Correct bayonet type for No.4 Mk2 rifles?

[Peter Laidler]

Hey, just a minute Fred....... I didn't take issue with thread 4 at all or even dispute the points. But surely, a forum is exactly WHERE you SHOULD be able to discuss or dispute things !!!!!!!!!!!! In fact, in para 2 of thread 5, I even say that I take your comments on board but raised a genuine question. Then added that in Britain we have NEVER sanctioned numbering bayonets - and gave the reason why. And if Ireland never had any previous bayonets, then that's fair enough (- but you do mention that they did have 500 from the trials squirrelled away somewhere). As I said, that was just my opinion for what it was worth. Once again, if it was worth nothing or even a little bit, then that suits me down to the ground. Same as the SMG bayonets although, like the rifles, why you'd number '....some' and not others or all will remain an enigma. But I expect that there'll be a record of the minutes concerning this held in archives somewhere (...that last sentence was a joke!)

Now for the nitty gritty. You might not like this BUT..... There is genuine suspicion out there and among large dealers who have told me of their doubts, that the so called 'Irish Contract' and all that it's percieved to be isn't all as, er...., Kosher as it's made out. I don't care one way or the other as having been up to my neck in small-arms technology/engineering world since I was an apprentice, I've had enough of small arms to last...., well, a lifetime - literally! But the suspicion is out there and it's alive and it's only fair that you know (and argue well with your encyclopaedic knowledge I have to say.....) that these doubts are out there. And if you can't talk straight on a forum - just like you do, then you should, without fear or favour

So the REAL answer to the initial question is as in Q5 EXCEPT in Ireland (where else.....) where for reasons best known to themselves and against the thinking of the rest of the world, even darkest Africa, the Defence Force there only supplied AND issued No9 bayonets because a) that's all they had and b) they numbered them just to make sure that you had a matching set!

But I reiterate. Whoever thought that you could enhance a rolled, thin walled, steel, tubular scabbard by clouting a serial number into the open end, supported by the sintered brass mouthpiece?

Phew............

[Frederick303]

Captain Laidler,

I have no problem at all with any one, especially you disputing anything that I post. That is actually why I like this board so much, there area lot of folks here that have seen and have knowledge of topics that are simply not in all of the standard reference books. Any inference from my post that I object to correction is not at all what I intended to convey.

I happen to have an interest in the Irish arms and as time and contacts allow, have been attempting to track down the details of their use and issue. As a student of this subject; I am well aware that there may be facts and figures that make my understanding of the topic obsolete. That said I posted the details as I understand them, so if anyone has a better understanding of the facts could correct me and anyone else who might be interested in this rather obscure Enfield topic. So what I posted was my understanding with sufficient content that if some one disputed it, I could then go into any area they dispute with what information and where that information came from. But please be aware I am very aware that in one or more of my points I could well be incorrect and I have no problem with anyone supplying information that disagrees with my interpretation of the known facts.

I do well understand the debate over the “Irish contract”. I corresponded with one dealer representative who told me outright that some of the blocks that Irish Army have ascribed to the Irish contract were in fact stored at Donnigton until sold into the trade in the 1990s. There is certainly enough information out there to make that case, though because of the limited documents I have been able to look at I do not share that opinion.

Unfortunately as with the original correspondence on the Irish contract purchase, all such correspondence is handled by the Irish Army archives. The sales records for the “Irish contract No 4 MkII” will not become available for public view until the years 2021 to 2026. When they do the full list of serial numbers may then be available.

As always it is a pleasure to correspond with you,

FRS

[Parashooter]

Whoever thought that you could enhance a rolled, thin walled, steel, tubular scabbard by clouting a serial number into the open end, supported by the sintered brass mouthpiece?

Here's an example of a No4 MK2 - bolt, magazine, bayonet, and scabbard marked with the rifle's serial. This is not one of the warehouse wallflowers that arrived in the USA substantially unused. It had its full share of handling wear - carried much, fired little.



It does seem obvious whoever applied the serial to bayonet and scabbard had a very different technique from that employed by the folks who delicately engraved it on receiver, bolt, and magazine.

[Peter Laidler]

That's a BRILLIANT photo Para, that explains all that's bad about the bayonet numbering farce. Note the butchery to the scabbard although I hardly need to point it out. This ham-fisted butchery also crushed and broke many of the cast and sintered brass scabbard mouthpieces, judging from the amount I have sent to needy forumers in the US and elsewhere

Moving on.......... I had a PM/EMail from another forumer who had two Fazakerley Mk2 rifles and much later, ordered two No9 bayonets for them. To which the dealer asked what numbers he'd like on them. Explaining that '.... it'll make them more valuable when you sell the matching pair on.....'. What does that tell us of the future I ask

I think that you're being a bit overly sensitive about any discussion that veers from the accepted norm Fred, espcially this Irish thinggy. I regularly disagree/take the discussion further - or dare I say it, cross-swords with others views on the forum. Heavens, I've just done it with NZL1A1 regarding the SLR, Surpmil too and others about sniping in the desert (only on the grounds that we teach the art at Warminster.....) but that's the nature of the beast we call the forum

As a matter of interest Parashooter and others. At our big workshops, we had a load of home made special jigs/clamps and brackets for the Taylor Hobson pantograph engraving machine. The jig for the No4/L42 magazines held the magazine parallel to the jaws with the bottom surface square. The 'trouble' was that the jig could be held either way and that's why you'd get numbers reading front to rear or rear to front like yours. It wasn't a concern to anyone but I used to engrave front to rear because that way, the body, rear of bolt and magazine number could all be read by a simple 1/4 rotation of the rifle

[gsimmons]

My Dad's mk2 has the same kack handed numbers on the bayonet and scabbard. The condition of the finish doesn't match the rifle either(worse). It's not a so called Irish contract either.

[drweiler]

I have MK2 (F) 12/54 P.F.333083 in the wrap, imported by CAI. It came with what I assumed was a matching No.9 bayonet and scabbard. Looking it over last winter I noticed while the No.9 and scabbard numbers match, it's not the same number as the rifle! I purchased them wrapped together in the 90's. Wish I could remember how far the numbers were off to tell you, but not accessible till October. That just for your information, really doesn't address who stamped them or who mixed them up!