1939 Bren Mk.1 - just obtained & questions

Hello. A friend has just obtained a deactivated 1939 Bren Mk.I in what appears original and complete order, including cocking and dry firing.

It's stamped with "Bren Mk.1", a crown and "Enfield 1939" whilst the barrel has a few serial numbers (from A8** to X30**).

As it's a 1939 example, is there a way of tracing the serial number (B-28**) back to potentially Dunkirk, or the regiments it belonged to over its life?

Thank in advance for your advice and suggestions.

Photos below, including deactivated ammunition from June 1940:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9d1b47ed-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4f62b878-1.jpg

Not even the remotest chance in hell is the short answer. But, although these figures have been disputed by later day researchers, the census of warlike stores in August 1940, reporting on the availability of equipment to defend the realm against the forthcoming invasion states that of the c.30,000 Bren guns made up to that date (that'll be the A, B and up to the end of the C suffix letters) 27,000 were lost in France

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bren1939

Hello. A friend has just obtained a deactivated 1939 Bren Mk.I in what appears original and complete order, including cocking and dry firing.

It's stamped with "Bren Mk.1", a crown and "Enfield 1939" whilst the barrel has a few serial numbers (from A8** to X30**).

As it's a 1939 example, is there a way of tracing the serial number (B-28**) back to potentially Dunkirk, or the regiments it belonged to over its life?

Thank in advance for your advice and suggestions.

Photos below, including deactivated ammunition from June 1940:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9d1b47ed-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4f62b878-1.jpg

---

Any chance of PM ing me the whole number, I run a register of surviving Brens. I thought I had your gun on the register (B2824) but when I compare the photos I see its not. Also, if you post overall photos of the Bren we can tell you if its all correct. It does appear to have the correct Mk1 Barrel nut or perhaps a Mk3.

Cheers, Chris.

IF it's correctness yopu're after, then the magazine isn't right either!

Thank you for the information you sent following my PM, Chris. That's superb work you're doing.

As for the two magazines, thank you for the information, Peter. We do want the Bren to be "correct" whilst retaining the patina and originality it possesses already. Hence the June 1940 (deactivated) ammunition that's with it.

Therefore, advice on an appropriate 1939 magazine would be appreciated.

A few more photos, all comments, observations and advice appreciated.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2690a9ca-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...744c89b2-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...a64ec850-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2e140c98-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d680b1fe-1.jpg

Nice Dovetail Brengun. This is probably one of the few that did not go to France in 39/40. It's so difficult to find a nice Dovetail these days. Often you see them with the wrong barrel, butt and bipod. However a well used Bren would have had bits replaced when maintainence was needed. Some collectors like the "rolled in the mud quality". The gun has been there and done it. However I like fairly mint and original guns and bayonets. Because I am more interested in the history and engineering. I tend to want my collection to be a reference work for future generations.IE all correct. However as collectors we pays the money and make our choices. I am sure the reenactors who roll in the mud have just as much fun as I do!
Happy new year, Lester

BP might not be absolutely correct about the barrel nut (sorry about this BP!). To be really original, you'll need to take the barrel nut out or look inside if it's not get-outable and see if there is a 'stop shoulder' on the underside whan it is lifted. This 'stop shoulder' was to ensure that the gun was stripped in the correct sequence. I won't go into the why's and wherefores but I'm sure someone who's a dab hand with photos will illustrate it. It's the wrong butt slide as well........ And butt slides were not a replaceable part until just after the war as I seem to recall. The stepped muzzzles of those early guns were crap too. A case of the Enfield engineers thinking that they knew more than the Czechs!

I'll let you into a little secret about pic 4. See that little taper pin that retains the stainless (it's not really stainless in a metallurgical sense....) Eliminator, flash to the barrel.... got it? That pin was originally going to be a parallel pin with a half radius recess and a sprung lever head that would spring seat/sit into the recess at the rear of the pin. It was rivetted over or circlipped in place at the other side. Then to remove the flash eliminator, you could unhook the sprung lever, rotate it through 180 degrees and then unscrew the flash eliminator off. The longer legs of the Mk1 gas plug would prevent the sprung lever from rotating should it work free from the grooved recess. So you first have to remove the gas plug THEN unclip and rotate the shaft and only then could you unscrew it in order to screw on a special blank firing flash eliminator sleeve. Being a semi sort of stainless steel, the huge build-up of carbon fouling wouldn't affect the removeability greatly (oh no.......!) so you could use normal barrels for blank firing using a simple blank muzzle end.

