http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-CfuvCHq4I
Printable View
My immediate thoughts:
- It says Bren MkI, but isn't that a MkII?
- Never seen anyone hold a Bren with the left hand on the carry handle folded out and swivelled left.
- Don't know about the BAR, but the test was a bit hokey. The Bren is a crew-served weapon in its normal mode. I'd have liked to see a comparison with them both used in their normal operational mode.
Like I said, just my immediate reactions on seeing it for the first time.
Happy new year, one and all. Hope 2011 is a good one!
The 'Gunner' was an Ex U.S Marine & trained with the B.A.R is Service. He had probably never handled a Bren before. This 'Test' was obviously biased in favour of the B.A.R.
I believe the .30" Cal round was more powerfull though. But lack of controlability in this comparisson was self evident. Any weapon of this weight from the hip would be wastefull of ammo.
The Bren carrying handle folded outwards was a feature to be used for controlability in the AA role, from the AA tripod. It was not meant or designed to be used as a front grip for use in the fire and movement/from the hip role. This is a myth. For that, you used the folded bipod legs with the butt tucked under the arm, resting on the ammo pouches.
The notion that you would use the extended carrying handle to fire from the hip is the stuff oof fiction....... or nightmares. Just TRY using the carrying handle that way and within about 5 seconds you'll begin to feel the whole 19 pounde weight pulling your left arm out of the socket.
Just my two pence worth........ But I could be wrong having fired one once........ (sorry, just being silly there!)
The only time I've ever used it in the outwardly folded roll is in conjunction with the sling over my shoulder. It does balance well and you can change mags on the run as long as you're not fussy where you sling the empty...........
The UK did trial the BAR and a 'Superintendent of Design' modified variant of it during the lengthy LMG acceptance trials in the early to mid 30's. The SofD version got a bit further than the standard BAR but even then, the opinion was that while the BAR was good, it was just that..., a heavy rifle. What was needed was a true light machine gun. Not the same thing................ The rest, as they say, is history and entered both legend and folklore as the finest machine gun ever put into the hands of a soldier
The same applied to the L2 rifle. It was just a heavy rifle and not an LMG........... same as the SA80 LSW and dare I say it, the RPK. Good rifles but alas, not good machine gunbs. Just boys trying to do a mans job
I agree with Peter. The quick change barrel means everything in the LMG role. The BAR is a good weapon but comparison is apples and oranges. The L2 and M14 in the SAW role had the same drawbacks as the BAR.
I have fired the Bren in 303 and 7.62 Royal Anglian Regiment ACF 1968 -1972.
From prone, standing, and from the top of a 432 APC.
We were taught to hold the Bren using the sling and holding the bipod clear of gas vent.
I would imagine holding the carry handle would effect accuracy a bit.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo..._front_q-1.jpg
Having 2 BARs and 2 Brens, I'd suggest a 3rd competitor, the Johnson 1941 LMG. On any giving day with varing ammo targets ranges and tarain I think each is the BEST depending on the afore mentioned variables. I never shot them all side by side, but thought the FN D super with cast lead lower velocity bullets for accuracy and control, but at shorter range and larger targets the 1918A2 with military ammo was better. For short range controled full magazine emptying fire I liked the '41 Johnson. For bipod firing prone use I like the Brens. So why not a total comparison ? No longer have a Van, ranges are scarce and avialiable time is not what it used ot be. I have many guns I've never got to shoot. Such is life as the French say, but hope is eternal and there's always other days. Hope this was in some way worth the reading ?
Good points Groupie but.............. It's worth remembering while we're thinking about the points that while they were all good, when it finally left British Army service in 2002 - and about 2008 by default, it was the longest serving bit of kit in the British Army. How long was the service life of the Johnson and BAR. Not 65 years was it?
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
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