No4 Sniper rifle/Armourer's Bipod

While looking at D&B Militaries' website this evening I happened to notice what is described as a Bipod for the No4 rifle (for use by snipers/armourers). There are some good photographs on the company's website which I haven't reproduced here partly because it will take me a long time with my limited I.T. skills but mainly because of copyright considerations. It would appear, to me, to be a MK1 Bren bipod with adjustable legs grafted to a socket from either a No4 or a No9 bayonet. Looking at it I thought it quite an "ingenious creation".

I thought other Forum members would be interested in this "find".

Here is a C&P for you:

Lee Enfield no.4 Bipod/ armorers stand

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c_0262_3-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0261_1_4-1.jpg

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------

My edit, enlarged the photo by going into their page code and "borrowing" the actual link of the fullsized images, not the easiest to find, but old tricks occasionally still work.

---------- Post added at 02:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 PM ----------

More:

http://www.dandbmilitaria.com/media/...dsc_0263_3.jpg

http://www.dandbmilitaria.com/media/...dsc_0262_3.jpg

http://www.dandbmilitaria.com/media/...c_0260_1_3.jpg

To use the kindest and most diplomatic words I can find, - a load of absolute, pure unadulterated twaddle. Pure horse sh...., er..... manure.

I'll second PL's comment.

102! uses for spare Bren bipods, apparently.

A LIGHT bipod, like the Parker-Hale "MINIATURE" Bren-style, or suitable Harris, etc correctly fitted on a rifle; that I can understand. But, something like that, fitted right at the muzzle end of the barrel; not so much.

Maybe, if you have one of the rare, trials / XP belt-fed No4's.....

I think they had a surplus of damaged Bren bipods and were looking to craft a way to sell them for 150 pounds.

I thought that you would be impressed with it, Peter. I did actually consider buying it in order to return it to it's intended purpose, a MK1 Bren bipod which seem to be getting scarce. That was until I noticed the state of the legs and the price.

It is a shame that an innocent No.4 bayonet had to die to make that thing. Oh the horror!

I think we had this discussion some time ago. In that case the mysterious and wonderful object was described as being a "sniper's bipod".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

To use the kindest and most diplomatic words I can find

---

Wouldn't that upset your harmonics...?

I did see something on an old post about a mysterious sniper's bipod for the No4 rifle but there were no pictures and nobody had actually seen it themselves. Is this the actual same bipod???

It is just a figment of someones vivid imagination. There never was a No4 bipod nor an Armourers bipod so really, anything else about it is academic surely........

I don't think the proposed bipod ever got beyond the design stage and it was to fit under the front band from memory.

Line drawings of the proposal are in Ian Skennertons Enfield book.

I would have thought this home built thing would have quite the effect on accuracy considering its mounting point.

Well I am going to chuck another idea on the table. Training aid for when you don't have a real Bren to play with . Same idea was used for the No1 in Australia with a carry handle as well.

Wasn't the same sort of ludicrous contraption shown in another older post some time ago on the forum - from memory was a post regarding a book of French origin showing a picture of said humorous creation attached to a T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brnom2

Wasn't the same sort of ludicrous contraption shown in another older post some time ago on the forum - from memory was a post regarding a book of French origin showing a picture of said humorous creation attached to a T

---

Anyone find a link to that? I wonder if this is the very same example?

Bindi's thread (13) is a totally different contraption altogether. That was a commercial idea by Parker Hale that had some merit and thought. Unlike this stupid abomination we're talking about here.

Its in archived posts section, came across it other week when i was looking thru archives - the same Frankenstein creation of bren legs welded to bayonet socket - im a bit technically challenged on the computer and cant seem to find it again, but remember chuckling to myself at the time about the silly thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Bindi's thread (13) is a totally different contraption altogether. That was a commercial idea by Parker Hale that had some merit and thought. Unlike this stupid abomination we're talking about here.

---

No argument from me Peter but think outside the box non main stream even down to cadets or off shore eg NZ they made many adaptions for training. It is not issue that is certain. I would like to use it to see how the rifle performs with it fitted.

That's a good idea Bindi. You could simulate something like it by putting a bayonet onto a No4, put a cork or plastic ferrule over the bayonet and put a Bren bipod over the ferrule. Then range test it and see how it affects the accuracy. That accuracy v the standard accuracy. Your results might close this clap-trap forever

Armourers certainly wouldn't need or use something like it because in the workshop we use a bench vice and 'horse' and outside we use a sandbag supported wrist or at Base workshop, the old Enfield layer.

The only problem I have is finding the Bren legs they are not a common commodity in OZZ that I am aware of. A bayonet with a Harris Bipod welded to it could give the same results except the weight would be less Mmmm

No Bindi, the actual WEIGHT of the bipod and bayonet wouldn't make any difference in this instance because it would be the weight of the RIFLE resting on the bayonet and any bipod of sorts you choose to use. What would be the real killer is that the barrel would be 'lifted' away from its muzzle bearing and any harmonics inherent in the long tuning fork that we call the barrel would be totally lost because the barrel would be tamped at both ends.

This would be a great student project. They were always looking for these simple to replicate ideas for advanced students. Next time I'm there I'll mention it to Dr Derek Xxxxxxx. Good idea Bindi.

Bren Bipod legs...... can't you just take a set off your mates Bren? Just joking!

Peter all jokes aside. What are your thoughts on that bipod being fitted to a No4 that has no muzzle pressure at all there fore creating a pressure point in reverse.

