Bren 3/1

[Lee Enfield]

All Bren Mk3 were new receivers.

A mk3 is a stand alone receiver between MkI and Mk2.

A mk2 receiver can be lightened to be similar to a mk3, that was referred to as a Mk4.

The mk3/1 is a mk1 receiver (not a mk3 at all) which has been lightened in a similar manner to a mk3. So far as i'm aware it was an Indian innovation.

"Mark" designations changed from Roman numerals to Arabic numberals in 1944/45. This might be causing some confusion as they were used interchangeably and with some overlap.

Www.bren-gun.com has drawings which can explain the progression.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[ActionYobbo]

A mk3 is a stand alone receiver between MkI and Mk2.

so when you count brens you go 1 3 2 4 but when I count it goes 1 1m 2 3 4
How can you state that a receiver/body that was made in 1944 came before a receiver/body made in 1941?

[Joe H]

Thanks everyone for your comments and "Bren Wisdom".
I guess its all the innovations and technical twists that makes the Bren Gun so interesting

Joe

[Lee Enfield]

so when you count brens you go 1 3 2 4 but when I count it goes 1 1m 2 3 4
How can you state that a receiver/body that was made in 1944 came before a receiver/body made in 1941?

technically the production family is: 1, 1m, 2, 3, 4, L4A1, L4A2, L4A3, L4A4, L4A5, L4A6...ect.

The Mk4 and the L4 are not the same gun

how is a Mk3 chronologically before a Mk2? the answer is that it is not, but it is closer related to the MkI.

If you think of the MkI "Double Dovetail" as being the mother, then the MkI"M" and the Mk2 are different paths of emergency production, while the Mk3 is the logical descendant of the original MkI DD.

think of the Mk2 as being the stepchild of the MkI

The Mk3 takes the best features from the MkI, MkIM and the Mk2 and adds further improvement.

Bren Gun Story ect refers to the Mk3 as being based on the Mk1.

[sundance8]

All the above info is really great, but is there any evidence that either the Englis factory or the Enfield factory took MKI receivers and machined them to become MK3 receivers? This is what the discussion was about. Thanks for everybody's help and input.

[Lee Enfield]

All the above info is really great, but is there any evidence that either the Englis factory or the Enfield factory took MKI receivers and machined them to become MK3 receivers? This is what the discussion was about. Thanks for everybody's help and input.

The simple answer is "No, it cannot be done".

You cannot machine a MkI into a Mk3.

India machined MkI receivers into a lightweight variant which they termed the Mk3/I - but which we could more properly call a MkI/3, perhaps this is what has caused your confusion?

[sundance8]

The simple answer is "No, it cannot be done".

You cannot machine a MkI into a Mk3.

India machined MkI receivers into a lightweight variant which they termed the Mk3/I - but which we could more properly call a MkI/3, perhaps this is what has caused your confusion?

Thanks Lee, that answers the question.

[ActionYobbo]

The simple answer is "No, it cannot be done".

You cannot machine a MkI into a Mk3.

India machined MkI receivers into a lightweight variant which they termed the Mk3/I - but which we could more properly call a MkI/3, perhaps this is what has caused your confusion?

The confusion came directly from me insisting that Mk1’s were converted soley based on me seeing the hole for the Mk1 rear sight in a Mk3 that I got to play with 27 years ago. The hole was visable from the inside of the receiver. This is the only Mk3 I have ever handled and based on my observations I assumed that all Mk3’s were the same.
I currently own a Mk1, a Mk2 and a Mk3/1 and want to add a Mk4/2 and a L4a3 to my collection

Edit to add. On the other forum I asked if anyone could post up a picture the inside of a mk3 body with out the hole for the Mk1 sight and its been a few weeks and still no picture.