Bren Mk2/1

Does anyone else out there own a Mk2/1 Bren. It's a Mk2 Bren modified post-war at Enfield to incorporate the Mk1 type folding cocking handle. Two lots were done in 1948 and again in 1950 totalling 18,000 guns 'of both types' although another Enfield in-house report says that it was 20,000. I can only suspect that '...of both types' meant both the Daimler/monotype group and Inglis Mk2's

Mk2/1's converted at Enfield are marked FTR/48 or 50 on the right hand bodyside, with the figures '/1' added after the Mk2 nomenclature and re-proofed. Later when the drawings were sealed, this body modification was permitted at Base Workshops

I have to say that when these Mk2 guns were finished with Mk3 gun barrels and butts, they were difficult to tell apart

Slight correction to your post Peter, well a type O, you meant to say 'Mk2/1 Bren. It's a Mk2 Bren modified post'

I have one or two in the collection, I think one was then converted to South African 7.62mm and the other a L4A3, would need to check. I think all the Inglis guns and pre 44 monotypes were marked MkII/1 and the later monotypes were marked Mk2/1.

Corrected the typo BP. I should say that not all of the L4A3 an d L4A5 guns were upgraded to the folding cocking handle spec, especially the Navy guns because the Naval Ordnance BR (the Navy equivalent of our EMER) for their L4A3's and 5's lists both types of cocking handle, together with the part numbers with the annotation 'A/R' which indicates As Required. To be honest, even that's not strictly true either because another BR states that A/R indicates As Requested! I wouldn't loose any sleep about it though.

Imcidentally, it is/was this Naval Ordnance BR that cleared up the minor discrepancy about the lineage of the A3 and A5 guns. A booklet published by the factory and sanctioned by the old MoD procurement/sales office says that the A3 has ONE chrome lined barrel - which we called the 297-barrel while the A5 has TWO chrome chambered only barrels - which we called 299-barrels. This not correct. The A3, the earlier gun has the TWO 299 barrels and the later A5 has ONE later chrome lined 297-barrel

You probably won't find any of the old early 299 barrels because they were absolute crap

Peter,is there any reason in refering to the 2 types of barrels as '297' and '299' ?
ATB Kevin

Ah, yes. Very good point KG. The early 299 barrel was so named by Armourers because on this barrel the .299 gauge had to run freely and without obstruction. 2 of these rubbish barrels per gun. The later barrel we called the 297, the .297" gauge had to run freely and unobstructed. Chrome bore and chamber; 1 barrel per gun. The barrels looked similar - in fact they were identical except that the 297 was chrome lined and had a different part number. The bore difference was because of the chrome lining. Almost impossible to shoot one out I have to say!

We used these bore size identifiers because if you were in a unit with L4A2's AND A4's, life could get confusing. Such trivialities didn't concern the Navy as they really didn't care too much so long as there was a hole down the barrel - somewhere!

There was another barrel that was totally crap and useless to boot but I won't go into that!

Thanks for the clarrification regarding the 297 and 299 barrel reference Peter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

A booklet published by the factory and sanctioned by the old MoD procurement/sales office says that the A3 has ONE chrome lined barrel - which we called the 297-barrel while the A5 has TWO chrome chambered only barrels - which we called 299-barrels. This not correct. The A3, the earlier gun has the TWO 299 barrels and the later A5 has ONE later chrome lined 297-barrel

---

Not having seen the naval Book of Reference (BR) that states the L4A3 has 1 chrome lined barrel and the L4A5 has 2 chrome chambered barrels, but I thought this was the correct description ?
Now I'm confused in that you are saying this is wrong.....can you shed any light as to why it's the other way round (L4A3 two barrels - L4A5 one barrel) ?

ATB KG

You've totally lost me in the translation somewhere KG, and it's relatively early in the morning so......
L4A2 and L4A3 have TWO what we call .299 chrome chamber only barrels due to their easily identifiable bore dameters
L4A4 and L4A5 have ONE what we call .297 fully chrome lined barrel due to its .297 'must run freely' bore diameter

It is NOT the Navy BR that says that the reverse in relation to the L4A3 and 5. It is another booklet issued by the MoD Procurement and Sales branch that says the reverse is correct. Phew!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

You've totally lost me in the translation somewhere KG, and it's relatively early in the morning so......
L4A2 and L4A3 have TWO what we call .299 chrome chamber only barrels due to their easily identifiable bore dameters
L4A4 and L4A5 have ONE what we call .297 fully chrome lined barrel due to its .297 'must run freely' bore diameter

It is NOT the Navy BR that says that the reverse in relation to the L4A3 and 5. It is another booklet issued by the MoD Procurement and Sales branch that says the reverse is correct. Phew!

