Interest for the L4 Bren fiends

Just had a chance to speak with and read through a stack of hand written notes regarding the early trials discussions of the 7.62mm EX/L4 guns. Invaluable or what….? Some of this is my interpretation of scrawled notes, chatter and comments as time between pre lunch drinks, lunch drinks, lunch, after lunch drinks and pre departure drinks at about 5 o’clock was a bit short.

Put very simply, what eventually turned out to be the rather troublesome L4A1 7.62mm version of the Bren gun should really be termed as an unusually large scale troop trial, hurriedly rushed into VERY limited service due to the introduction of the equally large scale troop trial of the 7.62mm FN FAL rifle being used on active service in Malaya. Immediately the new L1A1 rifle came on stream, the L4A1 gun was obsolescent as being incompatible with the ‘new’ rifle.

What followed was a totally re-vamped/worked new version that eventually became the L4A2. The original plan was that the lightweight L4A2 version, based on the lightweight Mk3 Bren would continue to be used in the tropics - where it was originally intended anyway – and another variation of the gun, the L4A3, based on a slightly heavier Mk2 Bren could be used in Western Europe (and presumably elsewhere?) where it was already in front-line service. (No mention of the Mk1 anywhere although there is a Mk4 mentioned!) These two guns were mechanically identical and as such could be converted almost side-by-side. As a result of this decision and a General Staff Requirement (a GSR) to the Ordnance – now Defence Procurement Executive, both the L4A2 AND the L4A3 versions were approved for service by the Ministry of Defence (the MoD). This might seem at odds with what you (and I incidentally…..) have read before! But look again…….. Approved by the MoD and not a particular PART of the MoD.

The GSR stated that in UK MoD service, both versions of the gun must be otherwise identical except for the inescapable fact that the main BODY of the Mk3 dimensionally differed from the Mk2 gun. This is the only reason why the different Mark/type designation applies. But there’s more………

The astute will also quickly realize that not only are the main bodies different but so are many of the components and initially, it was felt that this could (….. it WOULD!) cause logistical and standardization problems across the whole spectrum from future spare parts suppliers to Ordnance to Training (?) to the repair and maintenance facilities. From that point it was decreed that all UK spec converted Mk2 guns with the exception of the main identifying body, WOULD conform to the specification standard laid down for the L4A2 machine gun. – with a FEW exceptions (later)…..

The BUTT SLIDE would be retro modified so as to conform dimensionally to that of the Mk3 lightened butt slide by having narrower side-walls. Additionally to this, any ex Mk2 butt slides would be modified by the addition of an ‘insert’ (it’s not an insert but a brazed on ‘cup’) in order that the now standardized Mk1 pistol grip and screw can be fitted

The BUTT and fittings would be of the lightweight Mk3 butt (?-the Mk3 GUN butt was actually the Mk4 butt!) and configuration

The BIPOD sleeve will be of the standard Mk1 type modified in such a way as identified in the night firing trials held in Malaya. This must be the machining down of the actual sleeve and brazing on a flared blast deflector sleeve.

This leaves the question of the remaining parts that differ from the ‘standard’ Mk3 gun specified. There is no mention of these differences but when raised, I was told that while there were several minor variations they were insignificant and would continue to be used until such time as stocks are exhausted.

In codifying the ‘new’ gun, it was decided that in order to standardize wherever possible the whole Bren gun range across the board, where two types of, say trigger or an ejection opening cover were in service, and where the interchangeability made absolutely no difference, then the part would be re-codified to a new single standardized NATO number regardless whether it was previously a Mk1 or 2 part. So, for butt slides or bipod sleeves etc etc coming from the RSAF as spare parts stocks, these would/could be used across the board on a Bren or an L4 – as would standardized Mk4 butts in future.

This would seem to answer the question of why many of the old .303” Bren guns in service whether live or DP with training units/Cadet Forces etc were all seemingly repaired and rebuilt up to resemble Mk3/L4 spec.

What is odd is that the A3 and 5 Naval Ordnance parts lists (the BR’s) identify BOTH the original Mk1 type folding cocking handle and the non folding Mk2 types with the annotation A/R or as required. This would seem to indicate that while the ex Mk3 guns, the A2’s will have the folding cocking handles by definition, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the ex Mk2 guns will have a folding cocking handle unless it was modified previously in a Mk2/1 guise.

His connection with the L4A2 and A3 guns ends at the approval for use and adoption of the L4A2 and 3 guns by the MoD. Both guns were so adopted and approved for use with TWO of the new ‘strengthened barrels’ with the reinforced breech and flash eliminator. Asked whether the A3 gun would have been initially approved/adopted with ONE barrel was met with derision! With the added suggestion that a quick look at the sequential Ordnance Drawing numbers should be the final arbiter.
The A1 2 barrel gun has the MoS/Ordnance VAOS general assembly number of MG 31 GA
The A2 2 barrel gun illegible - but looks like: MG 34 or 36 GA
The A3 2 barrel gun has the MoS/Ordnance VAOS general assembly number of MG 37 GA
The A4 1 barrel gun has the MoS/Ordnance VAOS general assembly number of MG 43 GA
The A5 1 barrel gun has the MoS/Ordnance VAOS general assembly number of MG 44 GA
The A6 1 barrel gun has the MoS/Ordnance VAOS general assembly number of MG 46 GA

Regardless of all that’s been trotted out before in different authorized and subsequently perpetuated ad-infinitum that all seems to be pretty sequential to me chaps…………. And coming from the ‘I was there’ Officers notes, pretty bleedin obvious too……..

I just mention the obvious now, and it's this....... It would take a psychic Ordnance Cataloguer of Doris Stokes reputation to fortell that in the near future a LATER weapon would carry an EARLY pattern obsolescent barrel but a LATER VAOS catalogue number.

Thanks for the information Peter. I've looked at my L4A2 and there isn't a MG number but there is a NSN of 1005-99-960-0222 so can't help clarify the number.

I've looked at all the photos I have of L4A3s (UE65A5351, UE65A5438, UE66A6180, UE66A6754, UE66A6899, UE66A6976) and they all have the folding cocking handle but non have the MkII/1 designation barred out. Unfortunately I don't have photos of the earlier guns from 1962 to 65. One thing I can say is that Enfield were still making Mk3s upto at least 1961 along side L4s and the A3 conversions were carried out on their own. The L4A4 conversions were suspended in 1962 and the A3 conversions began in late 1962 and ran until 1966 when A4 production started again.

I think this is where the confusion lays, the A4 with one barrel began production before the A3 with 2 barrels had started. Is it possible then that all the A3s were miss codified as A3s when they should have been A5s as the A3 had become Obsolescent before production had started.

Would you know off the top of your head if barrel MG5526 is a normal or a chrome lined? I have a photo of an A3 which I believe was an export gun with a MG5526 barrel fitted.