Lee Enfield n°4(T) and Bipod

In this following book, full of nice stories, there is one by which we are concerned
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...urelivre-1.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Shot at 2012-04-09
So, it's a book in French, in this book you have many stories about an object and the story of the man who had it during the battle of Normandy.
For us, mainly concerned by the n° 4(T), there is this story :
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...eshommes-1.jpg
Shot at 2012-04-09
here is the translation,
Reunion, 54 years after
We are in October 1944. Many months elapsed since the end of the combats that occured in the wood of Bavent when a farmer finds, abandoned in a ditch nearby is house, a particular rifle. This is a Lee Enfield rifle n°4 equipped with a bi-pod and scope that certainly belonged to a British or Canadian sniper. The farmer picked up the rifle that he kept many years before offering it to a roofer to pay some works done on the roof. In 1998, the retired roofer gave the rifle to a collector and narrows the story of the discovery of the rifle.
He goes with the collector to the place where the gun had been found and show him the "ditch of the gun". Half-hearted, the collector screened the ditch with a detector. The device rings, revealing a funny small metal tool staying in the grass since the war.
This is the rare device used for the setting of the scope of the rifle that retrieves its gun, 54 years later.

So looking at this picture, I wonder if any of you knew that the rifle could be equipped with a bi pod, if yes what kind of bi pod was it. And there is no swivel in front of the magazine.
So what to think about this rifle?

With a bipod on the end of the barrel, it's my guess that he will have needed more than a telescope adjusting tool to hit a target.

It looks like a sleeved down Bren bipod to me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

With a bipod on the end of the barrel, it's my guess that he will have needed more than a telescope adjusting tool to hit a target.

It looks like a sleeved down Bren bipod to me

---

Hubble telescope probably! :lol:

I find that the adjusting tool is suspiciously weathered to a degree not unlike the rifle itself, at least in the photo above. If it remained unfound for all those many extra years, it ought to be in much worse shape, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

It looks like a sleeved down Bren bipod to me

---

It sure does and its new one on me.

Bipod and rifle might be two separate relics found in the same ditch, and assumed to be together? An uniformed person might assume that the bayonet lugs on the rifle muzzle are somehow linked with the very similar cut-outs on the inside of the bipod ring - especially if both are oversize with corrosion.

Good story, thanks for posting

Would there have been a bipod made for the sniper rifle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Norton1

Would there have been a bipod made for the sniper rifle?

---

No. Bipods weren't really conceived of as a rifle accessory in those days. The whole tradition and training regime of British Army marksmanship centred around a proper manual hold of the rifle - the left hand supported by cover if available. Target slings were the limit of support aids, and British sniper rifles had only just been equipped with a multi-purpose sling.

Didn't some of the snipers prefer the longer Bren sling? Without the snaps of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Long Bren webbing slings were well liked and suggested by the sniper schools, certainly here. once the leather slings were wet they were a real handfull to hold - if you'll excuse the pun! A part of the trouble was that they were always cleaned down and had loads of 'dubbin' slapped on them. They lasted for years of course but when it was absorbed by the leather it made it sooooooo slippery. A bit like trying to catch an eel

The irony was that when the last L96's were being used by the snipers here, some of them had old L1A1/No4 era cotton webbing slings fitted. Old habits passed down I suppose

Bipod and rifle might be two separate relics found in the same ditch, and assumed to be together?
This is an option thunderbox. Fierce combat occured in the wood of Bavent.
:wave:

I have some close ups of the bipod and I must admit it does look good!!!!! I'd sure hate to try and zero or even shoot with a bipod on the barrel. I seem to recall there was a DDE on it, but don't think it ever got off the paper.
Someone in the UK made some up not that long ago...cannot remember who, but maybe WWA or Prentice...anyone remember?????.

In the normal course of events, knowing just a teeny weeny bit about how normally secretive and sensitive snipers are, you wouldn't find a Bren and sniper team in the same place while carrying out their work! And if it was a Mk1 Bren that had lost its bipod, then it would only be a single shot Bren because it wouldn't re-cock. But being serious, have no fear because I tried a bipod on a No4 this afternoon - as you do - and they both fell over. Unless you make the ID of the bipod sleeve the same dia as the OD of the barrel, then this is a guaranteed situation all the time. I tried it twice just to make sure!

