Irish Contract Enfield question.

[Thunderstreak]

I have been trying recently to educate myself about the Irish Contract Enfield Rifles. I have a Fazakerly built 1956 No4 Mk 2 that is marked “F 56 FTR” as opposed to “UF 56”. I can’t see any markings on it to give evidence of a previous life before the FTR. I have read that these were possibly put together from new parts but marked “FTR” for some reason.
Can anyone enlighten me on the history and story behind these rifles?

[Sapper740]

I have been trying recently to educate myself about the Irish Contract Enfield Rifles. I have a Fazakerly built 1956 No4 Mk 2 that is marked “F 56 FTR” as opposed to “UF 56”. I can’t see any markings on it to give evidence of a previous life before the FTR. I have read that these were possibly put together from new parts but marked “FTR” for some reason.
Can anyone enlighten me on the history and story behind these rifles?

I've read the Irish Contract rifles are supposed to be in the PF309308 to PF359347 range and manufactured in 1951-52. There’s a lot of debate regarding exactly what an Irish Contract rifle is with some people arguing that only those rifles with serial numbers in that range are Irish Contract rifles. Apparently no one knows for sure which rifles were actually delivered to Ireland and other people consider any Lee-Enfield No. 4 Mk. 2 rifles delivered to Ireland to be Irish Contract rifles. Your rifle should have a UF prefix which they started using in 1954? if memory serves me correct. Are the parts all matching or are they 'force matched'?

[Low & Slow]

the Irish Contract rifles are supposed to be in the PF309308 to PF359347 range and manufactured in 1951-52.

Curious, is this a typo? I've got PF340620, and it's dated 1/55.

[Thunderstreak]

A few more detailed pictures to help with the mystery!

[lyman1903]

I have learned that those date\serial # lists should be taken with a grain of salt,

I posted a thread a will back on Gunboards when I found a few rifles (No 4's) that were dated outside the 'window' that serial number should have been in,

[Alan de Enfield]

I have learned that those date\serial # lists should be taken with a grain of salt,

I posted a thread a will back on Gunboards when I found a few rifles (No 4's) that were dated outside the 'window' that serial number should have been in,

I think as anyone who has written 'anything' containing historical data / details will acknowledge, the information is only as good as what was available "at the time". As more and more collectors find, or release some of their previously, unseen documents it shows how much we may have been 'wrong'.

Example : The Internet 'fable' of better steel used by Ishapore for the 2a / 2A1 rifles has finally (hopefully) been put-to-bed following information from the Ishapore "Proof Master"

[John H Turner]

As this thread relates to a Faz No4 with FTR markings I thought I would add the following. I have a No4 mk1/2 that has Maltby 1943 markings on the action body along with 1955 (F) FTR markings.
Apart from the action body, all other parts including the bolt and barrel are marked F54 or F55.
It would appear that the rifle was totally rebuilt using all new parts other than the action body. The bolt, action body, magazine and forend have matching numbers and the rifle looks to be in almost new condition.
Is this typical of a rifle that has been through FTR?

[Thunderstreak]

It appears to be all matching. Bolt, receiver and magazine all have the serial number engraved on them. All components appear original though I haven’t taken the time yet to cross check every stamp. I see no evidence of any markings being removed or re-stamped. It appears to be a “new” first run rifle, not a “FTR”. I am by no means an expert but every FTR rifle I’ve seen has some evidence of its previous life.

[Alan de Enfield]

It appears to be all matching. Bolt, receiver and magazine all have the serial number engraved on them. All components appear original though I haven’t taken the time yet to cross check every stamp. I see no evidence of any markings being removed or re-stamped. It appears to be a “new” first run rifle, not a “FTR”. I am by no means an expert but every FTR rifle I’ve seen has some evidence of its previous life.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...007994_z-1.jpg

The fact the rifle is marked as having an FTR at the Fazakerley factory in 1956 tends to suggest that it has been FTR'd.

An FTR would replace worn parts such that rifle was at least 80% as good as new (80% life remaining)

The serial number is A8783, a range which predates the UF series by some years

[GeeRam]

It appears to be all matching. Bolt, receiver and magazine all have the serial number engraved on them. All components appear original though I haven’t taken the time yet to cross check every stamp. I see no evidence of any markings being removed or re-stamped. It appears to be a “new” first run rifle, not a “FTR”. I am by no means an expert but every FTR rifle I’ve seen has some evidence of its previous life.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...007994_z-1.jpg

Its an oddity.
'56 was when they changed over to the new numbering, and the UF A**** numbering, so the A**** number could be right and because its a low number and a new system, the lazy scouser forgot the UF prefix......
But, that wouldn't account for the FTR stamping.....apart from its Faz