Irish (?) contract No4 rifles

[Frederick303]

Mike 16,

first let me apologize for my intemperate post. I am sure you are trying to get at the truth. I hope you will accept the apology.

My issue was , you posted a number of, shall we say incorrect assumptions, such as the Irish No 1 MK III rifles almost all being FF marked (they were not, only rifles sent back to the UK for re-barreling or rectification were), while rather offhandly disregarding posted information that was from pretty good sources. That is while impugning others work you posted gross generalizations that were obviously wrong if you had read and digested all of the posts in this long thread.

For example your post from page 12 of a NRA reprint, which came out of a 1963/1964 article published in the American rifleman by Charles Yust. Charles Yust was a noted cartridge collector, not an expert on Irish rifles. He states in that article that the Irish provided arms to the UK for defense of the home country. His comment was ....wrong.... period. As in mistake. As in an incorrect assumption. The fact was in 1940 The Irish were begging the English for arms, not providing them arms. The English were not all that wild about supplying the Irish, not because they were anti-Irish but because they felt that in remaining neutral and in not allowing use of the former Irish treaty ports to be used for anti-sub patrols that Ireland was holding up their part of being a part of the commonwealth. That said the English did end up supplying sufficient arms for Ireland to have two effective divisions.

There is a wealth of writing(primary sources) on the Irish pleas for small arms in the June 1940 to September 1940 time frame. the issue was eventually settled in late 1940 with the US providing 20,000 M1917 rifle to the English along with 5 million rounds, which the English then transferred to the Irish. Why it went that way is a story in and of its own, but it had to do with the Irish making a play to align themselves with America rather than English and the decision of both the US and the English not to yield to that idea.

At the same time the English promised, though the colonial secretary to provide the Irish with 10,000 SMLE rifles when practical. There is no record of the English providing these rifles in the official lists of equipment provided to the Irish during WW II. That said there is evidence that the Irish either had some arms exchanged with the UK and that the Irish received supplies of spare parts that they used to refurbish some of the unserviceable rifles in their stocks. The indents for spare parts exist, and sure enough a lot of the parts indents such as forearms and safeties show up on Irish SMLE rifles. By late 1941 there is an Irish parliament speech where the help from the UK is acknowledged. In any case any arms sent to the UK were sent for exchange or action body replacement, not to help the UK.

Now you will note while I did publish a summary of the rifle use from 1923 to 1939 I have not followed up with the WWII period. That is because there are still too many open ended questions. For example the records show that the Irish sold 21,169 SMLE MK III rifles in ~1960, with a further ~10,000 in 1984~87 (approximate date). Yet in the survey of rifles I have in the known Irish serial number range (which encompasses ~ 27,400 serial numbers), only 179 show up, while of the 10,000 ER, CR and G rifles 227 have shown up, with known sales of 4,105. So something is not quite right when it comes to the register of WWII serial numbers, there should be a lot more out there. They should be almost as common as the No4 MK II PF serial number range (31,552 in range) with 425 in the database. That is part of the reason for a trip to the archives.

In any case Mike, no intent on my part to belittle you, just point out that if you want to poke holes in folks posts, you should do the research or at least read what has already been written in the thread ahead of time and make sure your post does not contain incorrect information. But as far as poking holes in posted information, pointing out omissions or where there is a logical inconsistency, have at it.

kind regards

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[mike16]

first let me apologize for my intemperate post. I am sure you are trying to get at the truth. I hope you will accept the apology.

Yes,I gladly embrace your apology and that of others tendered or not.

I never stated or quoted any source claiming that almost all Irish III's were stamped FF in a circle.

I did quote An NRA publication referenced it in my statement. it was not an assuption. I did not disregard any "pretty good information" from an internet forum. I discounted any source that was not documented or primary. And alot of statement made based on that "pretty good information" cannot be substantiated. Its that grey area where others fill in the blanks with assumptions until the official documents are released. its that grey area that I challenge. Especially if its tinged with Bias or the desire to be a center of information..

also. I brought to the attention of others a source that nobody had refferenced to before. It was refferenced not to counter any grey area expertise demonstrated by others but simply to defend the record of the Irish in the south who actually did separate them selves from thier animosity towards the british and at the risk of threatening thier own soveignty assisted the british by contributing rifles. If the information itself is flawed or inaccurate, Its not my fault nor was it my assumption. but you now share my concern for so many arm chair experts who do that thing with the grey area to be the expert. If any of this was research at the college level. It would be torn apart in acadamia. I did not make it up or create it as an assuption I mearly added to the general refference resorces. I though it deffended my opinion rather well. But it was a quote , not an assumption. Mr Yost article may...or may not be wrong. But its his article, not my assumption. I'ts not clear how you come to the conclusion that he was wrong based on News paper articles. Propaganda to manipulate the readers. I can see very easily how the Irish might have over extended themselves by contributing so many, too many rifles to the deffence of britain thus leaving them selves to the vunerability of invasion in a self induced weakened state. This concern was also expressed by Churchhill. Who may have donated or returned rifles to the republic to defend itself from a possible German invasion. So it actually could go both ways regarding the contributio back and forth of rifles. I accept that possibility while you seem to reject it in order to discredit me for pointing out the article and refferencing it. Let others contributions bear an equal and fair weight of your scrutiny. At least I did not make this up but can refference the source. wrong as you claim it is, no grey area on my part.

