Nice saw-cut Inglis Mk.I Bren Kit

I have this Inglis Mk.I Bren kit that I would like to have built up. Is there any information about these particular types of kits? I was told that a saw-cut receiver like this is very desirable as it makes rewelding for a semi-auto build much easier than the usual torch-cut stuff.

The numbers match with the barrel collar, upper receiver, lower receiver frame, but the bipod is from a Mk.II and the barrel is also a Mk.II barrel. The kit also came with a shorty Indian cut-down Mk.I barrel, and I've since gotten a Mk.I buttplate for the kit.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Gjj4vdeh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yj1r1ueh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...w0ka43oh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0jAqc6th-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...RpidetHh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1aoTtWQh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...F476q0dh-1.jpg

My primary question is the barrel - it's a thick Mk.II barrel but without the dovetail on the six-o-clock position behind the gas regulator. Does that mean it's a UK British Mk II barrel, different from the Mk II barrels sold on IMA with the dovetail slot?

Less dovetail slot is a UK barrel. Just a relaxation during wartime for ease of manufacture

That would be a doddle to weld together again...nothing hard at all. But...you only get one try.

I had a similar cut MKII, but the gas tube wasnt cut so it was even easier to put back together. There was no 'discount' from any of the builders I contacted because it was nicely cut though, they just charged more or would not take it in if it was badly torch cut. I had mine done and they upgraded it to the 'museum quality' receiver finish as a discount of sorts. I will say they did a beautiful job, you cant tell it was a reweld at all from the outside unlike some others I have seen.

Nicely cut kits are selling at a premium these days, there are only a few people doing semi-auto Bren rewelds so prices are high. One in California does great work but the wait time is long. Of course you can weld it yourself, I was going to try mine since I tig welded race car roll cages for years but as mentioned above you only get one try at it. Plus I couldnt find anyone to sell me the semi-auto parts I needed alone and I dont have the resources to make a striker, trigger etc to get it close to 922.

Get ready for sticker shock if you choose to have it built, the guys that are building them now are not doing it cheap.

That gun was never imported as DEMILed article of war. With the cuts shown, it never met any relevant import destruction criteria since such criteria began. If it shows no other signs of deactivation, to old standard of DEWAT-ing, then it was brought in under the wire.

The saw cuts shown very visibly do not even go all the way through both sides, NOT severing the receiver into separate pieces is clearly visible at rear end! One side only cut.

"Saw cutting" has always not met DEMIL criteria, there was never a point where that ALONE rendered an MG non- contraband. Even during the early 50's period of "wall hanger" guns, they had to meet full DEWAT criteria, before all of them not registered already eventually were declared contraband in 1968. Your gun shown there visibly does not comport to any current standard for lawful possession. Note that Tech Branch is aggressively enforcing their "8 hour" reconstruction rule now for lawful determination.

There is far more to the story of that gun whether you personally are aware or not.
- TomH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TactAdv

Your gun shown there visibly does not comport to any current standard for lawful possession.

---

Glad someone said it! :yikes:

I didnt notice the RH rear was not cut.

I didnt know that older saw cuts were not legal demils, I have seen quite a few older saw cut MG parts kits with barrels floating around gun shows out in the open and they arent cheap. Good to know before shelling out big money for one..

QUOTE=TactAdv;423061]That gun was never imported as DEMILed article of war. With the cuts shown, it never met any relevant import destruction criteria since such criteria began. If it shows no other signs of deactivation, to old standard of DEWAT-ing, then it was brought in under the wire.

The saw cuts shown very visibly do not even go all the way through both sides, NOT severing the receiver into separate pieces is clearly visible at rear end! One side only cut.

"Saw cutting" has always not met DEMIL criteria, there was never a point where that ALONE rendered an MG non- contraband. Even during the early 50's period of "wall hanger" guns, they had to meet full DEWAT criteria, before all of them not registered already eventually were declared contraband in 1968. Your gun shown there visibly does not comport to any current standard for lawful possession. Note that Tech Branch is aggressively enforcing their "8 hour" reconstruction rule now for lawful determination.

There is far more to the story of that gun whether you personally are aware or not.
- TomH[/QUOTE]

Blimey, panic red alert:eek::runaway: so what can he do with this saw cut mk1m?

Couldnt edit my last post, I missed where you said saw cut ALONE. I just looked at a couple saw cut Stens, they were complete with barrels, saw cut, but missing about 4" of the receiver tube. Legal demil or not?

I had to dig up some old pics of my MKII kit before the semi auto conversion. Mine was torch cut but a pretty fine torch (plasma cutter maybe), it was one of the hundreds of IO three cut kits that were selling for 200.00 with a couple barrels around 2004, they sell for around 1000.00 these days. If it was a legal demil when imported does it stay legal or would the older kits that werent melted to almost scrap be considered illegal now? I always wondered why all newer demils are chopped up pretty bad, was there an actual change to the demil rules of did the ATF start paying more attention in recent years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TactAdv

That gun was never imported as DEMILed article of war. With the cuts shown, it never met any relevant import destruction criteria since such criteria began. If it shows no other signs of deactivation, to old standard of DEWAT-ing, then it was brought in under the wire.

