Bren Mk2/1

[Peter Laidler]

Does anyone else out there own a Mk2/1 Bren. It's a Mk2 Bren modified post-war at Enfield to incorporate the Mk1 type folding cocking handle. Two lots were done in 1948 and again in 1950 totalling 18,000 guns 'of both types' although another Enfield in-house report says that it was 20,000. I can only suspect that '...of both types' meant both the Daimler/monotype group and Inglis Mk2's

Mk2/1's converted at Enfield are marked FTR/48 or 50 on the right hand bodyside, with the figures '/1' added after the Mk2 nomenclature and re-proofed. Later when the drawings were sealed, this body modification was permitted at Base Workshops

I have to say that when these Mk2 guns were finished with Mk3 gun barrels and butts, they were difficult to tell apart

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.

[Brit plumber]

Slight correction to your post Peter, well a type O, you meant to say 'Mk2/1 Bren. It's a Mk2 Bren modified post'

I have one or two in the collection, I think one was then converted to South African 7.62mm and the other a L4A3, would need to check. I think all the Inglis guns and pre 44 monotypes were marked MkII/1 and the later monotypes were marked Mk2/1.

[Peter Laidler]

Corrected the typo BP. I should say that not all of the L4A3 an d L4A5 guns were upgraded to the folding cocking handle spec, especially the Navy guns because the Naval Ordnance BR (the Navy equivalent of our EMER) for their L4A3's and 5's lists both types of cocking handle, together with the part numbers with the annotation 'A/R' which indicates As Required. To be honest, even that's not strictly true either because another BR states that A/R indicates As Requested! I wouldn't loose any sleep about it though.

Imcidentally, it is/was this Naval Ordnance BR that cleared up the minor discrepancy about the lineage of the A3 and A5 guns. A booklet published by the factory and sanctioned by the old MoD procurement/sales office says that the A3 has ONE chrome lined barrel - which we called the 297-barrel while the A5 has TWO chrome chambered only barrels - which we called 299-barrels. This not correct. The A3, the earlier gun has the TWO 299 barrels and the later A5 has ONE later chrome lined 297-barrel

You probably won't find any of the old early 299 barrels because they were absolute crap

[Kev G]

Peter,is there any reason in refering to the 2 types of barrels as '297' and '299' ?
ATB Kevin

[Peter Laidler]

Ah, yes. Very good point KG. The early 299 barrel was so named by Armourers because on this barrel the .299 gauge had to run freely and without obstruction. 2 of these rubbish barrels per gun. The later barrel we called the 297, the .297" gauge had to run freely and unobstructed. Chrome bore and chamber; 1 barrel per gun. The barrels looked similar - in fact they were identical except that the 297 was chrome lined and had a different part number. The bore difference was because of the chrome lining. Almost impossible to shoot one out I have to say!

We used these bore size identifiers because if you were in a unit with L4A2's AND A4's, life could get confusing. Such trivialities didn't concern the Navy as they really didn't care too much so long as there was a hole down the barrel - somewhere!

There was another barrel that was totally crap and useless to boot but I won't go into that!

[Kev G]

Thanks for the clarrification regarding the 297 and 299 barrel reference Peter.

A booklet published by the factory and sanctioned by the old MoD procurement/sales office says that the A3 has ONE chrome lined barrel - which we called the 297-barrel while the A5 has TWO chrome chambered only barrels - which we called 299-barrels. This not correct. The A3, the earlier gun has the TWO 299 barrels and the later A5 has ONE later chrome lined 297-barrel

Not having seen the naval Book of Reference (BR) that states the L4A3 has 1 chrome lined barrel and the L4A5 has 2 chrome chambered barrels, but I thought this was the correct description ?
Now I'm confused in that you are saying this is wrong.....can you shed any light as to why it's the other way round (L4A3 two barrels - L4A5 one barrel) ?

ATB KG

[Peter Laidler]

You've totally lost me in the translation somewhere KG, and it's relatively early in the morning so......
L4A2 and L4A3 have TWO what we call .299 chrome chamber only barrels due to their easily identifiable bore dameters
L4A4 and L4A5 have ONE what we call .297 fully chrome lined barrel due to its .297 'must run freely' bore diameter

It is NOT the Navy BR that says that the reverse in relation to the L4A3 and 5. It is another booklet issued by the MoD Procurement and Sales branch that says the reverse is correct. Phew!

[Brit plumber]

You've totally lost me in the translation somewhere KG, and it's relatively early in the morning so......
L4A2 and L4A3 have TWO what we call .299 chrome chamber only barrels due to their easily identifiable bore dameters
L4A4 and L4A5 have ONE what we call .297 fully chrome lined barrel due to its .297 'must run freely' bore diameter

It is NOT the Navy BR that says that the reverse in relation to the L4A3 and 5. It is another booklet issued by the MoD Procurement and Sales branch that says the reverse is correct. Phew!

That's the logical sequence and I assume that as I've never seen a L4A5 marked gun that they either just didn't bother marking the gun with the A5 or the single 297 barrel arrived as the L4A3 was going into production. When did the L4A2 to A4 change take place? I have noted the first L4A3 produced in 1962 and the first L4A4 in 1961 so it would make sense that the L4A3 concept originally would have had 2 barrels but when production began the 297 barrel had been introduced so only that barrel was required. Possibly why I've only seen the A3.

I could of course be well off!!

[Kev G]

........it would make sense that the L4A3 concept originally would have had 2 barrels but when production began the 297 barrel had been introduced so only that barrel was required. Possibly why I've only seen the A3.

The specification for manufacture of the L4A3 by the Inspectorate of Armaments is in specification SA / 689 dated 15th October 1959.
First page,
1 - General particulars
Para - (f) New components - MG 5526 - Barrel

To avoid any confusion in previous references to types of L4 barrels by gauging size, barrel MG 5526 was refered to as the '.297 barrel' (fully chrome lined)
Barrel MG 5526 makes up the barrel assembly MG 20 MA ,MG 5526 is stamped on the LH side of the barrel and is the same as used on the L4A4.

The drawing for the barrel M.G.5526 was certified on the 8th September 1959 and so was in place before the specification for the L4A3.

The L4A3 specification SA / 689 page 1 (c) Particulars of Converted Gun, reference - Drawings as per schedule MG 37 G.A. - Gun ,Machine,7.62mm.L4A3.
The schedule listing parts and assemblies with part number,designation,No per assembly and designers reference first dated 9th September 1959 and lists barrel assembly MG 20 MA comprising barrel MG 5526 (fully chrome lined) 1 (ONE) of.

The specification,drawings and schedules do not list any ammendments to any earlier reference to having 2 barrels of either earlier type - the steel 4 groove X10E1 / L4A1 barrel - MG 4768 or the L4A2 chrome chamber barrel - 9603021 also listed in ammendments for use with the L4A1.(mentioned in previous posts as '.299 chrome chamber only barrel')

To sum up from primary source documents I have to hand it very much looks to me like the
L4A3 only ever had 1 (ONE) barrel - the fully chromed chamber and bore MG 5526 barrel..........but I could be wrong.

Phew ! ATB Kevin

[Brit plumber]

That's interesting, it appears then that the L4A2 with 2 chrome chamber barrels - 9603021 began production in 1959 and was still being produced in 1960 and in 1961 the L4A4 production began. So did it take 2 years to go from drawing to production?

Where does the mystery L4A5 come into play? Is there official specification sheets for this too?