Newbie... Bren Gun Finish.

The only important number to us in the real world and the number that was not changed was the master number on the body. And if the truth be known, then for reasons best known to whoever............... Anyway, sometimes that number has been known to have been 'altered'. But very carefully.......!

To the world of Armourers, it's correct when the visible numbers match. Those that are barred out or lined through don't count.

Can you just imagine in a unit or a large Field workshop an Armourer asking his fellow Armourers if they have a BSA marked sling loop or a CRD piston that he might use for a concourse 'impress-my-mates' restoration........... But I think we're flogging a dead horse

RE: Flogging a Dead Horse.................How Many Dead Horses do you Wanna Buy Gov?.......;) :dancingbanana:

But can you really call a Bren a John Inglis Bren if the only part made by John Inglis is the main body if all the other parts are made by other manufacturers for example. Surely it should just be described as a Bren Gun. Dealers seem to advertise their de-activated Brens on who ever manufactured the main body. For example my MK1 Bren was advertised and sold to me as being made by Enfield but about the only part actually made by Enfield is the main body. Like-wise my MK2 Bren was advertised and sold to me as being by John Inglis yet this too has numerous parts by other manufacturers. Surely both of these Brens should have been advertised as simply Bren Guns going by what Peter and Tankhunter say. All of the serial parts on my MK3 Bren match and most certainly haven't been changed with the exception of the barrel.


Is there some kind of formula whereby having a certain percentage of parts made by a given manufacturer a gun can take on that manufacturer's identity???

Nope......... A Bren is identified solely by the marking on the side. A Mk1 Bren with a Mk3 gun butt slide assembly and a pair of shorty Mk4 barrels and, say, a set of Mk3 bipod legs is still a Mk1 Bren according to the books. It doesn't matter one jot to us. Ok, fair enough if the civilian owner wants all Mk1 parts on it that's a matter for him. But we have photographic evidence of Mk1 guns fitted with Mk2 butts at the factory - so where does that leave us.

And what about Mk2 Brens made and assembled with parts that have come from all over the Country. Body from Derby, Piston post from Gateshead, Piston from York, gas cylinder from CRD in Falmouth.

I think the military firearms collecting hobby has come to assess firearms like collectible cars, well documented, numbers matching and everything "just so". Unless it's a Jensen Interceptor, then it's basically the Peddle Scheme No.1 of the car world.

What if someone wants a collection that shows some of the changes that were made to a gun over its service life?

I am not talking about matching parts from manufacturers. I am talking about making examples that show how a gun was when it entered service and an example of one with all the modifications made over its life in service. The point is to show what was changed, and you can’t do that without an example of before and after.

Peter’s Sten and Sterling books do a wonderful job of illustrating changes made to those guns. I am guessing the Bren book will too?

You can read why a part was changed and see pictures, but it’s not the same as having it in your hand. I read about the Bren MkI butt shoulder plate and got the idea more or less. When I found one it became crystal clear in an instant what the problem was.

Part of the fun of collecting these old guns is to show what didn’t work. That has to be why Enfield collectors pay a premium for No5 “Jungle Carbines”.

Whilst I 'spose its peachy to have an All Matching yada yada I concur that if it has that aspect well and good because chances are that after years of conflict there would be parts that have been changed out in the field by the forward workshops and if they were not then they probably stayed with the home guard who had progressed from sling shots and pikes once production lines managed to make up the shortfall after the Dunkirk saga.
If it is a mismatch then it has two possible reasons one as mentioned and the other made up from spares after the war perhaps the main thing is be happy with what you have for it is a part of history that will never be repeated and no matter which one you have they will still draw the oohs and ahhs.