The saw cuts shown very visibly do not even go all the way through both sides, NOT severing the receiver into separate pieces is clearly visible at rear end! One side only cut.

"Saw cutting" has always not met DEMIL criteria, there was never a point where that ALONE rendered an MG non- contraband. Even during the early 50's period of "wall hanger" guns, they had to meet full DEWAT criteria, before all of them not registered already eventually were declared contraband in 1968. Your gun shown there visibly does not comport to any current standard for lawful possession. Note that Tech Branch is aggressively enforcing their "8 hour" reconstruction rule now for lawful determination.

There is far more to the story of that gun whether you personally are aware or not.
- TomH

---

The ATF has some, shockingly, pretty well detailed information on this:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/machinegun-destruction

The funny thing about this stuff is if the machine gun doesn’t meet these regulations it IS a machine gun. And in this case, probably an unregistered one.

It would hurt me emotionally but if I had that thing in my possession, I’d be firing up the oxy-acetylene torch as fast as I could. My gun rights are too important to be tip-toeing any legal fine lines.

I was looking around the ATF site and didnt find that, but yes it is surprisingly detailed. Lot of interesting reading/debate on the subject around the internet also. Never really looked into it until now.

So the Stens I was looking at were nowhere near cut like those illustrations. I wonder if they were ever 'legal' demils. They were each in an old importer's box..

The Bren kit I used looks 'legal' with three diagonal torch cuts and there were some gaps, although not as enthusiastically melted like the latest parts kits.

I agree it would hurt to take a torch to that MK1 but I wouldnt want it in my house if its considered a MG. Most likely a semi auto builder wont even touch it as-is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcathey

The ATF has some, shockingly, pretty well detailed information on this:
Machinegun Destruction | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The funny thing about this stuff is if the machine gun doesn’t meet these regulations it IS a machine gun. And in this case, probably an unregistered one.

It would hurt me emotionally but if I had that thing in my possession, I’d be firing up the oxy-acetylene torch as fast as I could. My gun rights are too important to be tip-toeing any legal fine lines.

---

I think there are two important details to take note of in regards to the Bren in question:
1. The cuts aren’t all the way through and
2. It doesn’t appear the cuts are displacing the 1/4” that the law requires.

So again, the OP may not be able to fire this thing but it is indeed a machine gun as far as ol’ Uncle Sam is concerned.

It look like it’s been welded once already and then recut. One of the photos shows weld in the machining around the gas tube area and some heat colour in the blueing. Nothing seen around the back though.

Actually the kit is cut three times through the receiver, just the last cut you can't tell easily as it was cut diagonally to the corner of the receiver behind the takedown pin hole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syntax Error

Actually the kit is cut three times through the receiver, just the last cut you can't tell easily as it was cut diagonally to the corner of the receiver behind the takedown pin hole.

---

Sorry, I'm going to call BS on that statement. The pictures you posted clearly show that statement is not accurate. I've copied both pictures posted of the rear receiver area and enlarged them to a high magnification, and I stand by my original statement.

But that is not even an important point in that even IF cuts went all the way through, it is still not properly (read legally) destroyed.

I'm surprised those pictures are still up.
-TomH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TactAdv

Sorry, I'm going to call BS on that statement. The pictures you posted clearly show that statement is not accurate. I've copied both pictures posted of the rear receiver area and enlarged them to a high magnification, and I stand by my original statement.

But that is not even an important point in that even IF cuts went all the way through, it is still not properly (read legally) destroyed.

I'm surprised those pictures are still up.
-TomH

---

You're welcome to believe what you want, but the receiver is cut in three parts with the rear cut being done diagonally so the cut is behind the rear takedown pin at the corner. I could upload a photo but it seems like this kit makes people uncomfortable, even though there are receiver kits that have been demilled in a similar way (well under 1/4" cuts), and just because the ATF regulations have changed going forward to a torch cut including barrel demilling, it does not apply to kits that have already been imported into the country in the past before the regulations were changed. What that would mean is that ATF regulations somehow apply ex-post-facto? Not seeing people rushing to destroy their saw-cut demilled kits.

I'm gonna ask a moderator to delete the images as it seems like I'm unable to edit the inital post.

This is the fine line I was talking about earlier.
The link I provided earlier shows the ATF approved method to destroy a machine gun so it can be imported. Without doing what they say, with a torch, displacing 1/4” of material, they will not consider the machine gun destroyed and they will not let it enter the country.

Say an ATF inspector just “poofs” into your living room one day and says, “what’s that?” do you sincerely believe that he’ll be cool with the “ah don’t worry, I didn’t import it. Saw cuts are good. It’s just a paperweight.”
As in, stay out of federal prison and avoid thousands in fine type believe.

