New (to me) BREN - would it be appropriate for Inglis '44 to have MkI barrel?

Just got a newly converted semiauto BREN built up from an original Inglis '44 parts kit. You may notice that it has some "tiger stripes", those are from welding up the receivers. They didn't take parkerize, but the look actually grew on me for some reason. I suppose I could always paint the gun if necessary.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...04/bren1-1.jpg

It originally came with a MkI barrel (with the aluminum muzzle cone), but I got a MkII barrel in the final finished form. Even though the MkI barrel looks real nice and is what's in my mind a quintessential BREN look, I'm thinking it's more appropriate if I match up the MkII parts with MkII gun. I'm still curious however, whether the MkI/II parts were ever mixed up, especially barrels?

Also, I noticed this BREN had "Inglis '44" marked on a raised area on receiver (see pic below). I'm wondering what's going on with that raised area (whether it's left unmilled, or had other areas milled down further?). The other BREN photo I've seen typically have the marking made right on the receiver, but not in some raised area?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...04/bren3-1.jpg

Lastly, here's a pic of the BREN with its older brother ZB26. I really enjoy having both as a comparison. Does anyone know why BREN design used to a shorter gas system. Was it for the .303 ammo, or does the short system actually make the gun more reliable?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...b26bren1-1.jpg

To be honest, and I stand to be corrected as always, but i'd have thought by 1944, Inglis production would have exhausted all of its Mk1 barrel stocks (or they'd have gone out into Ordnance stores as spare parts) and the Mk2 barrel would have been the norm. But in service, things would have been different and if barrels needed to be replaced and only Mk1 barrels were available, they'd go on - regardless of the gun mark. But only as a matching pair. Mixing barrels by mark/type was not permitted. So in answer to the question, you could fit either - as a matched set. In fact during its later life, into the late 50's or 60's, it could have been fiutted with a pair of the shorter lighter barrels from the Mk3 gun.

Change in gas cylinder length. This was the optimum point of gas take-off for .303" Mk7 ammunition. Put simply, the point where there is sufficient gas to operate the working parts with some spare capacity and where the gas take-off is insufficient to make any difference to the muzzle velocity. As it transpired later, it wasn't the best place in real life because that point was probably the worst point for carbon fouling. But that's another story. Good question though!

I have never seen INGLIS 1944 on a raised area. And I suspect that your gun body has been milled away slightly for reasons best known to the converter and he's (quite cleverly in my opinion) left the INGLIS marking intact. Or it's not an Inglis and he's brazed that bit on top! Unless anyone else more experienced than me can shed light on it...........

The builder must have used stainless or some other sort of high nickel content weld to do the job. I've seen some guns take Parkerizing where the welds were barely noticeable because the mix used was very close to the original steel in the receiver. Brownells makes a baking paint that is designed to match Parkerizing called Alumahyde I think. You might want to give it a shot. It'll look better and give double the protection. I'm with Peter in the thought that the builder milled it down to clean up the weld. I've never seen a raised portion like that on an Inglis gun. I hope it shoots well for you. Enjoy.

I've got Mk1 barrels with Late Inglis Mk2 serial numbers remarked on them. I've never seen a Inglis Mk1 barrel with a date later than 1943 on it so I reckon all Mk2s from new had Mk2 barrels and only when a gun needed a new barrel was a second hand mk1 barrel matched to the mk2 gun. (As Peter said).

Hope that you're enjoying your holidays in Italy BP

Thanks for the info guys. I am glad I did the right thing to match up the Mk2 barrel with this Mk2 marked gun. I looked closely on the receiver regarding the raised square...I couldn't really tell how it was milled off, but I'm pretty sure it's milled down, rather than built up from brazing. But then again everything looks like original curve to me, not something forced down via milling. Also, how deep should "BREN Mk II" be? The markings look pretty deep on this, and if it was milled down after the marking was made, then it'd have been a lot shallower. So it's still curious to me as to how this thing came to be this way.

As for the welding, I do think the builder used stainless steel as filler material to reduce warping. I wish they had used carbon steel (like how my ZB26 was rewelded, which took bluing fairly well, but I could still tell some discoloration on the welded area), but I guess it'll do for now. Like I said, for some weird reason I rather like the eccentric coloring. :D I have used Alumahyde II before, so that's definitely a possibility. I think the satin finish should do well to simulate Suncorite finish.

By the way, is that barrel handle correct? I've seen Mk.II barrel with more straight looking handle, more like the ZB26 style handle, and not curved like what I have on there. I think the curved handle is more likely to show up on Mk.I barrel?

Looks ok for a Inglis Mk2. KG has some photos of Inglis mk2s with the earlier style handle.

Peter, Italy is nice but so far i've had 15 days of nights (17/18 hour shifts) and just gone on to days (14 hour shifts). Perhaps when I get a day off I'll do some battlefield tours, all depends on what daffi duck does next.