Mmmmmmmm, that long tuning fork would still be tamped at both ends so any natural tendency to do what it does is effectively neutralised. Just my thoughts. What about doing a couple of trials over there in Oz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

What about doing a couple of trials over there in Oz

---

With vids...

Jerry seemed to like his bipods out on the muzzle, but what would they know, haven't won a war for years (pretty good at starting them though!)





https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...neGun410-1.jpg

Mmmm I know where there is a suitable rifle. The owner is away on a months fishing trip. A crappy spike is easy, harris I have. What would a video really show when its the results on target we are looking for. :madsmile: crazy ideas which will be fun trying. :thup: :D

I do just happen to have a very nice Lithgow Mk2 Bren (U.K. deactivated) which when I get time I will photograph and post the pictures and it may be of special interest to our Australian members. It is a MK1 body and stock group but with a MK2 barrel and non adjustable bipod. The majority of it's component parts are M.A. marked and it appears to have been converted to D.P. format before being deactivated. It was suggested to me that all Australian MK2 Brens are of this configuration but this has not been confirmed to me.

Australia didn't make Mk2 Brens (thread 27). What you have is a Mk1 hybrid which most of them are, even those that were in service. Fitting different barrels*, butt slides, bipods, butts etc etc was the accepted permissible norm. The parts were designed/altered for ease of manufacture, simplicity and interchangeability between the mark/types. But regardless of how the gun was configured, the mark was that of the master component - the body. Mk1 body = Mk1 gun
*Barrels had to be the same mark/type though

Big ball bag (thread 25). Yes, but it was designed like that. Unlike the the No4 rifle. But even the FG42 had a different MPI when fired off the bipod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

But even the FG42 had a different MPI when fired off the bipod.

---

Absolutely it would, another example, the VZ58 (CZ858 etc) has a service issued bipod that clips on the bayonet lug, and for the MPI shifts by a vast amount when using it. It's to the point where the shift between bipod and no-bipod requires re-regulation of the sights.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...039_594r-1.jpg

I know we could bang on about this for days, but the best thing for a barrel is to leave it alone to work as a barrel and not serve as an attachment point for hardware and Christmas decorations.

The SA80 LSW changes MPI when used off the bipod too. The dynamics of that are explained technically in the Raw book on the SA80. Mind you, the MPI of the LSW was apt to change dependent on which day of the week it was - or the amount of cosmic radiation in the range rations/pack lunches

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The SA80 LSW changes MPI when used off the bipod too. The dynamics of that are explained technically in the Raw book on the SA80. Mind you, the MPI of the LSW was apt to change dependent on which day of the week it was - or the amount of cosmic radiation in the range rations/pack lunches

---

Normally Range "Stew" now days, not bad if you take the grissle out (which is 99.9% of what they describe as meat)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

Range "Stew" now days, not bad if you take the grissle out

---

YUK!!!

Off at a tangent again - so look away now........
At our tented kitchen at Canungra there were pies laid out and I asked the cook '.....what's in those pies Jock*.....' Without smiling and retaining his deadpan nasho fed-up look, he looked at the menu chalked on a dusty old blackboard, looked over at me, pointed to it with his ladle and replied '......meat........ what d'ya think with a meat pie.....'. Well, ask a silly question! Mind you, being a Jock from Jockland, his language was a bit more colourful than that
(* Jock McQuarrie, a National Service cook from Dundee)

Is that Dundee NSW Pete? got booked for speeding there years ago, open road, not a car insight.......except for one walloper hiding behind a tree at the bottom of a hill.

As for the Glasshouse mountains.........well what can I say, bloody torture.

Fortunately by the time I got to Canungra the tent kitchen had given way to a building...but we still lived in tents.

Jock McQuarry was one of our National Service cooks from the Dundee in Jockland Muffer. He was working as a cook at one of the mining stations and didn't know that anyone even knew about him being illegally (?) in Oz. But when the ballot came up, his date came up - as did his call-up papers! There were also two other Jock Nashos, McLennan and McClean. Happy days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

No Bindi, the actual WEIGHT of the bipod and bayonet wouldn't make any difference in this instance because it would be the weight of the RIFLE resting on the bayonet and any bipod of sorts you choose to use. What would be the real killer is that the barrel would be 'lifted' away from its muzzle bearing and any harmonics inherent in the long tuning fork that we call the barrel would be totally lost because the barrel would be tamped at both ends.!

---

I would think that two sticks tired together and stuck in the ground forming an X with the wood forearm resting on the center would be a better bipod as it wouldn't affect the harmonics you think? Ray

Could the "bipod" in question be part of an experimental field cooking system:

Two bipods and a cranked spindle (like a starter handle), to form a portable field rotisserie?

Adjustable leg height to accommodate the "billy-can" for boiling the "brew" water.

Not sure how to attach the cans and foil packs, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

Could the "bipod" in question be part of an experimental field cooking system:

Two bipods and a cranked spindle (like a starter handle), to form a portable field rotisserie?

Adjustable leg height to accommodate the "billy-can" for boiling the "brew" water.

Not sure how to attach the cans and foil packs, though.

---

Finally, a good use for that contraption, excellent lateral thinking!

The best use to put this contraption to would have been to return it to it's intended use a MK1 Bren bipod which I would have done if the price/condition had been more attractive to me.

Only the bracket and leg stop were salvageable - plus a couple of screws/nuts and spring were still serviceable

Knew i'd seen the silly thing somewhere in the Lee Enfield Knowledge Collectors archive - Archive post No. 4062