Inglis 7.92mm Bren

[Brit plumber]

http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/div_....asp?pageREQ=1

Scroll down to no. 1009 Bren Mk1

This ones a little baffaling to me, its a 7.92 on a Mk2 body as normal, Chinese script to the right side but has a Serial number of 5T8979 which is a Mk1, I would also expect it to have a CH serial number. The 1944 date has been 'X' through and there are 1943 dates elsewhere, one odd marking is 1943 Mk1m crudely stamped.

My opinion is that its a 1944 7.92mm re-numbred to a registered firearm in .303 and some one has marked '1943 Mk1m ' to make it match a registration form (I've no idea how any registers or forms work in the US). I bet the original and correct serial number would have been a CH serial, or the 1-7813 found on the barrel.

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.

[Kev G]

Yes Brit, would have expected to see an original serial number with the CH prefix.I expect it has been re-serialed for paperwork reasons ?
It wouldn't have originaly been a 7.92 with the 1 - 7813 serial number as these guns were sterile.

ATB Kevin

[stencollector]

Here is a photo of mine.

The stamping of the model mk1M looks pretty amateurish on the one shown on the auction.

[Peter Laidler]

The intelligence community usually (when they're able to be asked about such things.....) cringe at the notion of 'sterile' weapons, especially firearms. This is for many reasons. The principle one is that guns are made for killing people and once (if?) they are recovered, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to immediately identify the basic points of a) who made it and b) where it was made. These are inescapable facts. The next reason is that...................... anyway, the notion of using sterile light machine guns is a bit.............. Additionally, when weapons are fed into these 'groups', they are left marked simply so that the source of supply can be whitewashed - if that makes sense.

These are the words of an intelligence Major.

But back to this gun in particular, it looks to me like this is what we'd call now, a bit of 'identity theft' or in used car parlance, 'a bit of old fashioned car ringing'

[Brit plumber]

I like that analogy, its a 'Ringer'! But I wish it was mine, the 7.92 Inglis still avades me!

[Peter Laidler]

A 7.92 Inglis is very easy to replicate, using a good/half decent deact BP. Because there are a few variations of the JI 7.92, you can replicate the one that closest suits what you have

[Kev G]

Well as I'm no lexicographer 'sterile' seemed the most apt word that sprang to mind .
As the number prefix 7.92 Brens are deviod (not scrubbed or ground off) from manufacture of any parts that bare makers marks or codes,no inspection or ordnance,acceptance or ownership marks inc woodwork....also no steel batch code.
I'm now at a loss as how best to descibe their state ?

ATB Kevin

[Peter Laidler]

Ah, I was thinking 'sterile' as in the intelligence world of 'sterile'. And not in the reproductive world of 'sterile' either!

Is that a fact that the 'I-xxxx' series Inglis 7.92's were devoid of any markings? How strange................. In the sneaky beaky intelligence world, this feature - or lack of ANY features - wouldn't fool anone after the first 3 seconds.

I'd describe that as '....devoid of any markings from new'. As in 'taken out after work ............' as opposed to 'scrubbed'

[Brit plumber]

Could 'Sterile' be taken as 'Only fires blanks'?

Have you a 7.92mm at Warminster? I've got a NOS mag with the idea of a replica but I need to open the magazine well a smidgen but would rather do a decent job rather than just attack it with a grinder.

ATB, Chris.

[Kev G]

Well the 'sandwich box' scenario is an interesting one Peter but the two examples the Canadian War Museum have in their collection (serial numbers , 1-0001 and 2-3429) were acquired directly from Canadian Arsenals Limited .

ATB Kevin