BREN Gun versus B.A.R. (Video)

Welll -- I also have 2 BARs, but only 1 Bren (for that matter I have 2 Thompsons and 3 Stens - what ever that is worth?)
The Bren is so much more fun that I rarely shoot the BARs. I also shoot the Bren with the carrying handle opened out and the butt tucked agains my side for "assault" fire. I disagree with those who say this doesn't work for whatever reasons stated! I have shot a variety of targets - sillouetts, bowling pins, usv from both standing and walking positions. I find the Bren to be quite accurate in this mode! Of course I do not fire long bursts - Not good practice with ant FA! 3 to 5 rds at a squeze is my normal, but often repeated immediately.
I find the weapon to be both accurate AND a pleasure to shoot in this mode!
By comparison the Only way to shoot the BAR comfortably is from the prone position with the bipod.
Lets drop another weapon into the discussion - The MG 42. I find it not uncomfortable to shoot mine from the "assault" position - sling over neck, holding the bipod legs in my left hand AND shooting short 5 - 7 rd bursts. Anything longer and it quickly gets away from the target area.
The Bren is the most enjoyable to shoot in this mode because it is a good bit lighter and the slower rate of fire makes it more accurate. The BAR is the worst, even with the bipod removed to lighten it up.
Sarge

Hi Peter, I'm new to the forum and was reading this post, reading your comment about the barrel handle being used for hip firing being a myth prompted a memory of something I'd read. I have a copy of an Australian 'User Handbook for the .303 Inch Bren Gun MKS 1,2,2/1,3 & 4 and 7.62mm Bren L4A1 to L4A7' Prepared and printed by INSPECTORATE OF ARMAMENTS WOOLWICH June 1969 MP159 RESTRICTED. On page 5 under the heading 'Barrel Assembly' 12. Barrel Mk1* it states the following;

"Two barrels are supplied with each gun to allow for changing in the event of overheating. A handle is attached to the barrel for carrying the gun or for use when changing barrels. During firing, the handle lies along the left side of the gun but may be set at right angles and securely locked to the body of the gun for use when firing from the hip."

Can't say I've ever tried it myself and have no idea what the official training protocol was for Australian troops but I though you might find this interesting as it seems to be an official reference to that exact purpose of use.

Really enjoying the forum,

Regards,

DOD

I agree entirely.... But the method that is taught and if simply illustrated in the Infantry Training Manual is to grip the folded bipod.

Just TRY advancing and firing from the hip/waist. The 19 pound weight (the spread weight will be less of course....) will drag your arm from the socket. Sarge is the exception, but if it suits anyone, then fair enough. But I'd just ask you this question............... If the carrying handle was suitable for carrying the gun sub-machine gun fashion, then why did they design a second proper front grip for circumstances such as Malaya where the barrel mounted handle was absolutely useless?

The real original reason for the folding barrel handle was for directional stability in the AA role from the tripod

We teach the same sort of firing position for the C6 (MAG58) today. Bipod folded and slung. It's weight like the Bren will help control a bit. The BAR is truly an automatic rifle. It's even called that. The Bren's a light machine gun. Like earlier stated, apples and oranges. 20 rd mag, 30 rd mag. Barrel change, no barrel change. Mount, no mount. I like them both enough to have owned them, but you can't really compare them. (Stens and Thompsons too)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I agree entirely.... But the method that is taught and if simply illustrated in the Infantry Training Manual is to grip the folded bipod.

Just TRY advancing and firing from the hip/waist. The 19 pound weight (the spread weight will be less of course....) will drag your arm from the socket. Sarge is the exception, but if it suits anyone, then fair enough. But I'd just ask you this question............... If the carrying handle was suitable for carrying the gun sub-machine gun fashion, then why did they design a second proper front grip for circumstances such as Malaya where the barrel mounted handle was absolutely useless?

The real original reason for the folding barrel handle was for directional stability in the AA role from the tripod

---

I think you are 100% right Peter in that the folding handle was designed for the AA role, not for walking fire, however it's use as such would appear far from myth. I've done a little more investigation and I don't know whether it was an Australian adaptation exclusively but I've come up with the following image from the Australian War Memorial showing Australian troops training for 'walking fire' in New Guinea in 1943, note the technic. (1st image). Your point of the weight is valid but when the method is used in conjunction with a sling your shoulders carry all the weight. That side it would seem some could manage without.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvxrDHgh_qU

This old news real from the Kokoda Campaign also shows an Australian troop using this method at about 4:20

As anyone got an Australian Land Warfare Manual of the time? I'd love to know if it documents this method in official training.

Lastly just for laughs it seems this drill is still alive today for the odd English lass as well. (2nd Image)

Cheers:lol:

DOD
(ps: new at this hope attachments all work)

I can only comment on my limited experience with these things and Pom infantry training up until about 2002 when the last ones were declared obsolete and withdrawn (- the very last ones went on, by default, to about 2008).
But as I said, if the carrying handle was ergonomic while carrying and firing from the waist on the move in the jungle (and the jungle close quarter ranges are my only experience using this method I have to freely admit....) then why did we make and approve of a local front pistol grip that didn't twist and rip your arm from the socket

Thanks Peter, Again I think you are right, I don't think that method of fire was going to win in the ergonmic sense, it does feel quite awkward. Perhaps it was purely an Australian war time adeptation for jungle fighting. When I was looking at WW2 Bren images anything relevant I found from the European theatres had the Bren supported under the folded bipod exactly how you mention (not held by the locked barrel handle). One exception was an image of an English soldier kneeling with a Bren at the hip and holding the barrel handle in the locked open position, the only catch with this one was the Bren was fitted with a 100 round drum, so one would imagine the gun had just been removed from a tripod in an AA role. In the Pacific theatre though most Australian images of hip shooting I found showed the gun supported from the locked barrel handle. It would appear there was a difference in training method (can anyone confirm?) Out of interest when was the forward Pistol grip introduced? I've never seen one in Oz, did it see active service? Was it British Issue only or was it issued by /to other commonwealth forces as well?

Regards

DOD