Trying to help a friend with completion of a double dovetail MkI. Does anyone know when they stopped machining the mag well dimples into the receiver?
Printable View
Trying to help a friend with completion of a double dovetail MkI. Does anyone know when they stopped machining the mag well dimples into the receiver?
It is going to be late 1940 after September starting around serial E2340
What sort? An Australian one Canadian one of an Enfield one? Assuming that it's an Enfield one, deleting those was part of one of the 6x progressive 'intermediate' steps between the true Mk1 spec and the Mk1A spec. Nobody will be able to give you an actual date.
Just had the same thought Peter, if an Inglis it's going to be in the M4xxx range, and an Aussie, not very many!
What was the purpose of the mag. well dimples ? Was it on the inside of the mag. well ? Did it provide support for the mag.to prevent side to side movement ?
They were there because the Czechs said they would be there and NO deviation from the sealed approved drawing was permitted. That's why the screw threads remained as mickey mouse diameters and pitch over a diameter. But the answer to the Q, why was the oval recesses were there. I would suggest that it was a lightening feature. There were also internal lightening features too but they were also discarded later
Does anyone know the ~last serial number Bren to be issued with a butt handle?
For many varied reasons, nobody in the world will ever be able to give you that information. They might be able to tell you the date that it was declared obsolete or........... But I'm bound to follow up with the question what in heavens name do you or would anyone want to know that for?
I have a Semi-Auto Double Dovetail, serial F8037. I know it’s not a necessary part, I’m just putting it back together as it was originally delivered.
You've done a nice job but If you really want to be accurate as to how it left the factory, the barrel handle metal work is later and the lower is the later type to. The fore sight protector is also the later simple stamped and folded type rather than the machined type. Peter will be shaking his head and losing the will to live now.
Nope, sort of with you BP. But not sure about the incorrect carrying handle metalwork. The sleeve and stem? Can't see the f/protector to pass comment. Must be a v/late 5th variation/intermediate
The section on the stem that the screw passes through has a square finish which means the other side is slab sided rather than circular on the side you see and scalloped on the side you can't.
Just wondered if you'd notice that....................!
I may have a billet sight shrouding. Explain the lower differences?
Here's my lower before I cleaned it up and chose to make the pistol grip a 922r part (US made part). I still have the original grip, and I will be changing it back because I made a 'quick' disconnector that can be the make-up piece for the 922r instead. what makes this not an early mk1?
Attachment 88450Attachment 88451
I switched out the sight shrouds for period correct.
Would like to know if my Lower is period incorrect, and I have a challenge for you Brenophiles...
Do you like my matching F8037 & F8037-S serialized barrels? but is something a miss?
Hopefully I can get you some photos of the differences between early and later lowers and barrel handles. My photobucket account has been messed with...thanks Photobucket!!
Excusing the handle, anything else with the barrels?
This is an early type lower, extra machining circled in red. The Mk3 lower is similar in this area so don't get confused.
Attachment 88468
Early lower, other side.
Attachment 88471
Later type lower with less machining.
Attachment 88470
Lithgow type lower with combination of machining.
Attachment 88469
Early (Bottom) V Late type handle metal work, Blue circled shows the machining differences, red the BSA logo.
Attachment 88467
Attachment 88466
Early style gas reg.
Attachment 88465
Late style gas reg.
Attachment 88464
As you start to follow, you'll soon see that all the changes really relate to simplification.
As you say Peter, it's more the omission of superfluous machining rather than improvements however the overall simplification could be called an improvement.
I’ve not seen a lower like that before, Interesting.
So as to my barrels. They are actually NOS mk2’s. So there :)
So they are, I can see they don't have the larger diameter seat behind the stainless flash sleeve. What finish have you used? Looks quite good.
Parkerized then Cerakote 50/50 Black/Sniper Grey.
Anyway, my Bren is a Mk1m, so it’s feasible that the lower is correct. It’s a transitional Bren, brobably one of 2000 made that have a DDT but no dimples, profiling around the mag catch, and no chamfers on the back end. Being that the grip is early and the complexity is reduce on the receiver, it’s likely that the lower is early but also reduced complexity.
I'm intrigued now, what's the serial number of your Bren and is it marked Mk1m? A 'm' marking would indicate a Canadian gun. I'm assuming it's F8037 and not m marked. If it is (but still no m) your gun could be one that needed some remedial work carrying out during production as the last DD Enfield guns were in the E99xx range except for those remedial guns which have been observed into the K ranges (but very few).
The last gun with an original early lower I have recorded was E2348 and the first was F3335.
F8037.
Marked “mk1.”
