Printable View
The term indirect fire applies here. It means simply a target that cannot be engaged because of some kind of obscuration such as smoke, darkness or the rise in the ground Peter speaks of. The rise isn't much, just enough, and far enough away that rifle fire and direct fire weapons can't engage the target. I used to teach this very thing in the Infantry School in Gagetown NB. The sight just gives some reference to elevation and direction so several guns may be layed the same.
Thanks BAR. Couldn't have explained it better myself Pat! But you did raise one point Patrick and that's the fact that I don't expect we'll ever see an indirect fire facility/dial sight fitted to a 5.56 machine gun!
Thanks BAR and a Merry Christmas to you one and all from all of us at the Small Arms School and REME workshops on blustery and cold Salisbury Plain
Thanks lads, I have understood, but it seems to me that it must have been a very marginal application. Which is presumably the reason why the stuff was junked.
Going off in a different direction, can someone give me an idea of the maximum accuracy obtainable from a Bren at, say, 300 meters/yards (benchrest Bren!:madsmile:)
:wave:
Patrick
Ah, that's another matter altogether...... But to answer the Q. honestly, it might need to nip a popular myth in the bud first. It has been said and is still beingsaid that among its other fine attributes, the Bren was a deadly accurate weapon. THat is totally incorrect. It wasn't even as accurate as the most mediocre rifle of the era or since and its factory/Base workshop accuracy pattern proves this point. That having been said, it was never meant to be accurate - just good at what it was made to do. And at that, it excelled
While we used to accuracy test them from the bench on the Armourers test range at 25 or 30 metres the group was nothing to write home about and I don't think that you'd win any prizes for pinpoint accuracy, even with a tight bore and tight fitted barrel. Plus there's the lock-time question
I'm having lunch tomorrow with an Armourer who's done so many Brens that it's his middle name. I'll ask him but I don't think he'd take one for accuracy over an average rifle. You've both range tested a few zillion L4's Tankie and Skippy - any comments
Peter, Yes, like yourself. A 'Modest' Quantity of L4's & Brens have been Range & Function tested over the Years! The Brens 'Reputation' for accuracy, as understood by me from feedback gleaned for the 'End User'. So to speak is:
When the infanteer spoke of 'Accuracy' as HE meant it. Was the fact that because of R.E.M.E Stringent Inspection Rules. one of the 'Complaints' if I may term it that, was the fact that it gave too tight a group at the fall of shot end. IE: it did not 'SCATTER' the rounds sufficiently to give a greater 'Beaten Zone' effect. This was due to Armourers complying with one of the many Inspection checks on quarterly inspections. The Barrel nut (Or lever to the uninitiated) must NOT allow any rotational movement of the barrel when pulled out against it's retaining catch.(Taking up the slack) And the LHS of the Reciever. Gripping the foresight protector with your left thumb whilst holding the barrel in the palm of your left hand & holding the reciever in your right hand. There should be NO rotational movement at all. If movement WAS encountered. Then the next size of Barrel nut up was fitted, & engraved with the Guns serial number.
To gain the 'Accuracy' that the infanteer wanted, then the opposite would have applied. IE: fit a barrel nut of the next size lower than the one already fitted. this would then obviously ALLOW barrel slop, or rotatioanl movement. & thus open UP the group to widen the Beaten zone.
BUT, As we Armouers had to follow E.M.E.R's, The Rules above stated applied. And the group was tight for an LMG, which was NOT really what the infanteer wanted!.................
Hence the 'Reputation' that the Bren gained as far as Infanrtymen I conversed with. On the subject of 'Accuracy' as far as a Bren/ LMG was concerned! :)
The best group I have ever got from a Bren was about 5" at 100 metres on semi-auto (10 rounds) and about 12" on full auto in three round bursts (18 rounds). That was with excellent condition 1954 CAC Mk VII fresh from Army stores, and using a virtually new condition Lithgow Mk I Upgraded Bren. The shooting was prone with the bipod legs blocked front and rear with sandbags, well locked into the gun and a steady squeeze on the trigger. I have found that the ZB26 with good ammo is better, and I have had consistent hits on a 12" steel gong at 300 metres on semi-auto. By way of comparasion, I can get sub 2" groups at 100 metres with my 5 groove Long Branch No4, 3" groups with the LiA1 Lithgow SLR, and 3" groups with a 1941 Lithgow SMLE Mk III*, all using issue sights. My L42 rebarrelled No4 rifle with sporting stocks and a 6-18x Swift scope will do better than 1" with Aussie F4 ball ammo. While the Bren is not as accurate as a rifle, it is still well capable of 'minute of man' out to a respectable distance on semi-auto. I just love the gun!
Not being an engineer, nor an infanteer, I can tell you that the reason they wanted the barrel tightly fitted was so that the gun did not batter itself into tiny little pieces in short order.Quote:
Originally Posted by tankhunter
The Brens "reputation" for accuracy and reliability would have in short order become a reputation for unreliability, and parts breakage....
... So no benchrest Bren then?
I don't ever remember firing one from the Enfield rest although i'm sure that there will have been chocks to fit one into the rest. We just fired them from the bench off the bipod but I used to prefer the legs folded back, locked to the body, rested on a sandbag. No cigar for a bench rest Bren I'm afraid Patrick. But I still enjoy shooting them. There's something safe, sound and sort of comforting from the slow thump, thump, thump, thump, thump of a Bren gun. Once they start to smoke after a magazine change, you could be on the advance into Antwerp...........
Attachment 29363
For clarification, the attached extract from the British War Office 'Weapon Training Memorandum' WAR No.1 dated March 1940 is instructive.
The fixed line sight should not be confused with a dial sight (as on the Vickers gun), which has azimuth graduations together with range and angle of sight setting knobs. These can be used for setting up the gun for indirect fire, setting up a battery of guns to fire on parallel lines etc.
There are no graduations on the FLS. Basically the technique is to set up the gun on its tripod, aimed on the target using the iron sights. The FLS is sighted on an aiming lamp near to the gun. If the gun is removed from the tripod and used for other purposes it can be returned to the same point of aim by replacing it on the tripod, refitting the FLS and adjusting aim by sighting on the aiming lamp again. Provided of course that the FLS settings have not been altered and the tripod and aiming lamp are in the same position!