Printable View
I bought this many years ago at an auction in Saskatoon for about $45, and it wasn't until several years later when I got a copy of "The Bren Gun Saga" and my first Mk I Bren that I realized what it was. I haven't seen another one, but then I haven't looked. I don't know how common these are, but imagine that not a huge number survived. It's a fussy little piece......
Ed
Attachment 28921Attachment 28922Attachment 28923Attachment 28924Attachment 28925Attachment 28926Attachment 28927
Ed nice FLS,and thanks for adding another to the list.
Yours is the first in the 13 range.
Register is now updated -
CI - 16317
D - 16125
RL - 15920
- 15235 Warminster
CS - 15020
- 13653 ca
CH - 11525
RB - 11132
xx - 10010
NT - 8354
TG - 8239
PB - 7731
RW - 7431
KG - 7382
WW - 7377 (a)
AM - 7323
MB - 6642 (Ca)
JB - 6015
xx - 5819
WW - 3031 (b)
PH - 2951
AK - 2901
AF - 2874
DG - 2643
- 2559 Belgium
- 962 USA
Others at Singleton AUS
Battery Todd FRANCE
Shop in AUS
Anyone else have an FLS not on the list they care to add ?
ATB Kevin
These fixed line sights are mentioned in some threads of way back. Not exactly a useless bit of kit but almost, nearly a useless bit of kit. It was from the days when the Bren was going to be all things to all men. In fact, reading the early reports, it would appear that the Bren was going to put all other Infantry weapons out of business.............. It was even suggested that provision was to be made for a Bren bayonet and a grenade launcher no less. There was even a role for it in the AA business that we've recently gone over. Alas, while the big boys got on with the big boys toys like the Vickers, the Bren eventually - after a troubled start in battle - settled down to what it did best and excelled at. That of the section level machine gun.
Longest serving bit of kit in the British Army - if you exclude Bedford trucks. Fromn August 1938 until Feb 2002 and then, by default, until 2008
Can anyone out there tell us when the last Lanchesters went from the Australian and Canadian navies. We had some Australian Navy Lanchesters from a submarine in 1969. Any later bids?
Talking of useless accessories, I wonder if the most useless accessory must have been the spotlight projector. I never met anyone who had ever actually used one. I do know an old technical quartermaster who had several, brand new, still in boxes. He eventuially threw them away and commented to me that '............ what utter rubbish. Whoever thought that they served any use.........? The boxes were certainly useful and I've still got a couple for keeping all of my paperclips and other odds and ends in'
The next most useless bit of kit - magazine loaders! Apparently, if you got the charger loading type, then you could be sure that you got your ammunition in loose boxes of 32. But if you had the loose ammo 'hopper' type of loader issued, you could be sure that your ammo came in - yep, chargers!
The most ironic thing was that right from the start, the time to load a magazine by hand (according to the Army training syllabus called the TOETS (or toe-etts) or Test Of Elementary Training, at XX seconds (if someone could fill us all in with the time please.........) was FASTER than with the magazine loader. Ridiculous or what?
TOETS, now theres one I've not heard in a few years. It astounds me that in the RAF we have people who can't put 30 rounds off 5.56 into a SA80 mag in 60 seconds. Anyone who can't must have the manual dexterity of a fish.
All very good, but sorry, I don't speak Bren.
So perhaps you insiders could enlighten me and a few thousand others who are too shy to speak up.
Just what is this mystery object?
:wave:
Patrick
Good question Mr C, well put too! KevG, you're the expert in the 'object', you give em the full details. But very briefly, it was a fixed line sight. Not quite (or even nearly....) a dial sight for indirect fire but a nearly, sort of a baby dial sight. The problem was that it was neither fish nor fowl and didn't really do anything in the horizontal mode that the traversing stops didn't achieve more cheaply. In fact the fixed line sight on the 30 rounds-at-a-time Bren didn't do anything that a 250 rounds at a time fully dial sighted Vickers MMG couldn't do in a more fierce and ferocious way.
Care to expand on that KevG and others
Just a bit of history too. When you hear mention of a 'double dovetail' Bren, these are the very earliest Brens with TWO dovetails on the left hand side. The rear one contained the standard but oh-so-complicated drum type sight while the vacant front dovetail was to house the fixed line sight. But the fixed line sight proved to be frill, if not a complete fraud - and an ever increasingly expensive one. So once we'd had our backsides kicked out of Europe and needed to rationalise, the dial sight AND the housing on the left side of the Bren had to go. Thereafter, they were single dovetail sided or Mk1A Brens - except in Canada, where they were called Mk1M Brens
THere's the sight fitted to the front dovetail on an early-ish Bren. You set the gun up on the tripod roughly for elevation then roughly for line, then cross levelled it all up with the spirit level, then reset it again, this time accurately for elevation and accurately for line. Then fired 30 rounds in short bursts at the unseen target identified on a map. In the meantime, the big boys further down the line had done all that work with their feared Vickers guns or, if you were lucky and the enemy even UNluckier, with the ferocious 3" mortars. Nowadays of course, you'd call in air support...............
