Bren 3/1

[Joe H]

Peter,

There is a discussion going on here in the US as to whether Bren Mk 1's were converted to Mk 3's. I did find a topic here that indicated there were some 1 to 3 conversions done at Ishapore (India). Where any such conversions done at Enfield?

https://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=20594

The discussion started as to which Mks were converted to L4 7.62 Nato. "Bren Gun Saga" shows only Mk2's and 3's. Would one think that any original Mk 1's would have ended up being converted to L4's as 1's converted to 3's ?

Thanks ,
Joe

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]

The real question is... Are Mk3 bodies made by modifying Mk1 bodies or are they made new or are they made by modifying Mk2 bodies?

The "discussion" on the other site has nothing to do with the Mk3/1 from India.

[Lee Enfield]

Technically it's complicated by describing 7.62 Bren as an "L4"...

The South Africans converted MkI & MkII Brens to 7.62x51, but I don't believe that anyone considers them to be L4 variants.


The Indians bought British L4s and also converted MkI, MkIII Brens to L4 status, and also new manufactured a MK3 variant as an L4 (IB) - thicker side walls and it didn't require the added in feed guide lips so it didn't have the 2 distinctive disks on either side of the mag well.

Having said that, the Indian designation is not L4A1/2/3/4/5/6 ect. It is "IA" (L4A2/A4) (Mk3 bren converted), IB (a new manufacture "L4A4" for all intents)Ordnance Factory Board , IC (Mk1 (or MkIM) converted to Mk2/Mk3 folding rear sight and 7.62).

As to an Indian 7.62 converted Bren MkII? I've never seen one, nor reference to them, but if they converted MkI brens, why not??


examples of a previous discussion are her: https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ht=Indian+bren


If you want to get really esoteric, apparently the Norwegians and the Italians converted .303 Brens to .30-06....?? never seen any real discussion of that...

[sundance8]

The real question is... Are Mk3 bodies made by modifying Mk1 bodies or are they made new or are they made by modifying Mk2 bodies?

Per the discussion on the other forum this is the question we are trying to get answered.

[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.

[Peter Laidler]

I'm no expert in this matter, having only worked on one or two zillion and as always, stand to be corrected. But during my research, the Mk3/1 is a peculiarly Indian conversion often interpreted as a Mk1/3. It was a Mk1 gun converted to Mk3 spec with a cleverly shortened Mk1 barrel.

On to the 7.62mm conversions, the L4 series. I wasn't aware that the Indians purchased L4A2's in quantity....., simply enough to back engineer their own home grown Mk3's, which they did in huge quantities without the rigmarole of paying royalties to Enfield. The round discs on the side of the L4 bodies weren't to strengthen the body per-se. The disc was simply to reinforce the underside of the feed lips of the magazine. The insert intruded into the body and formed a shelf for the magazine lips to sit on. Thereafter, the breech block would slide UNDER the reinforced internal feed lips as opposed to slowly chomping away at the underside of the magazine lips . Without them, as we found out with the L4A1 guns, was a disaster because.......... anyway.....

The Mk1 body really was a total overkill. It was part of the Bren concept that the Bren was going to be the all singing and dancing weapon - a jack of all trades, all things to all men. Alas, it was a master of only one. That being a section and platoon machine gun at which it excelled.

[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.