Inglis 7.92mm Bren

http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/div_....asp?pageREQ=1

Scroll down to no. 1009 Bren Mk1

This ones a little baffaling to me, its a 7.92 on a Mk2 body as normal, Chinese script to the right side but has a Serial number of 5T8979 which is a Mk1, I would also expect it to have a CH serial number. The 1944 date has been 'X' through and there are 1943 dates elsewhere, one odd marking is 1943 Mk1m crudely stamped.

My opinion is that its a 1944 7.92mm re-numbred to a registered firearm in .303 and some one has marked '1943 Mk1m ' to make it match a registration form (I've no idea how any registers or forms work in the US). I bet the original and correct serial number would have been a CH serial, or the 1-7813 found on the barrel.

Yes Brit, would have expected to see an original serial number with the CH prefix.I expect it has been re-serialed for paperwork reasons ?
It wouldn't have originaly been a 7.92 with the 1 - 7813 serial number as these guns were sterile.

ATB Kevin

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF0068-1.jpg
Here is a photo of mine.

The stamping of the model mk1M looks pretty amateurish on the one shown on the auction.

The intelligence community usually (when they're able to be asked about such things.....) cringe at the notion of 'sterile' weapons, especially firearms. This is for many reasons. The principle one is that guns are made for killing people and once (if?) they are recovered, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to immediately identify the basic points of a) who made it and b) where it was made. These are inescapable facts. The next reason is that...................... anyway, the notion of using sterile light machine guns is a bit.............. Additionally, when weapons are fed into these 'groups', they are left marked simply so that the source of supply can be whitewashed - if that makes sense.

These are the words of an intelligence Major.

But back to this gun in particular, it looks to me like this is what we'd call now, a bit of 'identity theft' or in used car parlance, 'a bit of old fashioned car ringing'

I like that analogy, its a 'Ringer'! But I wish it was mine, the 7.92 Inglis still avades me!

A 7.92 Inglis is very easy to replicate, using a good/half decent deact BP. Because there are a few variations of the JI 7.92, you can replicate the one that closest suits what you have

Well as I'm no lexicographer :lol: 'sterile' seemed the most apt word that sprang to mind :).
As the number prefix 7.92 Brens are deviod (not scrubbed or ground off) from manufacture of any parts that bare makers marks or codes,no inspection or ordnance,acceptance or ownership marks inc woodwork....also no steel batch code.
I'm now at a loss as how best to descibe their state ? :confused:

ATB Kevin

Ah, I was thinking 'sterile' as in the intelligence world of 'sterile'. And not in the reproductive world of 'sterile' either!

Is that a fact that the 'I-xxxx' series Inglis 7.92's were devoid of any markings? How strange................. In the sneaky beaky intelligence world, this feature - or lack of ANY features - wouldn't fool anone after the first 3 seconds.

I'd describe that as '....devoid of any markings from new'. As in 'taken out after work ............' as opposed to 'scrubbed'

Could 'Sterile' be taken as 'Only fires blanks':rofl:?

Have you a 7.92mm at Warminster? I've got a NOS mag with the idea of a replica but I need to open the magazine well a smidgen but would rather do a decent job rather than just attack it with a grinder.

ATB, Chris.

Well the 'sandwich box' scenario is an interesting one Peter :) but the two examples the Canadian War Museum have in their collection (serial numbers , 1-0001 and 2-3429) were acquired directly from Canadian Arsenals Limited .

ATB Kevin

Whatever they were, they were not lunchbox guns. Over the years I have seen perhaps 8-10 of these 7.92mm examples, all in near-new condition, pantograph engraved "BREN Mk I", though clearly they are Mark II. Save that and the machine-stamped s/n, there are no ID marks anywhere, not even on the spares and accessories that came with them, or on the original packaging. I have information showing that at least 26 of these guns came into the US in the period 1963-65, with s/ns ranging from a low of 1-5343 to a high of 2-8045, notably including 2-0000 but not 1-7813.

M

Re the Mk1 or 2 designation MGMike. The Mk1 tag on a supposedly Mk2 gun is because it might LOOK like a .303" Mk2 gun, it is in fact a Mk1 gun when it's in its 7.92mm configuration. This is noted in a small part of the very early instructions for the UK L4A1 guns, where the papers refer to the fact that the '....some breech blocks and extractors will bear the calibre 7.92mm as these have been remover from Canadian made Guns M/c BREN, 7.92mm Mk1'. But apart from that and a list the 7.92mm gun part numbers that differ from the standard gun, there is very little in our archives here.

They're clearly not lunchbox guns as they bear serial numbers!

Well, that solves the "Mark" mystery, at least. Thank you for that bit of intel. I always wondered why it appeared to be mis-designated.

M

It would appear there were thousands of 7.92mm guns made, at least 8000+ with a 0T serial number, 23,000 with a x-xxxx type serial number and 16,000 CH Chinese contract guns (These numbers are from serial numbers not production figures) So where are the 47,000 7.92mm Mk1s? Cos I want one!

