuing 20 years of postings and research, his books are lacking in some ways, but I expect most Enfield collectors have a copy of each of his books on their shelves, just like we have Major Reynolds and Ian Skennerton's tomes.

It will be ever thus, the greatest volume of data published opens new questions and in 20 years the gaps are obvious.

I say it many time and I'll say it again. Writing books is a road to nowhere because the very first person to read your book IMMEDIATELY knows more than you do. He's reading it because he is interested of course. As such, he knows ALL that you have written PLUS the tiny bit he knew before............

Just after I'd written the Sten gun book, I had a call from someone to tell me that 'they' had also produced chrome plated versions too................ A chrome plated versions......... Not my idea of a wartime SMG camouflage option I thought............. But he told me it MUST be true because he saw one in the RAOC Depot in the 50's on a wood plinth, in a display cabinet awarded as a shooting prize!

While I hate to disagree with Capt. Laidler, I would respectfully suggest that the folks that have put down information in a book are often times limited by the need to cover a lot of material in a reasonable space. I think we would all have loved to have Major Reynolds posting Like Capt. Laidler does, what would he have posted with his background. What one can put into a write up is limited by the requirement to have a readable narrative. If you get too detailed, you will lose folks for example few folks are all that interested in the 29 possible variations of the front band assembly for the No4 rifle, including the original finish by year and factory, as well as various FTR and field/depot finishes.

Actually I can see that now, a full book called "the No4 Front Band Assembly, 1925 to 1989" with separate chapters on all of the UK, North American makers and rare versions such as Khyber pass and Indian refurbished ones. Milled stamped, fabricated with welds, all covered in detail. With chapters on how to tell the various finish originality by spectrographic light tests. Copies of each contract let out to UK manufacturers, as well as the variations allowed in the steel. A special chapter on the requirements for the band screw, its variations and a heat treating specs. Pictures of each of the factories or where they were located. Of course you would also need estimates on the manufacturer quantity of each and every band. I am sure a good basic book could be put together in ~300 pages and I am sure at least 11 copies could be sold in the US market alone. Of course 6 month later someone will come up with a duralumin band that sparks a new debate and the book will by then be seen as "dated" on the basis of new information.

Thanks Federick303, just had a look at the post, interesting stuff. Stratton also mentions that the contract was cancelled for political reasons, if it was. A more likely explination is that Ireland twigged tha t the rifles would soon be out of date

My problem with Stratton is not lack of information but actual errors. As an example, regulars here will know I take a great interest in (not to say am anal about) the marks on firearms. I don't know why, I just like them and what they can tell one about a firearm. I am unimpressed by Stratton on British marks.

Beerhunter

Last night I picked up my copy of Stratton's No4 book and I was amazed after reading through the many mistakes were in there. So I do see your point. At the same time because of his untimely death one has no idea how he would have revised to books had he more time on this globe.

I do recall his website back around 1996 and he had one of the early web boards, along with the gun and knife forum, that folks shared data and answered questions on Enfields. Back then I think all I had was Skennerton's first 198? Enfield book and the 1983 one he did on UK sniper rifles I, a lowly grad student corresponded with "Skip" back then and he was very much a gentlemen and a scholar. I have no doubt had he lived longer that he would have updated and revised his books to reflect the accurate knowledge.

When he was first writing back in the early 1990s it was a different world. The only Enfield related publication back then (at least in the US) was Greg Young's Enfield newsletter and he had a hard time getting enough content to keep it going. Also back then the number of arms we had access to was much restricted, as imports had closed in 1968, very few to no No4 Mk II were in the country, now was there much if any Ishapores or Lithgow's (other than a few that had gone through FTR in UK after WWII) prior to the late 1980s. Skennertons book was the "Bible" so to speak, though some advanced collectors had managed to get a copy of the Major Reynolds book, a rare tome unknown to those of us out in the rude provinces. For accuracy and bedding there was nothing, other than a few of the articles published in The American rifleman by Major Reynolds in the 1960s to early 1970s.

