L4A1 mag on the L1A1 Rifle?

Was the L4A1 (Bren Gun) mag ever used on the SLR?
I’ve heard (anecdotally) that it was used in the Radfan, rubber sorbo being used to prevent the mag banging on rocks. Another acquaintance reports that it was tried but that in practice they didn’t work as well as the 20 rnd because the L4A1 magazine is designed to feed downwards rather than upwards and therefore, the spring couldn’t cope.
Shooting prone would place the mag on the ground. This could be an advantage in steadying the aim, but I’ve also heard that it’s bad practice as it alters the POA and leads to wear on the rifle/mag attachments.

In the Canadian army we traded with the BATUS people in Suffield for the 7.62 Bren mags. That way a soldier could "own" a 30 rd magazine and not have it taken by the CQ. I tell you for a fact they worked flawlessly, as I used them for years. They were in high demand within our troops wish lists.

Jim,

Many thanks.

How about shooting from the prone position? The mag resting on the ground steadies the rifle, but again, I've been told that this is bad practice. What do you think?

Regards

Charlie

We didn't make a habit of resting mags, though the rifle team made it a practice. The book said no. I don't recall having issues with it resting on the ground. I didn't get that snake like. It never seemed to give me ANY trouble...

They were made to be fully interchangeable and work flawlessly as stated by BAR.

You could rest it on the ground if you were being silly but you'll chew up the base after the first detail! If you're going to rest an L1A1 it must be in the palm of the hand with the hand resting on a sandbag or something similar. There will be a distinct change of MPI if you use the magazine. Not a lot of people know that

A small but significent question from me, open to all who may be able to contribute.

The L4 used a slightly curved Mag. However, the South African conversion on any mark of their Brens used a stright one. The aussie & Canadian heavy barrelled Rifle/Light MG also used a straight Mag.

I am aware that the Brit L4 Series was curved to prevent misfeeds. Why was the straight mag a sucess over the curved versions? Anyone know the answer?

PETER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!................ ...........

I think it was a success by chance. The reason I see them using a straight mag in Canada was to use the same forming machines for the mags. A curved or "arctuate" mag(as Colt called theirs) would require a different set of machines and we tend to be a bit cheap there. And they DID work for the most part.

There were patent issues with the curved, supposedly more reliable UK made L4 magazines and we wouldn't allow Australia or Canada to manuafcture them without royalty payments. This also applied to Australia when she wanted to convert her own Brens to L4 spec (Canada didn't bother!) So as they were already producing the internal parts for the 20 round rifle magazines it was a simple matter to just make the rifle magazine longer.

Nothing more to it than that. Next question...........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

There were patent issues with the curved, supposedly more reliable UK made L4 magazines and we wouldn't allow Australia or Canada to manuafcture them without royalty payments. This also applied to Australia when she wanted to convert her own Brens to L4 spec (Canada didn't bother!) So as they were already producing the internal parts for the 20 round rifle magazines it was a simple matter to just make the rifle magazine longer.

Nothing more to it than that. Next question...........

---

So the next question Peter is; Lithgow had been manufacturing straight 30rd magazines for the L2 since its introduction in 1962, why then (especially if they had to pay mum for the privilege) did they start manufacturing L4 patten curved 30 rd mags in the early seventies for the L4's? I have several MA L4 30 round mags date stamped 72 and 73? I agree both mags work fine in both, so why did they bother?

I NEVER saw a 30 round curved L4 Bren magazine in all my time in Oz and NZ with the L2's and L4's only the straight ones. In Malaya there were both curved pommy and straight Aust types but the Ordnance stocks were pooled in any case. Why Lithgow reverted to making curved ones after the early 70's is unknown to me. Maybe, and it's just a maybe here, but like her home produced L4 barrels, when Lithgow looked into the matter, they found out that any supposed intellectual property rights as were pertaining to the 7.62mm barrels, were unenforceable* so like the barrels, just went ahead and replaced old worn out stocks of straight 30 round magazines with curved ones. The only IPR that could be enforced was the gun body presumably.