Thanks for the info MGMike on these MK2 guns pantographed MKI 7.92 and lack of markings on these guns.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0/09/mki-1.jpg

The only other identifying feature on them is a seperate 'serial number' on top of the body just forward of the barrel nut housing.
A few examples -
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0/09/sn1-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0/09/sn2-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0/09/sn3-1.jpg

These numbers are not the same as the serial number of the gun,but appear to increase in numerical value the higher the serial number.

The serial numbers of these guns goes into the high 3-2xx range (from a US owned example)
Mine are 1-5161 and 2-3475

Can anyone else give any serial numbers ?

I am also very interested in contacting anyone with another complete example (as opposed to just the body) as the examples I have seen so far have an internal design/manufacturing difference to 'normal' 303 or CH/0T 7.92 Brens.

ATB Kevin

Kevin. Neither of yours shows up on my list.

I don't own one, though I could have bought three of them in 1968 and foolishly did not. I don't recall seeing the secondary numbers you have pictured, but that doesn't mean they weren't there. I do recall seeing what appeared to be a selective-fit number on the barrel latch (presumably 0-3 or 4), like the bolt heads on No. 4 rifles.

M

MGM. The Bren barrel nuts have a uumber on them according to their size, in order that the barrel nut actually tightens up the barrel. It originallt went from 0 to 5 (6 sizes) but later, during the L4 era, a few more were added. The barrel nuts were a VERY hard material. Because they were easily removed from the gun body, the gun serial number was engraved or etched onto the lever part. You could try stamping the number with the number stamps but the hard barrel nut would just blunt the hard number stamps

I will have some firm comments on these oddball serial numbers soon. I cannot comment yet because the Bren book disc is away being publishd as we speak and it's also on my old computer during a changeover of computer and systems

MGMike, re - "...at least 26 of these guns came into the US in the period 1963-65,..."
can you say where these guns were imported from ?

Peter,on the question of the MKI designation would 0T and CH prefix serial numbered 7.92 Brens also come under this ?

As I mentioned in an earlier post these 7.92 x Brens (x because I'm not sure how to designate them to differentiate them from 0T/CH 7.92's) have a couple of manufacturing differences from standard.As the sample is small and gleaned from info on tracked down guns I can only say this has been noted on all feedback so far.
If anyone reading this has one of these 7.92's could they inspect the piston extension for a manufacturing repositioning of the piston location pin and give some feedback ?

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

The big question is WHY ? :confused:

ATB Kevin

Kev, How do you do it? Finding 3 7.92s? I havn't even seen 1 in the UK yet! You lucky so and so!!

Did you see this one, what a pitty.

Bren , 7.92 , 8M/M, MK1 cut receiver #1 : Parts Kits at GunBroker.com


ATB, Chris.

Inglis 7.92 Bren: CH32XX has NO number ahead of the nut housing however does have three letters on the right side INSIDE the barrel nut housing and 5 numbers on the left.
AJN
54692

Piston pin as per photo. This is a mint,Inglis 7.92 Mk. 2 "undicked with" gun and ALL parts are factory original. It was unfired when I acquired it MANY years ago.
Attachment 15853
Attachment 15852

Will check the others later but not wanting to start an avalanche right now.

Kevin: I may not have been entirely correct in stating that the guns "came into" the US in 1963-65. ATF Forms 2, which evidenced "receipt or importation" of an NFA weapon, were filed on these guns during that period. The guns might have been imported then (the obvious guess is from Canada) or they might already have been here in the US, but in the possession of someone who was not legally required to register them. I do not have ready access at this moment to the Forms 2, so I am unable to determine who or where the transferor was. The transferee was Interarms in Alexandria, Virginia. Extrinsic circumstances of the acquisition and disposition of these Brens strongly suggest the involvement of an agency of the U.S. government. Time permitting, I might be able in the future to examine the relevant Form 2s and elaborate.

M

Mike: Welcome aboard and your "inside knowledge" of firearms and the industry as a whole will be most welcome. Hope all is well down south of the Mason/Dickson line and I'll drop you a private email later.
Ref: the 7.92 Brens in Canada. A large number were found in Canada around the 65-70 period that had not been shipped to China. The estimate ran from around 50 to 200 units. Their disposition is still under debate and unfortunately the people who were present and saw them are no longer with us. I did not see them but was told by more than one person who was present of the cache and was invited to see them but just never made it. I keep getting told we have to write this stuff down but where do you start...
Also on an aside, MOST of the 7.92 Brens that were in the 65-70 cache had bright polished barrel nuts for some reason. I've had the opportunity to see probably half a dozen and all were the same (from memory).
Cheers,
Warren

Warren, I don't wish to sound a bit of a meanie, but really, this so called Canadian hoard sounds like a bit of an urban myth with all those missing variables. 50 to 200 guns, nobody knows ecattle where they were, all the people now passed on... ALL of them passed on......., from 1970? I'm as interested as the next man, or even MORE so as I have a vested interest too having just spent 8 years writing the book, trawled the world, got HUGE batches of numbers serial numbers, by year and mark type and even in many cases, serial numbers within a few of each other, crossing years etc etc. I 'think' that I have got JI production down to the most accurate-ish figure that we'll ever get to, taken mathematically over all of the figures and that includes the UK MoS figures for the 7.92 as well.