Professor Stratton stepped in and started the process of tabulating all of the parts variations and what they meant. Lots of it was actually in Skennerton, but a lot of the detail was not and by publishing when he did he helped the collecting fraternity a great deal.

Flying10UK,

Capt. Laidler disagrees and there are old posts on this site that discuss this, but there are letters in existence form the Irish Ministry of Defense that say they took a full 50,000 rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

My problem with Stratton is not lack of information but actual errors. As an example, regulars here will know I take a great interest in (not to say am anal about) the marks on firearms. I don't know why, I just like them and what they can tell one about a firearm. I am unimpressed by Stratton on British marks.

---

However at the time some probably were not errors it is only as information has come to light that we can see the mistakes. An interesting one is that ppl assumed the No4 mk2 started at PF100000, yet we have pictures now of a no4 mk2 stamped/etched PF97xxx dated 4/49. So about the only thing we can say is the swap over was about 4/49 and the number range seems to be continuous/consecutive.

Indeed I do disagree Fred (Thread 9, para 5) and others; but I disagree based on nothing more than the obvious facts, evidence of the point in question and what I call 'the bleedin obvious' Being old and wise, like yourself, I place these features slightly higher than government figures, smoke and mirrors and obfuscation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssj

However at the time some probably were not errors it is only as information has come to light that we can see the mistakes.

---

One example: Crowned BNP has stood for Bimingham Nitro Proof since 1954. It has never been British Nitro Proof". I could go on but that is just the one that I remember.

I am not trying to knock anyone here. I am just saying read Stratton with caution for all the reasons above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

One example: Crowned BNP has stood for Bi[r]mingham Nitro Proof since 1954. It has never been British Nitro Proof". I could go on but that is just the one that I remember.

---

Thanks Beerhunter. I for one may have perpetuated that mistake.

In a copy of a 1930s BSA catalogue there's an advertisement that says:

Official Proof of BSA Rifles & Shot Guns: In accordance with the terms of the Gun-Barrel Proof Act of 1868, every BSA Rifle and Gun is submitted to the severe official proof test before it is sold. One or more of the proof marks illustrated below will be found on BSA Rifles and Guns - on the barrels near the breech end and on the actions. [catalogue then shows the crown understamped with BV, BP. BM, or NP.]

I always "assumed" the "B" stood for "British" but we all know what it means to "*** u me." I'm out of the country in Canada on business at the momemt, so I don't have access to my collection, so I can't check this, but I seem to recall seeing the crown+BNP stamp on many versions of British guns exported to the US.

Could you shed some more light on the BNP stamps? Thanks

BV, BP and BM are pre-1954 Proof marks applied by the Birmingham Proof House. In each case the "B" refers to Birmingham, (as opposed to London). They were replaced post-1954 by BNP (for Nitro Proofed guns).

I think that I may have explained the British Proof system before ans so a search should find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beerhunter

BV, BP and BM are pre-1954 Proof marks applied by the Birmingham Proof House. In each case the "B" refers to Birmingham, (as opposed to London). They were replaced post-1954 by BNP (for Nitro Proofed guns).

---

Pardon my belabouring this, but I'd like to understand the nuances, which can be confusing to the non-Brit. Was the Birmingham Proof House a separate, independent entity from Birmingham Small Arms (BSA)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seaspriter

Pardon my belabouring this, but I'd like to understand the nuances, which can be confusing to the non-Brit. Was the Birmingham Proof House a separate, independent entity from Birmingham Small Arms (BSA)?

---

Yes. Absolutely. http://www.gunproof.com/ And there is an older Proof House in London Worshipful Company of Gunmakers Between them they have a Statutory responsibility for gun Proof in the UK.

Proof houses..... They really are nothing more than self perpetuating quasi autonomous non government organisations - or QUANGO's for short. who answer to............., well, nobody really knows! Let me put it like this.......... The way the quaint old 1860 rules were written and re-written since, when the UK Military buy weapons from abroad - and we ain't talking third world here but the likes of the USA and Canada..... and I mean well tried and tested weapons, like M-16's, Miniguns and L116's plus pressure bearing spares then regardless of the proofing or strict manufacturing processes/reigeme in the manufacturing Country, they have to be re-proofed in the UK at great cost. I mean, what does that say.......