That’s what makes us uneasy and that’s why I wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole. It’s simply not worth it to me.
I couldn’t afford to feed the darn thing anyway 😉

---------- Post added at 08:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 AM ----------

Oh, and the ATF isn’t cool with those demil kits you speak of either.
http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10746

I thought the same but if you look at the rear of the full right side pic enlarged the rear corner of the receiver looks like its cut off on an angle, maybe.

No doubt by todays standards it is not a legal demil to be imported but I'm not a firearms lawyer and have no idea if it was legal to import at any time or if illegal just to possess. I have seen quite a few saw gut MGs on display assembled and offered for sale at shows and on the internet, I know that doesnt make it OK or legal..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TactAdv

Sorry, I'm going to call BS on that statement. The pictures you posted clearly show that statement is not accurate. I've copied both pictures posted of the rear receiver area and enlarged them to a high magnification, and I stand by my original statement.

But that is not even an important point in that even IF cuts went all the way through, it is still not properly (read legally) destroyed.

I'm surprised those pictures are still up.
-TomH

---

The gun in question might be a rewelded postie machine gun that the owner did not want to hastle with selling as an NFA full auto gun. If there have been no semi auto modifications made to the receiver... if it is a reweld then it was still a machine gun before the current attempt at demil and it still is a machine gun right now... just one made after 1986 manufacture ban - from a parts kit. The underlying problem here is that there is no way to determine when and in what condition the receiver originally arrived in the US. The pics so far do not give enough detail to determine if it is a saw cut rewelded MG or just a saw cut MG... in either eventuality... Run away fast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

That would be a doddle to weld together again...nothing hard at all.

---

Yes indeed. And when built as a semi nobody will care how it was cut.

Understanding what your discussing here about this Bren and the ATF but please explain to an ignorant Colonial whos country would never allow us to have an MG or LMG.
How the hell do people like Dragon man the most armed person in the US and others like at Dusty Creek where I have seen on you tube a flippin TD rock up and pump out 90mm rounds down range, twin MG 42's, M60's, mini guns, 20mm cannons blatting away like there was no tomorrow even at night with full tracer, then if they are that scary to own even an improperly de-milled such as this then how the hell do people get a bloody Tank Destroyer with a working 90mm cannon!!!! Crikey! :dunno:

Pretty soon some billionare will buy a B-52 and conduct "Linebacker " operations on the butts at Dusty Creek just to liven things up with 500 pounder GP's..........:yikes:

Just in case some of the forumers here have not heard about Dragon Man here is a youtube burst(pun) on him; (just click to play then click to play on youtube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkVn1lzcK70

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

How the hell

---

Simple...it's legal there.

Dont give anyone ideas on the B52, they may do it.

Pretty much if you are properly licensed and/or have a lot of money you can pretty much own whatever you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Understanding what your discussing here about this Bren and the ATF but please explain to an ignorant Colonial whos country would never allow us to have an MG or LMG.
How the hell do people like Dragon man the most armed person in the US and others like at Dusty Creek where I have seen on you tube a flippin TD rock up and pump out 90mm rounds down range, twin MG 42's, M60's, mini guns, 20mm cannons blatting away like there was no tomorrow even at night with full tracer, then if they are that scary to own even an improperly de-milled such as this then how the hell do people get a bloody Tank Destroyer with a working 90mm cannon!!!! Crikey! :dunno:

Pretty soon some billionare will buy a B-52 and conduct "Linebacker " operations on the butts at Dusty Creek just to liven things up with 500 pounder GP's..........:yikes:

---

Some pictures of the barrel I got with the kit - from what I can tell, this is one of the Indian barrels outlined in Peter's Bren barrel article?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...pFNhjpg1-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Vf3hjpg1-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...hp0hjpg1-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...637hjpg1-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2QDhjpg1-1.jpg

Yes it is, an Indian designation of Mk1/3

"...not met DEMIL criteria..." Different country. Different rules. The "declared contraband in 1968" part applies only to the U.S. The ATF doesn't care anyway. Their stupid idea of 'Once an MG always an MG' applies. They went around about 10 years ago confiscating all the semi'd M-14's being assembled by assorted smithies, with no compensation as I recall.
"...had to meet full DEWAT criteria..." That was different in the 50's. DEWAT's, up here, currently are nothing but oddly shaped and very heavy paperweights. Can't have any moving parts.
Mind you, any cut is going to reduce the receiver length by the width of the hole.

apply for a class 3 ?

As a matter of interest, the Indian cut-short Mk1 barrels shown above were the same length as a Mk4 (from a Mk3 gun....) barrel. So in theory, will shoot the same. In theory. But the sight radius was reduced. But i doesn't end there...... The backsight leaf on the Mk3 gun was taken straight from the Mk2 gun wasn't altered to reflect the shorter barrel and sight radius and never reflected the actual trajectory of the bullet from a Mk3 gun. Same applies to the Mk1 drum when using these cut short Mk1 and 1* barrels. But waste not, want not as they say