And don't forget, we had several thousands too, that were eventually broken up for breech blocks, extractors and locking shoulders for our first Ex and L4 guns

It's just so frustrating, having passed the deadline when this 'information' comes to light. Herb Woodend was a master at it................

Everyone can believe what he likes, but the 26 guns are not mythical. The first ones were Form 2d in the US on 16 December 1963, the guns and their spares and their factory packaging (some of the guns were new in the wrap) were conspicuously devoid of manufacturer's identification or even proof marks, and the existence of 7.92 "Canadian" ammunition of similarly unattributable pedigree is commonly known (I still have several cases of it).

The serial numbers ranged as I described earlier. I am (or was, as many are deceased) acquainted with at least eight individuals who acquired one or more such guns directly from Interarms; their identities are nobody here today's business. Several other guns from this batch were, for unknown reasons, transferred to an obscure company called American Firearms & Ammunition Corp. located in Long Island City, NY. AFAC was a CIA "dummy" whose cover was blown a few years later (see George Thayer, The Arms Business, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1969). What Thayer did not discover was that AFAC had been involved in the movement through Interarms of literally hundreds-- if not thousands-- of Brens, both .303 and 7.92mmm beginning about 1957. Another of the 26 Brens recorded was sent in 1963 to a company in Connecticut known to have performed specialized machine shop work for "dark side" government projects. It was said later (I have no documentation for this) that some of the spare barrels were intended to be converted to another caliber; ultimately another engineering firm, located in Alexandria, Virginia (I know the company), got this contract. It also was said that this project was unsuccessful and that some of the barrels were ruined before it was terminated. Twenty years later, a crate of 7.92mm Bren barrels (separated from their parents) turned up for sale in Alexandria. I was not able to personally examine any of these, but they were purchased as a lot by a dealer in Texas.

To me this all leads inescapably to a conclusion about the intended employment of these guns. Others may feel more proof is needed.

M

Peter:
Don't mean to rain on your parade as well, but the guns did exist and their location was sound. Too many people saw them and it did cause a bit of a furor within the Canadian government. I was invited to view them but my travel schedule made it impossible at the time. I have NO reason to doubt the principles in this story as several were WW II and Korean vets who knew apple sauce from baby poop. I did try to find out what happened to them but the only thing I did find, at a later date, was the tooling. A HUGE warehouse of tooling for most of the WW II Canadian production of small arms and in fact I did remove some of the envelopes with the inventory of the case content. Those I have here somewhere. I believe if memory serves me right, the packing manifest I have is for the Hi-Power.
Urban myth ????...anyone is entitled to believe what they like.
Mike: the time period is actually quite coincidental.....

Slightly away from the subject a bit first, I appreciate that there's a bit of a mystery surrounding the post war activity of these 7.92mm Brens but very basically, they were all made under the sanction of the Ministry of Supply whose figures we also have, including the 7.92 totals 'returned' to the UK (Quite where they got the 'returned' bit from is a bit of a mystery or just a mistake as they never went from the UK in the first place but there you go!). I know that it is MUCH more complicated than that but....... The actual production of the 7.92's is all pretty well sewn up to within a few hundred or so with some unfathomable overlaps in batches BUT matematically, they all pretty well mate up to within a few hundred including those sent off here there and everywhere for tests and whatever...... It is on that basis that I will maintain that the unnumbered guns, or those with the 2-8xxx type numbers won't be an 'extra' 2-8000 (or 2,8000) guns although they might well be extra NUMBERS.

I'm afraid that ex Korea vets and WW2 vets can be horribly mistaken during the passage of time. Just see how many tell you some of these sheer fairy stories about Sten guns............. And that is to my experience too, relating to the 7.92mm guns! Because as I have said before and mention in the bowels of the book, we had some of these guns captured from our VC pals in D-445 during 4 RAR's time in about '67 (correct me if I'm wrong about 4 RAR, but the guns came from them.....) and they came down to the Brigade HQ, the Intelligence cells and back to Australia and the Training cell/wing in Malaya where the old and bold, ex wartime/Korea etc etc chaps (and even one of the old 8 RAR CSM's who was ex Africa Corps.....) examined them, wrote up about them and had them listed as, well, anything........... including German! But it was the NZers at the Intelligence cell in xxxxxxx who twigged that the strange calibre and configuration INGLIS Brens were Canadian 7.92's because some had the markings ground off or covered and NZ had Inglis Brens in service (Aust had Lithgow...) and the arrow-in-a-C was the Canadian mark. After that there was no mystery but I have to admit that I didn't know about them. It was me that deciphered the arrow-in-a-c logo after someone suggested that it was ROF Cardiff!