As I read it, the blank firing flash eliminator didn't have any sights fitted so that you couldn't actually 'aim' at anyone.

Not a lot of people know that as yet another useless bit of Enfield info

Peter, should I assume that not all Mk1 Barrel nuts had the shoulder? I always thought they did but had them ground off later and then omitted from the Mk2 nut onwards. I only have one example with the shoulder intact, I dont know how it escaped but it matches the gun too so I aint compalining.

The good news is that your friend has the correct barrel (even if the gas hole has been reemed, it looks the part), carry handle and sleeve (Should be BSA but the patten is correct), Barrel nut (maybe with shoulder ground off), Bipod (Again would be BSA but patten is correct), Butt is correct (Again would be BSA but Patten correct).

The mag catch is Mk2 but its a cheaper item to replace, Butt plate is the later Mk1 with straight sides and as Peter said, the lower is a later Mk1 patten.

So, your friend needs a Mk1 mag at £100ish, Mk1 mag catch, Mk1 scaloped but plate with spoon, early Mk1 lower (Could prove a problem), and one of Kev Grooms repro butt handles. All in all a good start, he could always put replaced parts on ebay to recoup some cost.

The stop shoulder on the barrel nuts were one of the first things to be modified during the late 1940 simplification programme and it was declared redundant thereafter on existing barrel nuts already in the system. They had to do it this way because the barrel nuts are diamond hard and you just can't hack-saw or file the stop off. It has to be ground off and not many unit workshops had a high speed grinder as we know them today that would slice through it like butter.

By coincidence, the straight edged butt plate was also one of the items simplified under the same programme. Is that the blanked out/patched butt marking disc hole that I can feintly see? I suppose you gound hook that out and replace it with the correct marking disc. It LOOKS as though the backsight leaf is also a Mk1/1 variant too that was a modification to ensure that the full range of foresight blades could be utilised to zero the guns. If it is, it'll hacve a small /1 on the side at the aperture end or inside the H section along the side. Trivia really if you ain't going to shoot it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

So, your friend needs a Mk1 mag at £100ish, Mk1 mag catch, Mk1 scaloped but plate with spoon, early Mk1 lower (Could prove a problem), and one of Kev Grooms repro butt handles. All in all a good start, he could always put replaced parts on ebay to recoup some cost.

---

Wouldn't he also need an early rounded cocking handle as well?

(And thanks again to KG for finding one for me a couple of years back :) )

That was a very astute comment Peregrine because cocking handles were one of those items where the sub contractor was granted almost immediate permission to utilise the best means available with the machinery at their disposal to make/simplify the actual handle part. As a result, there are many. many slight variations of the handle. There's different knurl patterns, helix swirl types , opposite twists etc etc etc. As a result, it's difficult to really say which type is 'original'. Just on Warminster guns alone and in my spare parts lockers I counted about 7 different types

Maybe BP, KevG and ZGB can comment on this. But, it is a feature that I use in the bbook to illustrate various points as 'manufacturing variations'.

I think Peregrinvs is refering to the early ball type like the ZB that I think KG said was changed for the straight sided type in 1938. I've not got them on my 1939 guns but all the '38s have, although only one of the 1938s actually had it fitted when I bought it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

I think Peregrinvs is refering to the early ball type like the ZB that I think KG said was changed for the straight sided type in 1938. I've not got them on my 1939 guns but all the '38s have, although only one of the 1938s actually had it fitted when I bought it.

---

On page 151 of 'The Bren Gun Saga' is a picture of a row of MkI Brens which (according to the book) was taken in June 1940. The two guns nearest the camera appear to have rounded cocking handles.

I could well be recalling what Kev said incorrectly, hopefully he will be a long at some point to give us a correct date. If I remember the photo correctly, I think the butts also have the disc fitted too, can anyone (Peter ;-) ) remind us when they were removed/stopped?

That was at the same time as the big simplification of the manufacture of small-arms committee sat. They eliminated masses of superflkous crap at a stroke of a pen. But it wasn't THAT simple. Some sub contractors used certain features as datum points for the next stage of the manufacturing operation and so on so thay had to retain certain features until they could update their processes. So there was a good deal of overlap and goodwill until the changes were implimented. But this goodwill wouldn't have lasted for long as standardisation is what you need in all out war