---

That's the logical sequence and I assume that as I've never seen a L4A5 marked gun that they either just didn't bother marking the gun with the A5 or the single 297 barrel arrived as the L4A3 was going into production. When did the L4A2 to A4 change take place? I have noted the first L4A3 produced in 1962 and the first L4A4 in 1961 so it would make sense that the L4A3 concept originally would have had 2 barrels but when production began the 297 barrel had been introduced so only that barrel was required. Possibly why I've only seen the A3.

I could of course be well off!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

........it would make sense that the L4A3 concept originally would have had 2 barrels but when production began the 297 barrel had been introduced so only that barrel was required. Possibly why I've only seen the A3.

---

The specification for manufacture of the L4A3 by the Inspectorate of Armaments is in specification SA / 689 dated 15th October 1959.
First page,
1 - General particulars
Para - (f) New components - MG 5526 - Barrel

To avoid any confusion in previous references to types of L4 barrels by gauging size, barrel MG 5526 was refered to as the '.297 barrel' (fully chrome lined)
Barrel MG 5526 makes up the barrel assembly MG 20 MA ,MG 5526 is stamped on the LH side of the barrel and is the same as used on the L4A4.

The drawing for the barrel M.G.5526 was certified on the 8th September 1959 and so was in place before the specification for the L4A3.

The L4A3 specification SA / 689 page 1 (c) Particulars of Converted Gun, reference - Drawings as per schedule MG 37 G.A. - Gun ,Machine,7.62mm.L4A3.
The schedule listing parts and assemblies with part number,designation,No per assembly and designers reference first dated 9th September 1959 and lists barrel assembly MG 20 MA comprising barrel MG 5526 (fully chrome lined) 1 (ONE) of.

The specification,drawings and schedules do not list any ammendments to any earlier reference to having 2 barrels of either earlier type - the steel 4 groove X10E1 / L4A1 barrel - MG 4768 or the L4A2 chrome chamber barrel - 9603021 also listed in ammendments for use with the L4A1.(mentioned in previous posts as '.299 chrome chamber only barrel')

To sum up from primary source documents I have to hand it very much looks to me like the
L4A3 only ever had 1 (ONE) barrel - the fully chromed chamber and bore MG 5526 barrel..........but I could be wrong.

Phew ! ATB Kevin

That's interesting, it appears then that the L4A2 with 2 chrome chamber barrels - 9603021 began production in 1959 and was still being produced in 1960 and in 1961 the L4A4 production began. So did it take 2 years to go from drawing to production?

Where does the mystery L4A5 come into play? Is there official specification sheets for this too?

Not only is there a spec for The A5, it features in the NoD BR's AND their parts list AND we used to see them coming in from the Navy and Marines based down at 'Western District'. And when the A3's are upgraded, there is even an EMER of how to upgrade the bodyside markings and part number.

It's all called the theory and the practice of life. Looks like I'll have to dig out my workshop papers

Mmmmmmmmmm. Sorry to be a tad contrary KG and BP but a very quick trawl through some of my untidy old paperwork including one Army Code 62189 issued in October 1985 and issued under the authority of the Director General-Defence Quality Assurance Office at...... and you ain't going to believe this........ Royal Ordnance, small-arms division Enfield Lock and another, 62188, both clearly states that the L4A5 is a version of the L4A3 gun and later details the updating process.

From that and the fact that they were approved for Land AND Naval service (only the A3 but this was extended later to include the A5 and declared the A3 as obsolete for land service but extended for only Naval service. I don't understand all that Naval jargon/waffle either but.....) in Feb 60 and the A5 approved only for Naval service in April '60, I can only assume that, er......... they were approved and exist!

I KNEW that I'd seen all this in the NoD BR's somewhere! But nice to clear it up. Next question

And while we're on the subject of Mk2/1's.........

Enfield refurbished tens of thousands of needy Bren guns of all marks for the War Reserve programme. This included converting Mk2 Brens to what was initially called at the time ‘UPGRADE SPEC’. While it is quite possible that other factories converted Mk2 Brens to Mk2/1 specification, the only Mk2/1 conversions encountered by the author are those from Enfield and BSA Guns. The BSA conversions being marked with the usual ‘ll/1’ marking and ‘BSA-51’ or ‘BSA-52’. Enfield records show that they converted 10,200 Mk2 guns to Mk2/1 specification during the FTR programme. The programme was carried out commencing with the outbreak of the war in Korea in 1950. Many batches were overhauled until the .303” gun FTR programme ceased during 1955, just prior to the 7.62mm X10 programme. Quite how many guns were converted to Mk2/1 specification by BSA and Army Base Workshops is unknown. If it was a further 10,000, then it is still only equates to some 15% of the grand total. Interestingly, while the BSA FTR marks have been encountered, it would appear that these guns were converted on their behalf by Midlands gun-makers Westly Richards who were instrumental in the procurement, refurbishment and re-sale of thousands of war-weary Brens to emergent nations after the war. It is unlikely that a BSA FTR marked gun was for British Army war–reserve stocks.[COLOR="black"]

I'm really confused by this, I have the details of a number of L4A3 marked guns, A153 is 1962, A4492 to A5438 is 1965 and A6180 to A7082 is 1966, so the first L4A3 (Marked) guns appeared in 1962, 2 years after the A5 was approved. Yet there were no L4A3 in existence to modify to A5 spec. So why did they make A3s when they could have gone straight to A5 spec?

