Irish (?) contract No4 rifles

[Frederick303]

I will be adding a few more posts, as follows:

1) Irish SMLE 1939 to 1956.

2) The Irish .22 SMLE conversions, 1945 to 1991.

3) The M1917 in Irish service and disposal, 1940 to 1960

4) An analysis of the serials number ranges of the Irish No4 MkII: ranges seen and how to tell is a gun was likely send to Ireland.

5) Disposal of Irish weapons: Brief summary of when Ireland sold guns, to whom, where they went and what arms were dumped at sea. Not a complete record but all the data I have at this time.

It will be a few days as work heated up and I would prefer to put these posts out without some of the small typos the previous two ones had.

[Flying10uk]

Some years ago I seem to recall some fairly precise figures in the public domain on exactly how many Lee-enfield rifles were supplied to the Afgans in the early 1980s when the Western powers were pursuing a policy of plausible deniability with supplying weapons to Afganistan. I believe that some obsolete Blowpipe SAM rockets were also supplied around this time which didn't work too well? I believe the figures quoted on various T.V. documentaries were in the tens of thousands. Does anyone have any further information on the numbers, please?

[Peter Laidler]

Lee Enfields.........? Why not just write in with a FoI request. But don't hold your breath........

[Frederick303]

When I asked the US ATF for the import figures of each type and serial numbers (exact ranges), referencing the exact importer and the year of each lot, I was told ....No. Under the ATF published guidelines the data seems to fall under a valid FOIA request, though they can charge for any work they have to do. Did not get to that, just got form letter telling me no, and that I could appeal if I wanted.

[Peter Laidler]

While you are requesting the UK FoI info, maybe you could ask why loads of these Irish rifles were seemingly supplied to our '.....one time allies' - from UK Ordnance and.......... But like I say, don't hold your breath

[mike16]

sounds like you dont like the Irish,

maybe they bought so many because it suited them. since they are not a war like nation, it seems they would not need new expensive semi or fully automatic weapons. being that as it may, those rifles came cheap having been brand new and almost instantly obsolete. Rifles like that often sold for pennies on the dollar and maybe they had to buy in bulk or a minimum quantity to get the discount price. Also, its not entirely unknown to buy in volume if rifles experience attrition. Just about every nation did and does that.

The Brithish were not the only country to supply weapons to the war in Ahganistan, Nor were they the only ones supplying enfields. The afgans preferred the enfields and the world was scoured to find them for this war. it was not until latter that the younger generation of freedom fighters entered the fray that AK's were the choice. Both AKs and ammo was in plenty supply from all over the world easier logistics but the long range capabilities of the LE kept the russians and thier AK's out of the range of the afgans. So they were still a tactical tool on the battle front , in fact so much so that , supposedly Winchester ramped up a production line to manufacture the 303 ammo.

why is it so hard to call them the Irish contract LE's.

why couldn't some of them ended up as training or cadet rifles.

And in scouring the world for rifles the afgans older generation prefer why does it seem so impossible that some came from Irish stocks.

all of these facts are easy to wrap your head around. if you try.

would we all feel better if , for the sake of some appeasment or social correctness they not be called "Irish". It seems like a lot of effort to cast doubt on a batch of 50k rifles just because they are Identified with the Irish. It s alost like they are tainted in some way or thier status should actually be deminished in some way because they are british rifles and yet in the hands of the irish.

I for one am Catholic and Irish. I own an Irish contract Mk4/2. and specifically sought it out because of that connection. Would the term Hibernian Contract or Eirie Contract rifles be more acceptable. The scathing comments about the Irish are becoming needlessly offensive. I think we all get the whole conflict scenario that has occured over the last 700 years. do we need to open that old wound again in this forum. is it nessessarry or apropriate to slip in some offensive remarks at the expense of the irish. It might actualy diminish the credability laying on the remarks so.

otherwise... without primary source documentation. its all speculation. Somebody needs to do some research, rather than just cast speculation and doubt a....about the rifles that is. And leave out the Irish, some of us are kind and generous. Some may not know or recall bt a few of the people who sighned the latest peace accord were Irish.

Dont get me started about the Irish hero's.

be nice

[Peter Laidler]

Your comment in line 1, para one and several times elsewhere was a bit harsh Mike. I've had a quick browse through the whole thread again - only a quick browse mind you, so stand to be corrected, - but can you point out to me anywhere where anyone has said, implied or suggested that they don't like the Irish.

Then cutting through all of the usual red herrings and other bumph that is always bandied around to cloud and obfuscate the primary issue, the whole argument in this thread has been to comment on the sheer, nay, vast amount of rifles SAID to have been supplied to the tiny Eire Defence Forces. And how come many of those rifles were subsequently, almost miraculously, supplied elsewhere from UK MIlitary stockpiles. Nothing to do with not liking anyone. Or are you perhaps being a tad sensitive?

[Beerhunter]

Many of the terms used about these British small arms were American terms invented (by Sam Cummings?) in the 1950s/60s in order to sell more surplus guns to Americans. Some like "Jungle Carbine" have stuck whereas other such as "Tankers Model" for the Revolver No.2 Mk.1*/** have (mercifully) not. Most of the terms are not only made up but inaccurate (e.g Royal Enfield when referring to a rifle, rather than a motorbike.) and so I believe that those of us who take our history seriously should be researching this stuff and "showing it up" - as my mother would have said.

BTW, I am of Irish decent and I think I would have noticed if anyone had been offensive.

[Eaglelord17]

Many of the terms used about these British small arms were American terms invented (by Sam Cummings?) in the 1950s/60s in order to sell more surplus guns to Americans. Some like "Jungle Carbine" have stuck whereas other such as "Tankers Model" for the Revolver No.2 Mk.1*/** have (mercifully) not. Most of the terms are not only made up but inaccurate (e.g Royal Enfield when referring to a rifle, rather than a motorbike.) and so I believe that those of us who take our history seriously should be researching this stuff and "showing it up" - as my mother would have said.

Unfortunately in Canada the 'Tanker Model' is coming the norm, as dealers advertise it as that and so do some of the less educated (i.e. the same people that call a Lee Enfield or P14 a .303 no matter the variation or type).

[Robert303]

The important thing about History is that it has to be as true and accurate as possible. Therefore it is worth checking the 'Credibility' of the research, which is all Peter has done, by asking why a relatively small country that was not exactly awash with money in the 1950s would want to buy such large nos of out of date rifles. The big problems today are:- 1) The deaths of so many, through old age, of those who actually knew what happened. 2) The destruction of so many old records before their value was realised or extracts were taken from them. 3) The rise of the internet for both the good and the bad as a source of information. SOURCE is the big word here. Far too many think that because they saw something on the net it is true. The net is a way of communicating / finding / helping / discussing all sorts of things, It is rarely a SOURCE or PRIMARY RECORD. Then you get Amateur Historians, at best they are good, they quote sources and give reasons, at worst they are conspiracy theorists / nutters who will twist anything to fit their crazy ideas. In the middle are the ignorant, just do not know any better, No4 SMLEs etc, those making money out of the ignorance 'Tanker Carbines' and the stupid. I will make no further comment on the stupid as I do not wish to start one of these silly 'Flame Wars'.