It just seems to me that talk of hidden extra guns........... and this is only my own very personal opinion, based on nothing more that getting up this morning, won't be 'extra' guns, as in lunch box or 'unaccounted for' but they'll be production guns. That's IF they exist/existed at all given the variables, uncertainties and depth of knowledge of these 'vets' who probably in all certainly, never saw a 7.92mm Bren. No real Armourer that I have EVER spoken to in over 40+ years or so of Armouring, here and the East, where they were destined to go, has ever seen one in service - except for those captured examples over there of course. Not even a parts list exists

I don't disbelieve about the packaging Warren, the Fazakerley No4 plant and machinery was stored 15 miles from here for over 30 years

Re the two dissimilar piston extensions that we've discussed before. According to a list, as opposed to a parts list, that I had that detailed the parts that differed between the Inglis 7.92mm gun and the bog standard Mk2, the piston extension didn't feature in it. This list was used to formulate the parts that could be utilised/salvaged from the UK's stocks of 7.92's that were here that could be used for the Ex and L4 programme. As I said, it didn't mention the piston extension or piston.

If I had to think out aloud, I'd be saying that a) we can't see it in full length (I tell that to all the girls........), b) if that was from a Bren, then the piston would have to be different and c) we'd need to test its mechanical fit in a gun body and ideally fire it on our range....., subject to it passing the safety criteria. The next thing would be to mike it up. A metallurgy analysis would be a good start. But I think that it's from a ..........., er......, something else! But NOT a GPMG!

I venture no opinion about whether these sterile guns can be accounted for within the known numbering schemes and grand totals of production. I don't think it really matters. My point is only that at least a couple thousand (maybe more) 7.92mm Brens were deliberately completed sans markings. A few later surfaced in circumstances clearly suggesting that they had been procured for clandestine purposes in the 1950s or 60s.

Incidentally, I did locate the Form 2s for almost all of the 26 Brens described earlier. As I suspected -- but wanted to confirm-- they all came from American Firearms & Ammunition Corp., i.e, not originally imported by Interarms. Significantly, they were not transferred to Interarms on a Form 3, as one might expect from dealer to dealer; it was left to Interarms to register them on a Form 2. I doubt if there exists any earlier Form 2 filed by anyone. If I had to make an educated guess, I would say that these Brens probably were already in the USA and stored at the U.S. Army Quartermasters Depot at Cameron Station, on the outskirts of Alexandria, VA, about a mile from Interarms. A lot of such material back and forth was simply delivered by truck. Three of them, in fact, ultimately were returned (on paper) to AFAC and disappeared.

M

Just to clarrify these particular 'bare' number prefix 7.92's have no numbers in the barrel nut pocket as per 'normal' Brens.

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

As has been said, all assemblies and parts that make up these guns have never had makers codes or names on them.

ATB Kevin

Pic of CH/OT 7.92 breech block and bare number prefix serial number breech block ,both types are marked MK I* but different style number fonts.

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

Both types can be seen in Tom Dugelbys revised BGS page 279 . The bare breech block shown has been marked upside down in the same manner and font as above pic in BGS Attributed to Canadian Arsenal 7.62 trial conversion.

ATB Kevin

Peter,1st pics are mine,bit crap as not too good on flash.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...nsion792-1.jpg

This one is from the US , I will request a full length photo and post back.Only have 2 half photos at the momment that I can find.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../09/ext2-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9/ext3bb-1.jpg

This is a post sample working gun that was purchased from Collectors Corner now I believe Ohio Ordnance ?

Mine is available for any non dustructive test .......no bloody great hacksaws !!! LOL :D

atb Kevin

MGMike,thank you for the update regarding the documentation.
You mention that some guns were believed to have gone for a calibre conversion ? Would this have been to 7.62 NATO ?

Any members here who live around the corner from the Canadian War Museum ? Any chance of popping in and taking a few photos of their two examples ? :)
I have been intouch myself but they charge to much for photographs for my short arms and deep pockets !

atb Kevin

Chris you'll find one (or three) ......but you will probably be skint when they turn up :-)
Yes I am aware who the buyer is and will be contacting him for details,this is the 3rd one in the last couple of months that I am aware of.The serial number is usually near or partialy cut through unfortunatly but you can often make it out , the number on the top of the body forward of the barrel nut is not affected.

ATB Kevin

Edited to amment to 2 in number in the last month ,I thought the one linked to was an addition but have been corrected by a buyer (thanks)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

Kev, How do you do it? Finding 3 7.92s? I havn't even seen 1 in the UK yet! You lucky so and so!!

Did you see this one, what a pitty.

Bren , 7.92 , 8M/M, MK1 cut receiver #1 : Parts Kits at GunBroker.com


ATB, Chris.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kev G

...
You mention that some guns were believed to have gone for a calibre conversion ? Would this have been to 7.62 NATO ?
...

atb Kevin

---

Kevin: I do not know. 7.62mm NATO is the only caliber that makes a modicum of sense, but even then the chamber would have to be sleeved and the bore is still oversize. Presumably it was desired not to alter the bolt or magazine, which rules out 7.62x54mm.

M

Thanks Mike,
Could you check to see if the GB bodies are on your list or an addition please ?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../side792-1.jpg

These are serial numbered 2-4922 and 1-0714 and follow previous formats of no inspection,ordnance or makers marks and have a number stamped forward of the barrel nut.