Perhaps I'm missing something in the serial numbers, can anyone add to the list below?

L4A2 1959 to 1960, approx. 10,000 guns
L4A4 1961 to 1962, approx. 5,000 guns (These maybe actually L4A2, but I've not personally observed an example)
L4A3 1962 to 1967, approx. 8,000 guns (No L4A2/4 produced in this time)
L4A4 1968 to 1977.

I can only repeat what I have read and seen. And then, all I can actually do is quote the books and references. Take it for what it's worth! For example, we already know that the book is very slightly wrong because they say that the A3 is ONE barrel while the A5 is TWO when we know that numerically, that flies in the face of common sense and previously adopted practice. AND the Navy parts list and their equivalent of the EMER. The most important question of course is the one that nobody's asking and it's this. Do you or I REALLY give a xxxx? Maybe this is the difference between the theory and the actual practice. A bit like what they teach you as apprentices and in the EMER and what ACTUALLY happens

But, as a little rider to this and I was hoping someone would/might mention it is that the Enfield paperwork records say that they commenced the Mk2/1 programme in 1950. But my friend has one distinctly marked 1948. Theory, practice and substantiated fact again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The most important question of course is the one that nobody's asking and it's this. Do you or I REALLY give a xxxx?

---

.....well I do. :)
If no one gives a xxxx there wouldn't be much point in the forum.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8d569156-1.jpg

ATB Kevin

Just came across this thread.
I own a working MKII/I, think it is an RSAF. As far as I can tell only the bolt handle and bipod are of the early type. When I took it apart for cleaning I discovered quite a lot of proofing marks and also the barrel was renumbered (electro). Butt stock is of the type II.

The RSAF Mk2/1's are marked/engraved on the right hand side of the body with FTR/XX (year) and on others it's D-E FTR/XX and others FTR D-E/XX It'll also have a new proof mark that'll coincide with the year of conversion/modification. There weree a couple of conversion programmes so there could well be other markings too.

Incidentally BP and KJ, I have just unearthed my old L4A1 and A6 EMER. The A6 EMER is dated 1979 which would indicate to me that A6's were still doing the rounds then. I recall that a late batch of ejector/HOD blocks were made to refurbish needy A6's (...., and presumably any A1's still in the system but I really doubt that there would have even been any old A1 spec or even A2 spec steel barrels left in the system so they'll all be A4's, 5's and A6's. Just my thoughts out aloud!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The RSAF Mk2/1's are marked/engraved on the right hand side of the body with FTR/XX (year) and on others it's D-E FTR/XX and others FTR D-E/XX It'll also have a new proof mark that'll coincide with the year of conversion/modification. There weree a couple of conversion programmes so there could well be other markings too.

Incidentally BP and KJ, I have just unearthed my old L4A1 and A6 EMER. The A6 EMER is dated 1979 which would indicate to me that A6's were still doing the rounds then. I recall that a late batch of ejector/HOD blocks were made to refurbish needy A6's (...., and presumably any A1's still in the system but I really doubt that there would have even been any old A1 spec or even A2 spec steel barrels left in the system so they'll all be A4's, 5's and A6's. Just my thoughts out aloud!)

---

That would make sence Peter as I have some RAF training notes from RAF Cosford from the 1980s and it mentions the L4A1 aswell as the L4A4 so assume that the A1 (A6) and A4 were in service together. Lets face it, the RAF wouldn't really need an LMG (Except RAF Reg) so why give us the up to date kit. I remember when I joined in 1995 that there were still L1A1 parts knocking around (Sadly no rifles) and I remember clearing out some scrap from the armoury at Cosford and in amongst it were brand new L4 breech blocks, newly coppered L59 bolts and loads of L2 parts.

To lurch back to the Mk 2/1, if any one in the UK has one and realy wants a correct to wartime Mk II Daimler I'd be happy to swap Currently it's in pieces as I lost interest when I started concentrating on post war stuff but I could slap it back together, there's also thecorrect UK Mk II bipod to go on, something I never got around to doing.

ATB

Tom

Why don't you just convert your deact UP to Mk2/1 spec. An absolute doddle

I'm a saddo collected remember, the markings would be wrong.

But mainly I can't weld to save my life! I know it's only a little stud but I'd end up with something like the cousins have to put back together!

Defeatist........ I'll ask the REME workshop here to engrave the /1 and FTR DE 53 mark. It's not even welded. It's silver soldered!