Taken from the Ima-USA page when I bought it:
The British Expeditionary Force was evacuated from Dunkirk in late May and early June 1940 under severe pressure from the German Wehrmacht. They left most of their equipment, including the new Bren Gun, behind on the beaches; so that virtually all Brens in existence now are of post-Dunkirk manufacture. Not only that, but at the beginning of July, a directive was executed indicating that a number of time-saving changes were to be made in the design, and these resulted in the Mark I Modified (Mk I/M) on August 21 and the Mark II right after on September 4. In other words, the Mk I essentially ceased to exist right after Dunkirk, and much of what had been manufactured before Dunkirk was lost, making the Mk I receiver a genuine rarity.
IMA has obtained a very small number of original Mk I receivers dated 1940 and has made them into parts sets. The Mk I is distinguished in several ways from all later receivers: the left side of the receiver has TWO vertical dovetail slots. The rear slot is for the drum sight, while the front slot is for an indirect-fire dial sight. The right side features a prominent reinforcing rib at the rear of the magazine well; the top front of the well normally has two oval lightening dimples. The top rear of the receiver was beveled to remove additional weight. These features were abandoned to simplify and speed manufacture. Lastly, the gas cylinder section of the receiver has complex lightening cuts, and the gas shield has a concave groove on the front to control exhaust gas direction.
However, it would appear that the changes were not all done immediately. We have found an Enfield (E in D) logo marked receiver that has characteristics of both the true Mark I, and the Mark I* (modified). This receiver has the second sight dovetail, as well as the reinforcement on the other side of the magazine well. The gas tube is deeply fluted in the typical early MkI Style. However, the "dimples" at the front of the magazine well are absent, as is the beveling on the rear of the receiver. In all likelihood, this is a receiver that was in production as the changes were being made after Dunkirk, and the last lightening cuts were omitted. A fantastic bit of history for any Bren collector.
It does sound like your gun has been back for remedial work and finished later so the Mk1* lower would be correct. Guns in that serial range only retain the fluted gas ports and have lost the Second Dovetail and right side reinforcing rib. This serial range I have observed to be F7492 to F9140 (Give or take a hundred or so) and is early 1941.
The only other possibility is that the serial number section of the kit came from a later gun than the rest of it. Please don't think I'm picking fault, it would be nice to provide you the evidence that your gun is a oddity in regards to the model and serial range/date.
Hey no problem. So being that it does have the features that it does. Is it possible to look the way it does, or should it have more lightning features with the DD. If I was to make it more period correct, for interest sake at this point, what should it look like and what serial should it have?
What it has:
-Cupped shield
-Fluted piston section
-DDT
-RH rib
What it could have:
-Dimples
-Relieved mag catch
-Chamfers on rear body
---------- Post added at 09:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 AM ----------
SOLD Bren Mk1 Double Dovetail Enfield 1940 - MJLmilitaria
With the serial it has, it could be a gun that's had remedial work and therefor what you have is pretty much correct. If you wanted to go with what would be correct for the majority of this variation then it would need the earlier lower, gas regulator and barrel handle.
Regarding Brens that were sent back to the line or the rectification shop or 'hospital bay as it was known for remedial work, I suggest that you read the Bren threads again to save me repeating myself. Mk1 Brens that conform to the original spec were known as true Mk1's. those that started the transition towards the cheapening procvess were designated as Mk1 transitional guns - oif which there were 6 stages.
British guns were not marked with a m after the designation. That was a Canadian marking and Canadian guns don't have an 'F' number prefix.
There seems to be a LOT of confusion creeping into this thread
Okay, somebody had to say it- this is beginning to resemble the std "Is my M-1 Carbine correct?" question, followed by 79 pages of explanations why it is completely and utterly wrong, all while missing the one guy who points out that it got manufactured, issued, reworked, re-issued, and used in multiple configurations by the military thus instantly making the gun "correct", and the entire question pointless.
The gun is not incorrect, it's just that the wrong question is being asked. The question needs to be "What features are evident in my guns' current configuration, and how do those features relate to known variants?" Remember, your gun would've been "factory correct" only on the day it left the factory, if even then as no usable parts were knowingly wasted.
Trying to put a particular gun back to its "correct" appearance is totally ignoring the reality that that kind of exercise goes directly against what the using military actually did with them, they only cared about assembling functional weapons and comportment with some idea of keeping all guns as they left the factory simply didn't happen. So, the quest for "correctness" in restoring your guns current appearance goes against history, reality, and common sense.
There is a vast trove of practical and historical knowledge available here, just don't misapply it to things that don't need correcting. There are already enough horribly inaccurate museum exhibitions all over!
-TomH
"Trying to put a particular gun back to its "correct" appearance"
Because that's what we do.
Of course everything you said is correct. The day it left the factory the weapon starts a changing on to it's next stage.
Later 42rocker
Some of the members here in the U.S are more of a collector and want to try to get their Brens more or less correct as they left the arsenal they were built at .
https://www.instagram.com/p/BlRt76olQVF/
I just like shooting them !!!