Without a decent picture of the bipod sleeve in the article then if it's standing up unsupported, then it must have been modified. Maybe we could see some of the close-ups Warren. To be honest, I just wonder what the Armourer Sergeant would have said when a sniper (I use the word loosely) came into the Armourers shop and explained that he wanted a spare Bren bipod to superglue to the bell-end of his accurate sniper rifle. In fact, his answer is ringing in my ears already - and it's not pleasant..............

I have no illusions that the bipod was an officially sanctioned device. However it does look good and is in complete agreement with the existing corrosion found on the No.4(T) rifle. It does appear to be well made and it might even be a post war experiment by the local hobbyist who merely chucked it in the ditch when the local Gendarmerie came calling. We all know how far you get arguing with the French Gendarmarie. As to original WW II issue, I rather doubt it, even though a DDE does exist, however the copy I saw was stamped obsolete. The corrosion on the rifle, scope and tool do not look like 50 years in a French ditch. I've seen a few items that were dug in France on a chums farm and they are mere skeletons of the original object. I think Roger can attest to this one, mind you he is in a WW I battlefield and mere threads of items are all that remain from that bun fight.
I can just imagine some RSM seeing a cocked up sniper like the one in question. I think self implosion would be an understatement.
There is no way that any degree of accuracy could be attained with the bipod attached, and in looking at it all, I suspect the "chuck it in the ditch when the Police come callings" might be the answer to this mystery.

I don't have photos at the moment, but I do have a No.4 bipod.

Obviously a shaft-less No.4 bayo head, bored-through with a pressed-in spigot which is pinned in place and also has a sling swivel.

Permanently mounted on the spigot is a PH bipod. Design like the Bren Mk.1, but shorter thinner legs and much smaller feet. The "classic" PH bipod.

Stampings on the bayo "head" are:
PH over T4
REME over WORKSHOP - self explanatory
G5 over B - upside down and looks original to the bayo

Across the top flat of the head is P in circle 1949, so it was probably a No9 bayo not a No.4

Exceedingly well done and a credit to the REME engineer. I wonder how many they made?

The bipod has been cleaned extensively however had it been in the ditch for any extended length of time the corrosion would be much deeper. Also, the spring would be most likely dissolved by now as well. Anyhow, I hope I have not overstepped any confidentiality by showing this picture of the bipod.
Attachment 32796

I do understand the bipod issue as it relates to firing a rifle. The Marines were the same way. We were taught how to hold the rifle correctly and how to shoot the same way. Slings were a large part of this process but we had canvas slings and they worked very well. Of course in hot exchanges with the VC/NVA I never saw a sling employed. Took to long.

Now on the Pig, the M-60, there was a bipod. A rather nice one. But it didn't fit anything but the 60. The M-14 E-2 variant had a nice bipod but it was our fireteam's automatic weapon and only used when in full-automatic mode as a fire suppressant weapon. I modified an M-60 bipod once to use on an M-16 and it looked really good. But I could not make that rifle hit anything while using the bipod. My realization was that any bipod attached to the barrel of a rifle only created problems.

I've seen the pictured bipod somewhere but it eludes me at the moment where. I believe it is of Chicom or Soviet Bloc manufacture.

Nice find anyway!
Be well,
Steve

Does anyone remember a clip-on sort of bipod for our early AR15/M-16's we had in Malaya and SVn. They clipped around the barrel between the 'A' of the foresight block if my memory is right. I never used one because you couldn't fold it to carry the rifle. Like Norton says above, we were always taught to shoot over cover with the forearm rested. Even now, with the bipod fitted to the sniper L96 and 118 rifles, the bipod is completely separate from and has no influence whatsoever on the barrel.

Regarding Warrens pics and gravity fand description, I say good try but theory poor! It reminds me of the bipod on the RPK!

PETER!!!!
Regarding Warrens pics and gravity fand description, I say good try but theory poor! It reminds me of the bipod on the RPK!