ATB Kevin

Kevin: Here are the numbers. It turns out that I counted multiple entries. There were 23, not 26 guns. 2-4459 was transferred three times, 2-3224 twice, presumably for the barrel project. The cut bodies you pictured are not among them. M

1-5343
5435
5759
5840
6862
8308
8341
9953

2-0000
0461
0490
0512
3022
3160
3224
3251
3292
4459
4577
4579
4963
5949
8045
end

This won't format properly here, so note: Upper group are all 1-prefix; lower group are 2-prefix.

Mike,
Many thanks indeed for sharing the serial numbers you have of complete guns,that's quite a haul :) ......now filed away.

I have another serial number of a cut body in the US , 2-0853. Is there anyway of tracing these body only guns ?

Not being familier with US law or firearms regulations is there any reason why just the bodies/recievers are sold on their own ?

ATB Kevin

Traceable only if you are the registered owner of that receiver in the U.S.; then, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to BATF may produce some background on previous registrations, but the names will be redacted.

If the receiver is in the U.S., the likelihood is that it was stripped for parts, and the unregistered receiver was torched because intact it would constitute a firearm by itself, and there is no legal way now to register it.

M

The three cut bodies that Kevin has listed in his two posts have all come to market in the US in the last 12 months... the mystery is if they are relatively recent imports as complete demil parts kits... evidenced by the torch demil cuts... or are they some old inventory that was parted out & demiled long ago with the left over receivers just now bubbled to the surface... The recent source could be either in the US or Canada... but none were marketed/sold as "rare" items so I tend to think that they may have been random inclusions in whatever source was mined for the parts kits that were imported into the US since 1986. Only those in the specific import businesses in the US could elaborate as to what was imported when and from where. The registered MG community in the US certainly would have been a good market for the stripped parts since 1986... primarily the bolts and barrels... and they would have paid a premium to have them.

I have mentined many times on this forum of the fact that the UK stockpiles of Inglis 7.92mm Brens were used to formulate the EX10 and L4 series of 7.62mm converted Mk2 and 3 Brens.

Well, lo and behold, this morning I opened a new packet of 7.62mm L4 extractors in order to replace one with a badly chipped claw. Only to find that all 5 were JI manufacture and marked 7.92mm. Clearly these were removed from the scrapped 7.92 Brens,re-packaged and returned to Ordnance to be used as spare parts for the L4 Brens later. As indeed one was today!

I've found several 7.92mm locking shoulders plus these extractors so I'll have to look at the breech blocks a bit more carefully from now on.

Waste not, want not as thay say!

As a matter of interest regarding the 7.92 'sterile' Brens marked - 7.92 BREN MKI and the difference in the piston and piston extension between these and all other types of .303 and 7.92 (CH & 0T prefix) Brens some further info.

As mentioned earlier the piston location pin is further forward on the 'sterile' 7.92's on the very few that I have seen.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../09/ext2-1.jpg

As there may have been some doubt on this feature on these few guns I thought it prudent to check with the examples (accession number 19760332-092, serial number 1-0001 and accession number 19760332-054, serial number 2-3429) held by the Canadian War Museum.
These were aquired by the CWM straight from Canadian Arsenals Limited so there provenance should be good.

Both Brens have been inspected and they do indeed have the same piston and piston extension as per other 'sterile' 7.92 Brens with the piston location pin further forward.

As the pistons and extensions are not threaded in these guns the location pin has to be further forward to mechinicaly join them.The location pin on all other types being at the bottom of the piston thread to arrest the possibility of the assembly becoming unscrewed.

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

Apart from this being possibly the only item that could be simplified in the process of Bren production it would also require a smaller in length and larger diameter location pin.

As no other Inglis Brens have this feature would it indicate these were the last Brens produced there ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Inglis were not allowed even the slightest variation from the drawing spec without specific Enfield/Ministry of Supply approval, even for the boxes, fittings and ancilliaries ets etc

---

Is there any known record of this modification/alteration Peter and if so is it dated ?

If the serial numbers on these guns are not random but run consecutivly in batch numbers of 9,999 is there room for 18,000 odd guns in between the known 0T and CH serial 7.92 guns in total WW2 production figures of 7.92's ?

As they don't have any inspection or acceptance marks on them would they count anyway ?

Appologies for so many questions :) but any thoughts , observations or further info much appreciated.

ATB Kevin

I read exactly what you say about the possibility that the 'mystery' 7.92mm Brens have a differently configured piston and piston interface connection. But a bit of history first......... For all you '....just-having-a-browse-while-I'm-here-Forumers, the piston extension is the whatsit thinggy that the breech block sits onto and the main piston screws into! The Mk1 piston extension and piston was apparently wasteful in manufacture because the lands between the piston rings of the Mk1 piston, (shown in the pic above) acted as what was described as a 'shutters' to the gas vents in the rounded part of the Mk1 gun gas cylinder. If you look carefully, you'll see that these lands block the openings of the gas escape or vent holes when the piston/breech block /piston extension is forward, effectively sealing that part of the gun from dust etc. Anyway, because of this, the male thread on the piston and female thread of the piston extension and the milled slot for the keeper/anti rotation pin (the subject of this discussion) were all index linked - or just indexed in engineering terms. This caused an intolerable amount of wastage according to the reports. Quite why is a bit of a mystery because once the machines have been properly set up for unskilled workers, it should be a doddle - but there you go. So a solution was found and out came the Mk2 piston without the lands or shutters. So with the Mk2 piston, it didn't matter where it screwed-in to, it bottomed out and was rotated back to align the holes and that was it. And if dust and debris/water got in, that was tough!