Yep, the Bren fixed line sight is up there with the best of them. Or should that be - with the worst of them? The saving grace of course is that like the magazine loaders, they are now worth a kings ransom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Well Peter, I am familier with the artillery concept of aiming "over the hill" at something you cannot see, by using something you can see as an offset aiming point. Works best for a very curved trajectory. But a Bren surely, like a rifle, does not have much of a howitzer trajectory at usable ranges (OK, I'll modify that, some of my black powder rifles do have a howitzer-like trajectory!) So unless the enemy is conveniently lying still and unprotected well behind a very slight rise in the ground at an extreme range while you go through this adjustment performance, you can hardly "drop it on them". Or have I missed some kind of military fundamentals here?
:wave:
Patrick
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!
LE: I can understand your approach on logic as to your statement of The Bren having a loose Barrel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
However: The Breech block slams forward & it's momentum is finally halted by two Breech block Stops in the Reciever. Technically, it does NOT touch the Barrel at the breech end. The result of a 'Loose' Barrel in Armourers terms, would be a loss of group accuracy. The Barrels are manufactured from good steel stock but NOT hard. The Barrel locking nuts are VERY Hard indeed! So the worse that could happen is that it is POSSIBLE to slightly batter the set of interupted threads at the breech end of the Barrel. This would be minimal & would not really affect the action of the gun.
BUT, if left for a LONG time in this condition (Would NOT happen in British Military service due to frequent inspection Procedures) then it MIGHT affect cartridge headspace & cause seperated cases to occur.
I have never expirenced a seperated case in either .303" Brens, or 7.62mm LMGs due to pre firing checks being carried out. & also R.E.M.E Armourers inspections as required as laid out in E.M.E.Rs.
If this happend in todays world with the guns set up correctly. I would suspect the Ammo if it were OLD stock. & even then, with the use of VERY old Ammo. I have fired Brens with no dificulty, other than the odd round has misfired due to Primer failure through age/damp conditions.
I doubt very much, that with a 'loose' barrel any further recoil forces or any radial stresses are transfered to any of the guns componants that would raise further concerns as to reliability of functioning in general.
these guns have legendary reliability for functioning under the most adverse of conditions as we all are aware.
But even through 'Normal' usage, nothing lasts forever! I can state just as a simple example.
The Piston Post (The componant that fits inside the pistion assembly & the 'Hook end' that projects through to hit the head of the firing pin)
I have replaced a fair few of these over the years where the cylinder section has fractured off just in front of the square section. (The cylindrical section houses the buffer spring)
This has been through 'Normal' service usage. IE: Firing Ball Ammo, & 'Dry firing' the action after stripping, cleaning & assembling.
It was not a common componant breakage, BUT, I can count on Two hands the amount of them I have encountered in 30 years of working & using them. Both in Service use, & Private ownership usage.
Believe it or not. Even with fractured piston posts, the guns STILL functioned & fired correctly! Testimant indeed, to the legendary reliablity of 'The greatest LMG ever designed & Built'!.................................
I shot the L4 LMG in compertition in the gun match a few times, against the L7 gpmg (MAG) and the L86A1 (5.56mm LSW) the Gpmg's always came out on top... probabaly due to the infantry doing alot more training ( the L4 was only used by us remf's by the time I joined up).
I could hit more at the longer distances with the L1A1 SLR.
the L4 was a gun you had to spend alot of time learning to shoot well (for compertition) Very good shots would score in the 100's the average, of the average shots would be in the 20's and many would fail to score...
but on a good note it was always better than the LWS (rose tinted glasses???)
Not only a gun that took ages to learn to shoot properly but one that took ages to learn thoroughly the mechanics of too........ I'd forgotted all about the breech block stops that Tankie mentioned too. They did take a battering when 'live' guns were used as DP guns without drill rounds.
I was never fortunate enougn to see the Bren/L4 used on the same range as the L7/GPMG and the LSW/L86. 3 generations of squad machine guns. A bit like being on a range with No4's, L1A1's and L85/SA80's
Hi Peter
in answer to your question re mag filling (Ok I've been off line for a bit) the tests at the end of training required that 28 rounds be loaded into the bren mag in
32 seconds 10 marks
35 seconds 8 marks
40 seconds 6 marks
45 seconds 4 marks
over 45 seconds fail
two attempts allowed. This is taken from Infantry Training Vol1 pamphlet 6 1955 The Light Machine Gun and Section Handling. I hope this helps
Regards
H