I have NO IDEA of what you are trying to say....please explain

Gosh, have I said something wrong or something that's been misinterperted or misunderstood?
I mean that if the bipod on the rifle at the start of this thread is the one shown in your thread 17 or as described by GF in thread 16, then the manufacturer has made a good try at a rifle bipod, it clips on and would certainly steady the rifle. That's the good try

But the fact that he was clearly asleep during his harmonics lesson at school shows here because while the bipod was a good try, his subsequent theory was poor, in that he'd never hit the same place on the zeroing screen twice (that's if he even hit the screen the first time!)

As for the RPK connection, well, that has the same idea of a bipod on the end of the tuning fork vibrating barrel. Have you ever tried to fire a group with one? When asked why on earth the bipod was there, The great man himself turned to Lt Col Tug Wilson and said through his interpreter daughter '.....In Russia, I am a Captain. When the Generals tell me that they want my rifle to be a machine gun, I give them a machine gun...............' There was a bit more to this conversation that was recorded for posterity but that's the gist of it.

I recall the US bipod; it was issued for a short while with the M16A1. It had its own pouch which clipped onto your belt using the normal eye holes as well. The diameter of the hole created when it was placed on the rifle was too small for use on the M16A2, by that time it was gone anyway.

In any case I recall training to use one of these around the fall of 1982 or early spring of 1983. It was only used in full automatic from the prone position. It was used in conjunction with the old canvas or nylon M1 sling. You formed a loop in the sling behind the front sling swivel. The loop was formed by when you clipped the end buckle and the rear swivel clip remained on the rear sling swivel. You used your left, (or non firing hand) to pull back and slightly down on this loop. Your firing hand, buttstock/shoulder and stockweld remained the same. The bipod was just rested on the ground, you did not dig it in or rest the weight of the weapon on it like you would with an M60.

In ay case when you configured the rifle in this way you could use the M16A1 as an automatic rifle and shoot fairly good shaped roundish groups. One did not fire long burst, just short 2 to 4 shot bursts at individual targets. Once you had a some practice it was not all that hard to get good hits out on the field fire course, how far out I do not recall.

There was a bit of an art to it as if you used the wrong tension you would see a significant zero shift with the light M16 barrel. The key was the tension on the sling and really only using the bipod as sort of a shake stabilizer. If you pulled down too hard your group really moved. How practical it would have been if you were in real combat I have no idea, but it was one of the more memorable and happy training sessions on the range. I do not have any idea how widely it was issued or when.

I do not think it survived into the M16A2 period. Certainly the M1 sling did not, around that time the silent (and cheap) black sling became standard as well.

I also recall the clip on bipod - I was the Asst Platoon Sgt of a Mechanized Infantry outfit in the late 70s - early 80s - they were junk as I recall. We returned them to supply as fast as they gave them to us. Cheap little stamped out things that bent at the slightest provocation. And yes you could kit something with them if you took your time. Unfortunately time is something most grunts being shot at don't have. At the time we were going back and forth to Noriegaville (also known as Da Nang South by us old guys).

Going back to Warren's point about the degree of corrosion on the scope adjusting tool; yes, I'd concur. It does not really look corroded enough to have been buried in a French ditch for over half a century. I just got back from spending much of the last week field walking on The Somme. OK I know the stuff over there has been buried near enough a century now, but I've done a fair amount of mucking about in Normandy, at Dunkirk etc., & unless there was very little oxygen in a rather chalky alkaline soil, I think the deterioration would be much worse. Just my .02c.

ATB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

I find that the adjusting tool is suspiciously weathered to a degree not unlike the rifle itself, at least in the photo above. If it remained unfound for all those many extra years, it ought to be in much worse shape, no?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Going back to Warren's point about the degree of corrosion on the scope adjusting tool; yes, I'd concur. It does not really look corroded enough to have been buried in a French ditch for over half a century. I just got back from spending much of the last week field walking on The Somme. OK I know the stuff over there has been buried near enough a century now, but I've done a fair amount of mucking about in Normandy, at Dunkirk etc., & unless there was very little oxygen in a rather chalky alkaline soil, I think the deterioration would be much worse. Just my .02c.

ATB

---

I don't think Warren would like it getting us confused!:madsmile:

Thanks for the picture of the bipod Warren.
The bipod legs are from the 1950's Czech made UK Vz59 Universal MG !
Have you any more pics that show a side view to see if the legs have a swage running up the leg ?
I will post some pics in a bit for comparison.