The IMPORTANT thing that was paramount during this development was that there was to be no what we now call, 'mixed fleet' Mk1 and 2 pistons had to fully interchange and operate with the original off the shelf piston extensions. That was pretty much what happened when any parts were developed and as we all know and understand, that's what made the Bren such a reliable and versatile gun. Even parts from the newest Mk3 or modified Mk4 or earliest Mk1 would interchange if push came to shove. And because the Inglis Brens were all made for the UK Government vide the Ministry of Supply (Oh yes they were.........., the contract to manufacture at Enfield between ZB at Brunn specified this and was extended to Lithgow but not to SA where they wanted to manufacture them too.....) any variations were very tightly controlled.

I'll give you an example. During a shortage of tubular brass rivets, one manufacture suggested that they could seal the end of the webbing Bren wallet straps by impregnating the ends with a plastic resin that would gel, set and prevent the ends fraying. Yet even this had to be submitted, tested, approved and sanctioned by the Ordnance Board - in the UK! And to utilise 400 or so bipod brackets that had been drilled slightly oversize, could they use oversize bolt shanks (not the thread.....) to save wastage and/or eliminate the need to bush them. Once again, it was approved BUT only on the condition that these bipods the legs were fixed permanently so that there was never a question of non interchangeability or a mixed fleet situation. You can see where I’m going can’t you………….?

There is no doubt (? Or could there be….) that these mystery pistons and piston extensions were indeed made at Inglis but the details of such a modification don’t appear in the papers here. ON that basis, they remain a mystery. But of this you can be sure. If the idea had been submitted, it’d have been rejected sharpish as it would have immediately meant that there was a mixed fleet. I also wonder why Inglis per se would go it alone and even consider a push-fit piston/piston extension a viable modification so late on in the war when they’d already successfully manufactured hundreds of thousands of the up to now fully interchangeable ones! Anyway, in a roundabout way, those are my views and ideas. I don’t think that the position of the markings on a component matters as these were done, hand held, with a foot operated punch (no health and safety then chaps…..). As for quantities, well I haven’t got my records handy at the moment but we have about 4 different records of Inglis production including the contracted MoS figures and all seem to tie up reasonably well. Britain did take a quantity of the 7.92 guns because the MoS shipping records and some of the OT and CH serial numbers appear on the ex 7.92 breech blocks now fitted to early 7.62mm L4’s.

It’s lunch time now and we’re having a well deserved Mess lunch and the rest of the afternoon off……………………..

[QUOTE=Peter Laidler;140494]I read exactly what you say about the possibility that the 'mystery' 7.92mm Brens have a differently configured piston and piston interface connection.

The IMPORTANT thing that was paramount during this development was that there was to be no what we now call, 'mixed fleet' Mk1 and 2 pistons had to fully interchange and operate with the original off the shelf piston extensions.

.....any variations were very tightly controlled.

There is no doubt (? Or could there be….) that these mystery pistons and piston extensions were indeed made at Inglis but the details of such a modification don’t appear in the papers here. ON that basis, they remain a mystery. But of this you can be sure. If the idea had been submitted, it’d have been rejected sharpish as it would have immediately meant that there was a mixed fleet. I also wonder why Inglis per se would go it alone and even consider a push-fit piston/piston extension a viable modification so late on in the war when they’d already successfully manufactured hundreds of thousands of the up to now fully interchangeable ones! Anyway, in a roundabout way, those are my views and ideas. I don’t think that the position of the markings on a component matters....

As for quantities, well I haven’t got my records handy at the moment but we have about 4 different records of Inglis production including the contracted MoS figures and all seem to tie up reasonably well. QUOTE]

Peter from what you have mentioned regarding autherisation for modifications is it more likely these were made post war ?
Or 'B' post was for a country/end user that wasn't party to this agreement ?

If the 'mystery'/'sterile' guns did run with consecutive serial numbers and Iglis production and MoS figures tie up reasonably well, is there gaps in known highest and lowest 0T and CH 7.92 serial numbers to allow for 18,000 plus 'mystery'/'sterile' guns ?
If not would this also indicate they were not WW2 production ?

Sorry for any confusion ,when you replied "I don’t think that the position of the markings on a component matters.... " I was refering to the point that the guns themselves do not have any inspection or acceptance marks on them.

Clearly these Brens exist so it would be interesting to find out more infomation on them if anyone has anything to add.

ATB Kevin

Has anyone asked if these were for the CIA? They did afterall have Canadian arsenals produce sterile unmarked 7.92mm ammo.

BP see page 3 of this thread regarding MGMikes comments.
".... strongly suggest the involvement of an agency of the U.S. government."

