Lee Enfield n°4(T) and Bipod

[Peter Laidler]

Long Bren webbing slings were well liked and suggested by the sniper schools, certainly here. once the leather slings were wet they were a real handfull to hold - if you'll excuse the pun! A part of the trouble was that they were always cleaned down and had loads of 'dubbin' slapped on them. They lasted for years of course but when it was absorbed by the leather it made it sooooooo slippery. A bit like trying to catch an eel

The irony was that when the last L96's were being used by the snipers here, some of them had old L1A1/No4 era cotton webbing slings fitted. Old habits passed down I suppose

[Lou Cypher]

Bipod and rifle might be two separate relics found in the same ditch, and assumed to be together?
This is an option thunderbox. Fierce combat occured in the wood of Bavent.

[Warren]

I have some close ups of the bipod and I must admit it does look good!!!!! I'd sure hate to try and zero or even shoot with a bipod on the barrel. I seem to recall there was a DDE on it, but don't think it ever got off the paper.
Someone in the UK made some up not that long ago...cannot remember who, but maybe WWA or Prentice...anyone remember?????.

[Peter Laidler]

In the normal course of events, knowing just a teeny weeny bit about how normally secretive and sensitive snipers are, you wouldn't find a Bren and sniper team in the same place while carrying out their work! And if it was a Mk1 Bren that had lost its bipod, then it would only be a single shot Bren because it wouldn't re-cock. But being serious, have no fear because I tried a bipod on a No4 this afternoon - as you do - and they both fell over. Unless you make the ID of the bipod sleeve the same dia as the OD of the barrel, then this is a guaranteed situation all the time. I tried it twice just to make sure!

Without a decent picture of the bipod sleeve in the article then if it's standing up unsupported, then it must have been modified. Maybe we could see some of the close-ups Warren. To be honest, I just wonder what the Armourer Sergeant would have said when a sniper (I use the word loosely) came into the Armourers shop and explained that he wanted a spare Bren bipod to superglue to the bell-end of his accurate sniper rifle. In fact, his answer is ringing in my ears already - and it's not pleasant..............

[Warren]

I have no illusions that the bipod was an officially sanctioned device. However it does look good and is in complete agreement with the existing corrosion found on the No.4(T) rifle. It does appear to be well made and it might even be a post war experiment by the local hobbyist who merely chucked it in the ditch when the local Gendarmerie came calling. We all know how far you get arguing with the French Gendarmarie. As to original WW II issue, I rather doubt it, even though a DDE does exist, however the copy I saw was stamped obsolete. The corrosion on the rifle, scope and tool do not look like 50 years in a French ditch. I've seen a few items that were dug in France on a chums farm and they are mere skeletons of the original object. I think Roger can attest to this one, mind you he is in a WW I battlefield and mere threads of items are all that remain from that bun fight.
I can just imagine some RSM seeing a cocked up sniper like the one in question. I think self implosion would be an understatement.
There is no way that any degree of accuracy could be attained with the bipod attached, and in looking at it all, I suspect the "chuck it in the ditch when the Police come callings" might be the answer to this mystery.

[gravityfan]

I don't have photos at the moment, but I do have a No.4 bipod.

Obviously a shaft-less No.4 bayo head, bored-through with a pressed-in spigot which is pinned in place and also has a sling swivel.

Permanently mounted on the spigot is a PH bipod. Design like the Bren Mk.1, but shorter thinner legs and much smaller feet. The "classic" PH bipod.

Stampings on the bayo "head" are:
PH over T4
REME over WORKSHOP - self explanatory
G5 over B - upside down and looks original to the bayo

Across the top flat of the head is P in circle 1949, so it was probably a No9 bayo not a No.4

Exceedingly well done and a credit to the REME engineer. I wonder how many they made?

[Warren]

The bipod has been cleaned extensively however had it been in the ditch for any extended length of time the corrosion would be much deeper. Also, the spring would be most likely dissolved by now as well. Anyhow, I hope I have not overstepped any confidentiality by showing this picture of the bipod.
Attachment 32796

[Norton1]

I do understand the bipod issue as it relates to firing a rifle. The Marines were the same way. We were taught how to hold the rifle correctly and how to shoot the same way. Slings were a large part of this process but we had canvas slings and they worked very well. Of course in hot exchanges with the VC/NVA I never saw a sling employed. Took to long.

Now on the Pig, the M-60, there was a bipod. A rather nice one. But it didn't fit anything but the 60. The M-14 E-2 variant had a nice bipod but it was our fireteam's automatic weapon and only used when in full-automatic mode as a fire suppressant weapon. I modified an M-60 bipod once to use on an M-16 and it looked really good. But I could not make that rifle hit anything while using the bipod. My realization was that any bipod attached to the barrel of a rifle only created problems.

I've seen the pictured bipod somewhere but it eludes me at the moment where. I believe it is of Chicom or Soviet Bloc manufacture.

Nice find anyway!
Be well,
Steve

[Peter Laidler]

Does anyone remember a clip-on sort of bipod for our early AR15/M-16's we had in Malaya and SVn. They clipped around the barrel between the 'A' of the foresight block if my memory is right. I never used one because you couldn't fold it to carry the rifle. Like Norton says above, we were always taught to shoot over cover with the forearm rested. Even now, with the bipod fitted to the sniper L96 and 118 rifles, the bipod is completely separate from and has no influence whatsoever on the barrel.

Regarding Warrens pics and gravity fand description, I say good try but theory poor! It reminds me of the bipod on the RPK!

[Warren]

PETER!!!!
Regarding Warrens pics and gravity fand description, I say good try but theory poor! It reminds me of the bipod on the RPK!


I have NO IDEA of what you are trying to say....please explain