ATB KG

Will try and do a better pic later (flash hider has been removed for clarity) when the sun comes up a bit but I think they are one of the same with a modified head ?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4/uk59bi-1.jpg
The bipod feet in the original pic also show them central to the legs the same as the Vz59.

ATB KG

Hey guy I think you nailed it!!!
I'll pass this on to the owner. He will be thrilled. Sort of helps my theory it was not original to the rifle or even the period they had hoped. I know that our friends at WWA made up some years ago, but I think he used Bren bipods. Do you have the DDE number on it by the way? I have a copy of the DDE here somewhere but don't have the time to look in 2000 files, plus I still have over 5000 plates on microfilm to read on the Bren alone.
I'll contact the owner and try to get some more photo's as the ones I got originally were horrible and I forwarded this last one without even looking closely at it. I'll send you what else I have in photo' on this thing via personal email, but I think you nailed it.

As for the rifle itself, it seems to me that the rear sight axis pin and the visible end of the front scope attach screw are a bit shiny. Something to examine more closely at any rate.

Just for reference a picture of the Vz59 MG the bipod on the 4T looks to have been gleaned from.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../04/VZ59-1.jpg

ATB KG

Isn't it amazing what you can learn from this site.................? I'm not a forum hopper, but do the other forums have this depth of knowledge among the brethren?

This one seems to be the best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a big time forum hopper, I would tend to concur with gsimmons, but many of the other forums on this site do have an excellent membership. Always something to learn!

Plus, this site seems to be about the best mannered place of all my limited "internets" experience.

Thieving b*gger! He should have handed it in. Some poor sod left his rifle for a second and one of our glorious allies nicks it. He then "finds" a bipod ... and the rest is literature.

Compare the corrosion to the No4(T) found in the wall of a house in Arnhem. And to the No32 found in a nearby ditch decades later. Not the same at all, except that the corrosion on the rifle and adjusting tool are commensurate with being poorly stored in a building for who knows how many years.

Several possible scenarios: canny local finds dead sniper when the front moves on and relieves him of weapon, case and tool. The sniper wouldn't bother to carry the damn case around, just the tool, perhaps.

Or, front line moves back and sniper is forced to ditch his weapon as a prelude to escape or capture and stuffs it somewhere he thinks it won't be found, and it isn't, for some years.

Nice to see our resident Bren expert Kev G has nailed it down. The bipod (legs and swivel) could not have been made before the late 50's or early 60's depending on what model it is. I did have a picture of the lower legs which Kev G nailed at once. SO!!! The unit as it sits is a "humper" or at least the bipod is. As to the provenance of the rifle...Only the "Big Enfield" knows for sure. I'll try and get some more photo's of the rifle and scope from the owner and maybe we can continue to postulate as to its possible provenance as found in the ditch. I still suspect the "Surete" had something to do with it showing up where it did.

No32 from Arnhem:


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...41940521-1.jpg



A No4 from an Arnhem ditch:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...41940848-1.jpg

Isn't it amazing how well preserved the leather is, when the restof it so far gone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I knew when I joined this forum that it was a different one than all the others we can find on the web.
So, I zoomed on the bi pod, from the original book, https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...04/bipod-1.jpg
Does it help?
I'm particularly impressed by Mr Laidler who tried to use a n°4 fitted with a Bren bipod:thup:
Something looks curious to me, this is the angle of the gun with the bipod, does the bullet can go through? or is it a loose link?
:wave:

Don't get me wrong or take my efforts toooo seriously Lou. I was just playing with a No4 rifle and a Bren bipod at work. Now we know that it wasn't a Bren bipod after all nor were the rifle and bipod connected in any historcal sense

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsimmons

Isn't it amazing how well preserved the leather is, when the rest of it so far gone.

---

They've confused matters by putting the scope in a case that was never buried anywhere, and putting leather caps on that were obviously not buried either. They've certainly dried out a lot though.

Or were you joking?;)

Hi Guys,
I"m bumping a very old thread, but I've infos about this bipod and the rifle.
Both were discovered together at the same time. The bipod is a Bren Mk I bipod with the tips of a n°4 bayonet fixed on it.
I'm expecting to get close pictures.
If I can determine the regiment which was involved in the combat at "bois de Bavent", Normandy, do you think that we can find the name or at least a short list of the potential owner?