ATB Kevin

Just wondering if the receiver metal finish might give any clues... the two sterile receivers I have appear to have been cut (main body) either with old tooling or in a hurry and set ups took deeper cuts than normal... as there is a consistant irregular surface to the receiver... or were polishing steps left off... posible indications of late production on worn tooling... for not to picky clients? My other Inglis guns seem to have a bit more finished surface.

First answer/question for BP. If Canada did produce this so called 'sterile' ammo for the CIA, then how do we all seem to know about it? And you all know the intelligence guys response to these 'sterile' weaponry is. As Major George xxxxxxs said when I asked him, '......It/they might be 'sterile' for 30 seconds until the obvious becomes obvious'

It just seems as it this thread is now going in one direction, asking two or maybe three questions.
First, what's the answer to the un-threaded piston and piston extension question. Many of which, but my no means all, were fitted to certain, very probably Inglis made 7.92mm guns? My opinion is that this is a post war, quick fix, by someone (?) to use up a load of unfinished bits.
(A bit like Leyland cars using up all their old 12" wheel/tyre/brake components from the 1100/1300CC car line on the formerly 10" wheel mini's............)
And secondly, were these seemingly 'extra' 7.92mm guns counted in the end-of-war census of totals
Or thirdly, were they, as astute Wally G has picked up, late, maybe unfinished and more likely, unnumbered and therefore uncensussed and uncounted production that was in the system or maybe unfinished after production ceased. Could these have been 'acquired' and made up over a period of time from unfinished parts. This could also account for those, like Wheaty, who say that a big pile of these 7.92mm Brens were suddenly 'found' in the 60'sss or so (sorry for doubting that now Wheaty.......).

After all, the gun trade isn't beyond a few shysters who would and could make do and mend and more importantly, earn a few ££'s on such a deal. After all, anyone could get a body marked BREN and engrave before it 7.92. Or better still, an unmarked body and engrave it 7.92 BREN Mk1. But it'd be a bit more difficult to engrave the Chinese characters! Once again, that's only my opinion.



After reading and re-reading Wally G's well thought out theory, this is what I think. After all, it's not beyoi

First answer/question for BP. If Canada did produce this so called 'sterile' ammo for the CIA, then how do we all seem to know about it?

"...how do we all seem to know about it?"- I expect Oliver North during the Iran Contra affair asked himself the very same question ! LOL

Questions regarding this are probably best directed to the IAA (International Ammunition Association ) website as the 7.92mm and 9mm headstamps have been dicussed there.Also if of interest the 7.62x39mm ammuition made in the US for the Cambodian FANK.

And you all know the intelligence guys response to these 'sterile' weaponry is. As Major George xxxxxxs said when I asked him, '......It/they might be 'sterile' for 30 seconds until the obvious becomes obvious'

I don't think anyone is suggesting they were not ment to be traceable as to manufacture but the lack of markings and un-documented serial numbers make any gun'deniable'which is probably the best you could hope for.

It just seems as it this thread is now going in one direction, asking two or maybe three questions.
First, what's the answer to the un-threaded piston and piston extension question. Many of which, but my no means all,< ALL the 'number-xxxx' serial number Brens under discusion that I am aware of are fitted with a push fit piston > were fitted to certain, very probably Inglis made 7.92mm guns? My opinion is that this is a post war, quick fix, by someone (?) to use up a load of unfinished bits.
(A bit like Leyland cars using up all their old 12" wheel/tyre/brake components from the 1100/1300CC car line on the formerly 10" wheel mini's............)

And secondly, were these seemingly 'extra' 7.92mm guns counted in the end-of-war census of totals
Or thirdly, were they, as astute Wally G has picked up, late, maybe unfinished and more likely, unnumbered and therefore uncensussed and uncounted production that was in the system or maybe unfinished after production ceased. Could these have been 'acquired' and made up over a period of time from unfinished parts. This could also account for those, like Wheaty, who say that a big pile of these 7.92mm Brens were suddenly 'found' in the 60'sss or so (sorry for doubting that now Wheaty.......).

To quote Warren "A large number were found in Canada around the 65-70 period that had not been shipped to China. The estimate ran from around 50 to 200 units."
If these were Chinese contract guns surely they would be 0T & CH serial numbered guns ? Not 'number-xxxx' guns ?

As you mentioned Peter "I will have some firm comments on these oddball serial numbers soon. I cannot comment yet because the Bren book disc is away being publishd as we speak and it's also on my old computer during a changeover of computer and systems "
It will be of interest to see what info you can glean when you can refer to the computer.

After all, the gun trade isn't beyond a few shysters who would and could make do and mend and more importantly, earn a few ££'s on such a deal. After all, anyone could get a body marked BREN and engrave before it 7.92. Or better still, an unmarked body and engrave it 7.92 BREN Mk1. But it'd be a bit more difficult to engrave the Chinese characters! Once again, that's only my opinion.

The 1st option of anyone adding 7.92 to a body just marked 'BREN' is not possible as the font size of 'BREN'is different between the MK2,0T and 'number-xxxx' guns,it would have to be option 2 an unmarked body.

After reading and re-reading Wally G's well thought out theory, this is what I think. After all, it's not beyoi

I have no idea where and how they come about but would like to know.MGMike has so far furnished some very intresting info in his posts but hopefully more information will come to light in the future.