And guess what - again......... The quaint 1860 rules mean that even a blow-back unlocked open bolt fired SMG barrel has to be proofed! Whatever for........? Even in service, even if it were made of the mildest of one-way trip mild steel, It CANNOT fail because the bloody breech block is blowing back!

Ain't answered your Q SS but you can see where I'm coming from

Couldn't agree more Peter.

There was time when they served a purpose but their testing methods are now archaic and in recent years they have started to get above themselves - making it up as they go along.

We have an opportunity to sort them out soon when the Law Commission looks at Firearms law.

BTW, there is no requirement in law for the Government to have firearms Proofed - they are exempt.

Frederick303's comments regarding the old days prompts me to make the following comments.

When I started collecting in 1972 the only book available was Reynolds and it had to be outlined to make sense. Skennerton's efforts were a parting of the clouds and sunlight appeared.

I was writing articles and answering questions for Mr. Young's Enfield Collector Digest newsletter. Through the Digest, Stratton contacted me about his proposed book and sent me a copy of his proposed questionnaire. I could not see how the questions would work as the responder would have to be very knowledgeable to correctly respond. I could not tell how he would handle the long lee conversions, receivers with two or three serial numbers. I have never heard how many responses he received as that would be an indicator as to how reliable his analysis is.

With his credentials as a retired Idaho University teaching Technical Writing, he did an excellent job of writing the book. Most of the information was taken from Skennerton's books, not based on his personal collection. I am not aware that he travelled in Europe viewing and researching weapons in the museums and the Pattern Room. Following his passing, his collection was sold at auction. I have the auction catalog and his EAL rifle. He had some very nice US military pieces but his British collection was with the exception of the EAL, bare bones with no scarce or sniper rifles and some rifles needed repair (missing small part, swivels etc.). The book collection offered was more US than British.

He certainly started an ambitious project but there is a better chance of it being accomplished now with the immediate responses and raised general knowledge forums can generate.

Thanks Captain & Beerhunter for this very helpful set of posts on BNP.

For you, this Proofing is just contextual in the British culture since 1868. But for us on the outside, cultural context is "invisible" and becomes a dark corner needing enlightenment.

The Proofing process in the UK has some parallels in the US with Underwriters Laboratories and in Canada with the Canadian Standards Association. The difference seems to be that in North America once a manufacturer has submitted their product to safety testing, the product line is then authorized to produce at that standards level, but not submit every single product to UL or CSA.

I do so love the Milsurps "league of masters" -- a delightful bunch of chaps. Thanks again for your daily contributions.

---------- Post added at 10:13 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:05 AM ----------
UPDATING STRATTON

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by breakeyp

reminiscences of Mr. Stratton

---

This seems like an opportunity for a team of experts to upgrade a source book. In the seamanship field, Chapman wrote a book in the 1920s. He updated it every decade. When he died in the 1950s, a team took over and keeps updating every decade, and everyone refers to it today; it is required reading as the reference for seamanship. Virtually every sailor worth his salt has it in his library. In my own profession (strategic alliances) I wrote a best practices handbook in 1995, updated it in 2002, and then turned it over to a joint venture team in our professional association in 2012 which turned it into a world-wide collaboration with inputs from Europe, Australia, and the Far East.

This seems like a great opportunity for an upgrade from a world-wide team and use Survey-Monkey for gathering data.

Capt . Laidler,

I acknowledge your disagreement and it has given me grounds for doubt, as I have no reason to doubt you in any way.

I have since been able to find a number of the early PF31x,xxx rifles in England, some of which went through Parker Hale. Of course I do not have access to files of the recovered serial numbers form various far off places. But it is sufficient to say that some of what you have said has been verified.

In any case I can only work with what official sources have said. according to the defense archives the actual sales contracts and serial numbers will be available between 2021 and 2026, so in ten years the dispute will be resolved for good, once those records are open.