With my 5MD 1916 303 MkIII I had to source parts because when I brought the thing they were not on the rifle, full safety, magazine, sling, oiler, pull through so I had no choice to troll the net for quite a long time and at great cost to get period correct items (Check out the cost for a WWI Lithgow oiler!).
So I am happy with what I have did it go to France I do not know all I know is I respect its heritage and for me it is a great piece along with my 2 other Lithgows a 1921 which has been discussed here on this site and my 1945 OA or BA (to lazy too go to the gun safe.)

Its all about that period in time and now we can have the luxury of collecting them along with discussions about them though let us never forget the sacrifices made not only by the troops who laid down their lives then and now so we can do this but also the civilian workers who slaved insane hours to produce them and also lost their lives through aerial bombings by the Luftwaffe and industrial accidents.

I don't disagree with what Peter says with regards to replacement parts etc and the changing of serial numbers to match the master number and I fully understand the reasons for it in the context of a military organization. What I have a real problem with is dealers/traders trying to sell something if it isn't what they say it is. For example if a Bren is for sale and the only part which is made by Enfield is the main body, with everything else made by other manufacturers, then I don't see how it can be advertised as being by Enfield. Likewise, if the serial numbers of the parts of a gun have been changed to match the master number I don't see how it can be simply called a fully matching serial numbered weapon and a premium charged because the numbers all match and this is why I prefer the term force matched serial number. Like it or not collectors generally prefer fully matching serial number guns and will pay a premium for it. Perhaps there is another form of terminology that armourers use when the serial numbers have been changed to match the master number; if there is what is it, please?

Put simply, when we change numbers (or in thecase of, say a new barrel nut, we simply add the number, we do it for a reason. There's no special name for it except to satisfy the safety of the gun.

If a dealer does the same to a deact, then it's nothing to do with the safety of the gun or the requirement of any official paperwork such as the EMER or other regulation. I suppose if you were being pedantic, you could call it downright fraudulent practice or obtaining money by false pretences/deception. You could try to get the trading standards people to sue them - or do it yourself - but it ain't going nowhere. When you buy an MGB from the MG factory you don't expect the alternator to be made by MG (LUCAS) or the exhaust manifolds (Broadfields) or the screens (Tyneglass) or the bodyshell (Pressed Steel/Fisher Ludlow)......... or even the car to be made at its spiritual home (Abingdon) See what I mean?

As for your Enfield made in Liverpool or Glasgow............ Well, let's not even go there........... I am just injecting a bit of humour - but realistic humour into the subject

Generally the term I have heard is "Forced Match" common in surplus Soviet weapons, serviceable guns are made up from the parts of others. The action serial number being held as "master" and all other components are either scrubbed of their original numbers, overstamped with a series of XXXX's or struck out with a Line Stamp, and the action serial is forced onto the part. usually this occurs with an electro-pencil and is plainly obvious, sometimes stamps are used.

These rebuilds can occur anywhere along the life of the firearm, either during breakage in actual service, routine mass overhaul, preparation for war stock, make work projects, and by the exporter prior to being sold on the commercial market. Then later comes the dangerous one, some guy in his basement with a belt sander and an engraving tool or knock off letter stamps, building guns from scrapper parts, to whom the term headspace means not hitting your head through a doorway.

Speaking to western weapons, I agree that it seems to be dishonest to call a "forced matched" gun as all matching, but there is a difference between "all original" "Unissued" and "all matching" A collector may seek "all original" or "unissued" specimens, while thinking "all matching" is the same thing, which it is not. The advertising is probably held against the manufacturer of the receiver, main body, or otherwise largest foundational part to which all other parts are attached. Misleading? perhaps, but an Enfield body cobbled together from Chinese, Indian, and parts made of cheese is a very different thing from a properly assembled gun with mixed parts that have been re-numbered and expertly fitted.

Another angle is to a military organization, an all original gun that is broken is of no use, but an all matching gun that barks is of no matter to anyone.

This whole thing will become a non-issue should we ever see modern military firearms on the collector market, live or deactivated, most are only a numbered receiver, all other parts are Lego, even optics are independently numbered and accounted.