Another point that reflects upon the character of the Irish. They did not send Junk rifles to the british after Dunkirque. The junk rifles remained in Ireland and were the rifles the Irish needed repacement parts for. That says something for thier character that they would put thier own sovreigty at such a risk to support the British.

Yes the Irish parliment,on behalf of the people expressed gratitude for British support in thier deffence. But the British also expressed grattitude for the same support generously provided in thier time of need when a German invasion was all but imenante.

For the Irish to align them selves with America rather than Britain? Ireland almost always aligned themselves with america .There were Irish on board Columbus's ships when they discovered america so that lil bit of diplomacy had been going on for some time before 1939. And it was not so much alignment with America as much as a choice to be Nutrality that considerable favored the british, The same nutrality that America embraced until december of 41. And overall it was the wiser move considering that Britian never did and has not yet fully recovered economically from either its involvement in WWI or WWII. As for the treaty ports issue. The british relenquished those ports before the war and Ireland , being nutral and sovreign had no choice but to react so. They were doing all they could in every other respect but had to remain and appear newtral.

Again I accept your appology. whole heartedly. But you go on to deminish its value by attacking things I have stated. Its not my intention to be the pupet master and control information in the grey area. I made no assumptions regardless how you qualify them. I dont need psycophantic minions to bark and snap in my deffence. The character of the irish is the only area I addressed, and thier culture is as flawed and imperfect as any others. I only expressed my angst that some how these human characteristics factored into the purchase of 50 k rifles and others felt that it needed to be expressed as such on a forum about Enfield Rifles.

I did also make a statement regarding Irelands contribution to england after Dunkirque. But the statement itself was in reference to an article I came across. so while the statement may or may not be wrong. I mearly referenced it The only research I did was to discover it and share it. And that was for the purpse of defending the character of the Irish.......on a forum about enfields.... As for anything else attributed to me; I speak only to defend the claim that I am wrong, That anything I contributed was an assumption.

I dont poke holes, I simply point out that they exist. Its that grey area that so effortlessly bridges the gaps in other peoples research. I kinda resent the fact that You appologise and then go on to pretty much insult me further through out your reply. I will take the high road here and accept you so called apology such that it is. But all of us ought tp spend more time doing proper research, primary and documented rather than deffend the off hand remarks of others. or attack people who just want to contribute what they have found and want to share.

and .....You better find those holes and poke them yourself in your own research. You better do it yourself in your own work, and get used to it being done .on your behalf by others. too..befor you even ssubmit it for publication. Any good publisher and thier editor will be doing it to your work as is thier job and responsability. Of course, if its not being submitted for publication then ther is no need for it to undergo any kind of oversight and can be classified as fiction.Just remember that. Those holes....those grey areas...they make it all fiction.

Thanks again for the opology.

one point. Why do yourself and others assume, clearly with no evidence to support your claim, that I dont read others posts and replys when I post mine, How exactly is it that I am able to reffer to them and quote them and deffend my self against them if it is as you and other claim, i dont read the others replies.Is it to deffer attention away from the grey areas? A rather feeble attempt to discredit me? can you claimwith an degree of certainty that you are right. You made the accusation, whats your source, wheres your proof, how do you know. Wouldnt the fact that I am able to quote, , reffert to them and defend my self against them suggest that infact I do read what others state. When you do research and you come across contradictory statements, do you use the same standard to evaluate what is fact and what is.......the grey area. Rather it seems you prefer to supress anything, any thing at all contributed by others, facts refferences , contributions. even if it does not conflict or contadict your own information. supression to control. is that authentic research. who exactly is your intended audience for this book. who would even dare to publish it based on your research standards. Not sources, not documentation but standards.

Again I accept your appology because I think there is no excuse to attack any culture on a LE forum. theres no place for it.And also a person should not be attacked for simply sharing some information and a refference others might seek out. Its more than others can claim and it meets the standard for academia. and eposes itself to evaluation by acadamia Others cant claim that and actually avoid doing so (they grey area). I accept your appology for wrongfully disqualifying my contributions. such that you claim they are, as assumptions. while not holding your own sources to anywhere near he same standard, or at least not yet.........

I addressed this post initially to redress the stereotype of the Irish addressed by others with my own equally pationate knowlege of the facts. I also shared some information and its source regarding the contributions of the Irish to the British deffence after Dunkirque. To further reaffirm thier character in times of war. accept it all or reject it all but do so based on documentation and good solid research rather than simply attacking anybody who shares facts or contributes to this forum. Hold your own sources to the same standard. and if it does not exist dont be seen to "go there" in deffence of someone who tarnishes thier reputation by venting about the Irish. History has proven that at least some of us are good peacful people. History as you now know also confirms that we are willing and capable of deffending ourselves. If you dont know that,may by the time your done with your own credable research you will recognise that quality among us.

and rather than snap,snarl, nip and bark at the feet of some artificial deity. establish your own credability by doing good solid authentic primary research.

If you were right? I would deffend you with as much dedication and passion as I do the Irish.

i'm done here, Hack the Irish as much as you feel you need to or deffend others who also do. I own an "Irish" Contract 4/2 and an Australian III. I came on this forum to have fun and enjoy the contributions of others. Clearly its easy for some of us to loose sight of that goal.

good luck with your book, Shall I look for it in the fiction section or the non fiction section? can I get a signed copy?