I respect your opinion that it is not beyond gun trade shysters to make these up from unfinished parts,But after all that trouble how and why they decided to get 2 examples back into Canadian Arsenals Limited after they had done them I can't quite comprehend.

ATB Kevin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The intelligence community usually (when they're able to be asked about such things.....) cringe at the notion of 'sterile' weapons, especially firearms. This is for many reasons. The principle one is that guns are made for killing people and once (if?) they are recovered, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to immediately identify the basic points of a) who made it and b) where it was made. These are inescapable facts. The next reason is that...................... anyway, the notion of using sterile light machine guns is a bit.............. Additionally, when weapons are fed into these 'groups', they are left marked simply so that the source of supply can be whitewashed - if that makes sense.

These are the words of an intelligence Major.

But back to this gun in particular, it looks to me like this is what we'd call now, a bit of 'identity theft' or in used car parlance, 'a bit of old fashioned car ringing'

---

You should see what your neighbours across the channel think is a"STERILE" weapon.

We had a few MAT 49 SMG's that sort of 'filtered down' from BIAFRA to Rhodesia and aber natuerlich wound up in the WRONG HANDS(i.e., blackish ones).

The tops of the receivers were roll stamped as follows.

Manufacture Nationale D'Armes Tulle

Modele 49

No.______ (blank space)

Holey sheepschitt ! Silly damned Ferogs just compounded the felony by leaving OFF the serial numbers.WHO could snaffle UN-NUMBERED SMG's out of a FRENCH GOVERNMENT ORDNANCE PLANT without serial numbers ? Better to have numbered them randomly USING THE SAME S/N groups as were shipped to French CLIENT States elswhere in i'Afrika; n'est ce pas mes amis ??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

Has anyone asked if these were for the CIA? They did afterall have Canadian arsenals produce sterile unmarked 7.92mm ammo.

---

That so called"STERILE" 7.92 ammo was produced in the 1943-1945 time frame by Defense industries of Verdun,Quebec for use in BESA MG's and Chinese 7.92 Brens.It was NOT produced by Canadian Arsenals or even DOMINION ARSENALS(Valcartier,Quebec) and the CIA hadn't been heard of until AFTER WWII.

I had 1000's of LOOSE rds of the stuff and shot it all off in one of Warren's 1960's discovered 7.92 Brens(BRAND NEW IN THE CRATE IT WAS TOO) and my MG 34's and MG 42 as well as a K98 High Turret Sniper that I still KICK MYSELF for having sold off !!

Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20 isn't it ??

Cheers,

JR

Yes agreed John,DI did indeed manufacture WW2 7.92mm ammunition.

As mentioned earlier the IAA website has discussed this subject in length and is probably the best place to seek info without copying and pasteing all their comments here.

In summary it appears that the WW2 - MM 7.92 4X - DI headstamps were duplicated in the 1950's for 7.92mm production for covert use.....plus headstamp dates before DI was even making 7.92mm ammunition ?
This example with a 1940 date -

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...10/79240-1.jpg
(pic from IAA website)

I'm sure the ammo gurus at IAA would be happy to debate any further questions relating to covert ammo :)

ATB Kevin

Kevin is on the mark. This is not Canadian ammo made for BESA guns during the war, which was well identified in its packaging. That came, if I recall correctly, in brown metal cans marked with its contents and "For AFV Use Only".

The postwar stuff was absolutely unidentified, in 1144 rd. wooden, tin-lined cases, containing 26 cardboard boxes, 44 rds. to the box (with not even a manufacturer's symbol on the paper). There were three lots of this ammo. The first two were rejected by the Agency, at least one allegedly for excessive soot. Successive lots were distinguished on the headstamp by the addition of one or two asterisks.

Only the first lot, sans asterisk, was ever released, "sold" by AFAC to Interarms in the early 60s. I still have several unopened cases of it. Some are brown stained, later the wood was treated with green cuprinol, possibly to protect the wood from rot if buried. Unlike the wartime BESA ammo it is non-corrosively primed, but is not of the highest quality. The bullets are not tightly crimped and tend to drift, and the jacket material produces copious copper fouling. It's not bad in a Bren gun, but a few hundred rounds through an MG34 or MG42 loads up the muzzle booster with a thick layer of copper that has to be chipped out with a knife.

During the same period 9mm Para ammunition was produced by the same source, similarly unmarked with bogus headstamps, presumably for the M1950 Madsen submachine guns procured by the tens of thousands. This latter ammo was of uneven quality, quite variable (and high) in extreme velocity spread. Often the bullets are seated crooked and bulge the casewall on one side, though the most unappealing trait was that the outer chamfer on the rear of the case rim was omitted, leaving a sharp edge that causes feeding problems in pistols.

M

And just to toss a cat among the pigeons..... Here is a small selection of gauges from a machinists tool box who worked at Canadian Arsenals during WW II in the ammunition division. The chest sat in the garage until I got it and was not used since the war. Look at the small selection of gauges I grabbed out of one drawer.... :-)##
Sorry I could not be more active in this discussion but a family bereavement has kept me busy
Attachment 16354