Clive Connors RAEME the Brigade Armourer was responsible for bringing the L4 into service, albeit limited service and made all this palava known to us during our Friday tea-time unwinding down sessions in the bar. Kindly Clive insisted that all us singlies (the single lads) had to be back in our billets by midnight, bless him. I wonder where he is now! Sorry for going off at a tangent but I still remember them all fondly

* How do you control the property rights when Lithgow already has authority to make Bren barrels in .303". And to make then with a different bore/chamber size which is already out of patent and call that a breech of IPR is a nonsense

Thanks Peter, yes I understand that as Lithgow already had patent rights for Bren barrels they did produce L4 barrels un-impeded. I think KG told me that, I do note that the Lithgow L4 magazines are clearly stamped on the side with the model designation, the manufacturer (MA), the part # and the date of manufacture. The straight L2 30 rd mags have nothing, so you might think all this identification may be a result of some patent requirement. I understand Lithgow were allowed to produce a copy of the Sterling SMG mag for our F1 SMG under the strict proviso it was not be sold to other markets, like when Lithgow undercut Enfield on L1A1 sales to traditional UK markets. Perhaps by the early 70's they'd done a similar deal with L4 mags? Hence all the markings. I'll try post a photo of one when I get a chance.

Daniel

Don't worry about a photo. When you've seen zillions of them, one L4 mag looks just like the other!

Incidentally, Clive Connors contempt for the L2 rifle was absolute. I asked him one day if it was just because he'd been born and brought up with Brens. Nope....... He said the the L2 was just a heavy rifle and not a section machine gun (god, if only he could see the SA80 L86 LSW that we had..... I sent one to Australia too!). He was right of course. The sections need an LMG while the platoons needed an M-60/L7 was his outlook.. He and Jock Annandale (the Kiwi) taught me all that was good about a Warrant Officer. Unfortunately, I skipped those Staff Sergeant and Warrant ranks. Oh well..... Kind thoughts Jock and Clive

So, which came first: theh Oz L2 or the Canadian C2?

I understand that the C2 came first and Lithgow "localized" the beast as the L2A1. There are probably notes somewhere from the appropriate "steering committee".

In my early days I put quite a few rounds through L2s. What I could NEVER understand was when the handguards were folded down to form a bipod, there was NO shielding over the barrel. More than a few "switched-off" diggers burnt their hands on a hot barrel. The Belgian FALO "LSW", as used by the IDF etc., at least had reasonable handguards. What were these committee people thinking?

The other thing about Brens is that there was a proposal to rebuild them at Lithgow to accept the "new" NATO cartridge, even before that round was in its final form and designation. It was referred to as a "Bren, Calibre .30", by which I understand they meant the "Cal .30 T56" round or similar, as we are talking about 1953- 54 here. There used to be a drawing in the archives at Lithgow. Sadly this document is probably buried in a damp cardboard box at the Powerhouse Museum if it has not already been destroyed or "souvenired".

In a final bit of Bren-related trivia, someone in Oz had the idea that the elegant aluminium-legged bipod on the MAG-58, should be replaced by grafting the legs and swivel part of a Bren bipod onto a modified MAG 58 bipod head. The piece-de-resistance was the welding of perforated "handguard wings" onto the Bren legs. It seems there were a few folk who appreciated the hand-protecting characteristics of the M-60 fore-end and thought it would be a nice feature on the MAG58. Who knows what will be dreamt up next?

I always figured that if the geniuses had fitted the feed mechanism from a MAG58 (itself lifted almost directly from the MG-42), onto the M-60 it would have bee a much better thing at once. The MG-42 trigger, which also found its way into the MAG58 would also have helped a lot; but I guess we will never know now.

We had both the M-60 and the L7A1 in Australia and Malaya and to be honest, once that they'd got a taste of the L7 the M-60 didn't stand a chance. Once again Clive Connors said that we (I say we but I mean Australia) had it because they were virtually gifted by the US to ensure some degree of standardisation in SVN and OZ didn't have anything else. Britain couldn't supply L7's as the licensing agreement was too tightly sewn up. Luckily, we had them in Malaya but the poms didn't take to the GPMG as a jungle warfare weapon and continued to use the L4 and the Vickers as the MMG in Borneo until August 1968.

When the 'Service Rifle Shooting Association' was still running full auto shoots at Borden in the early eighties, I had a chance to fire an L4 Bren using my C2 mags. Worked fine.