The bipod with bayonet tips on it is NOT a Mk1 bipod. It's a Mk2 or a 3. Mind you, there were several hybrid variants. As for locating the owner or user........ I'd say not even the remotest chance

Bren Bi-pods are wonderful things, that can be used for all sorts of weapons.

Which one of you highly skilled armourers made this?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wqdymkkr-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4znalluz-1.jpg

I'd hesitate to use the words '....highly skilled' and 'Armourers' in respect of that monstrosity KtK. Looks like the offender has unpicked the shroud from an L4 type bipod. (I think the man that did this was the same man that installed my new shower a year ago. That's now been totally stripped out, properly sealed, properly waterproofed tray and tiles and being put back together - properly!)

On a serious note, I wonder if someone - KtK - could put these pics onto the L1A1 bit of the forum for posterity. Interesting if nothing else

You know someone in the field made this........ probably someone wanting a removable bi pod for their L1A1. The bayonet is from the late 60s or later. It was probably someones answer to putting a bi pod on the SLR fitted with the IWS for observation duties in Northern Ireland. It was probably easier to obtain a Bren bi pod than a L7A2 bi pod and modify that into this.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...MGIWS_05-1.jpg

Yes, it's a later 'reinforced' bayonet. I thought these bayonets with the straight sided stronger crosspieces were from the mid to late 70's. Certainly stronger and I never saw one with a broken X-piece ring. There's quite a bit of brazing work involved in this bipod project because once the blade is cut off the X-piece will just slip off the front unless it's all brazed together! Not the sort of facility that the average crunchie would have. No good for accurate shooting with of course but like you say, across country ground level observation with the IIW or from the watchtowers, as good as anything else. Seems hard to believe that we used IIW's that size now! Mind you, they lasted for many years, right up to the L1A7 version.

What is that circular stud/nut/reinforce on the butt, just above the missing sling loop? Is it a hybrid Arctic Warfare butt with the clip-on sling loop on the other side?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nzl1a1collector

You know someone in the field made this........ probably someone wanting a removable bi pod for their L1A1. The bayonet is from the late 60s or later. It was probably someones answer to putting a bi pod on the SLR fitted with the IWS for observation duties in Northern Ireland. It was probably easier to obtain a Bren bi pod than a L7A2 bi pod and modify that into this.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...MGIWS_05-1.jpg

---

When I was with the Para's I used to make these set up's all the time. Ideal then for observational use in N.I & on Exercises. I have been asked to make a few more from members on here. & have done so for Them! ;)

---------- Post added at 05:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 AM ----------

Never seen this lash up with a bayonet part before! But I can see where the original 'Owner' was attempting to go!......................................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

What is that circular stud/nut/reinforce on the butt, just above the missing sling loop? Is it a hybrid Arctic Warfare butt with the clip-on sling loop on the other side?

---

Yes its the Arctic Small Arms Butt. At the time of the photo the rifle was set up for the Arctic warfare role, I swapped over the handguards, but not the butt for these photo.

As I seem to remember, the Arctic Warfare butts were different internally to the standard butts somewhere along the way. It was to prevent the other side of the side mounted sling loop from pulling through the black outer shell of the butt. Or cracking it (before it did pull through.....) in the severe cold of darkest Norway. The firm in Macclesfield(?) who submitted the trial butts had a bit of a headache. It was a case of '......you can have temperate climate plastic butts, you can have cold weather plastic butts or you can have tropical climate plastic butts. But you can't have ALL climate plastic butts!' This little firm also made the last batches of L1A1 telescope range and deflection drum assemblies.

So finally, I get some pictures of the bipod.
On one of them, we can see that this rifle is equipped with a solid block band foresight. I'm surprised by the gap in between the front sight and the forend. My 2 Enfield don't have so large gap.

Attachment 69561Attachment 69562Attachment 69563Attachment 69564

This n°4 T has the TR on the butt socket, the left side of the receiver is damage by a long stay in a attic for 30 years and the T is not visible. the S51 and the S are stamped on this rifle.
The scope number doesn't match with the number stamped on the butt.
So what kind of bipod it is? Is this bipod contemporary of the rifle?