Chinese 7.62 x39 bren gun parts

[browningautorifle]

the BREN GUN SAGA, second editon, by the late Tom Dugelby.

I have that, maybe better have a look.

[Warren]

The first volume was a bit of a rush, as Tom was dying and they were trying to get the book out before he fell of the perch.
Lost of info missing and lots of errors, but Blake Stevens heart was in the right spot.
The second edition was a bit better. but again, very rushed and not complete.
Mind you, in this game, nothing is complete and ego's enter heavily into it.
Write a book and you have 500 critics, with "I knew this and I knew that...!!!"
"What about this and what about that.."
You know the routine.

[Peter Laidler]

Warren is dead right. Writing a book is easy. The difficult part is getting it published, especially specialist books. Then, once it is published, as I have said many many times in the past. The first person who reads your book IMMEDIATELY knows more than you do. That's because he now knows all that you have written PLUS the tiny bit he knew before.

I remember someone telling me that they had made chrome Sten guns. I asken him to consider the folly of taking a chrome Sten on operations. Ah, yes he replied. Maybe they made them for presentation pieces. You just can't win!

[cal50]

Even in print, accurate information is sometimes hard to convey.

There are people that actually know and others that were somewhere else and think they know.

[Surpmil]

Warren is dead right. Writing a book is easy. The difficult part is getting it published, especially specialist books. Then, once it is published, as I have said many many times in the past. The first person who reads your book IMMEDIATELY knows more than you do. That's because he now knows all that you have written PLUS the tiny bit he knew before.
!

All true Peter, but only -------s forget where they got read/got that knowledge in the first place. Egos being what they are, it does tend to happen though.

One good thing about the Net is that research has now become a sort of collective project, and that gathering of information has allowed some discoveries and deductions that only the most protracted and diligent research could have discovered in pre-Internet days.

And the authors who went first into a given subject area are the pioneers and that can never be taken away.

[Peter Laidler]

Talking of things that crop AFTER you've written the book. Another old chestnut is that the Bren was so accurate that you could use it as a sniper rifle. Not only that, but the War Dept were actually going to use it as one!.

Some, less polite than me would call such stuff as pure bolxxxxx or horse sh........, er......., manure. The standard accuracy pattern for a Bren, even after undergoing a full workshop rebuild/repair wasn't even up to the LOWEST standard of that required for even a sub-standard No1 rifle.

What it really did excel at, was as the standard infantry section light machine gun. They call it a light support weapon nowadays. The Bren wasn't light, but by Jesus, it was good at giving fire support

[Flying10uk]

Another old chestnut is that the Bren was so accurate

I remember my sergeant major in the cadets, more than 40 years ago, saying that "The Bren was so accurate that they had to off-set the sights." I daren't say anything but thought to myself that it probably had more to do with a dirty great magazine sticking up in the way if the sights had of been in the centre.