The BREN

[troung]

Bren L4 (UK)

Data for BREN L4A4, 7.62mm NATO (converted from Mk.3, cal .303)
caliber .303 British (Mk.1-Mk.3); 7,62mm NATO (L4)
weigth 8.68 kg on bipod
Length 1156 mm
Length of barrel 635 mm
feeding magazine 30 rounds
rate of fire ca. 500 rounds per minute

The BREN machine gun had been initially developed in Czechoslovakia as ZB-26, and then redesigned to fire rimmed british .303 ammunition. The designation BREN stands for (BRno-ENfield). Manufacture of the Bren Mk.1 began in Enfield (UK) in 1937. Brens in .303 had been manufactured in Mk.1 to Mk.4 configurations, being slightly differend in barrel lenghts, sights and other aspects, and saw wide and sucessful use during the World war 2. After the standartisation of the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, many BRENs had been converted to fire rimless 7.62mm NATO rounds. These guns can be visually distinguished from early ones by more straight box magazines, and bear designations of L4A1 to L4A6. Most of these guns are currently obsolete in British army but some (especially, L4A4 and L4A5) are still in service with British Army and Navy. The 7.62mm BRENs also widely used by other British Commonwealth countries and some others.

Technically, all BREN machineguns are gas operated, tilting bolt locked, air cooled, magazine fed machine guns. The barrel, gas action and bolt assembly with bipod can recoil slightly inside the receiver body to reduce felt recoil. The gun can be fired in single-shot or full-auto mode. The barrels are quick changeable, but models L4A3, L4A4 and L4A6 had crome lined barrels, which require change only during the very intensive fire. All other guns were issued with non-lined barrels, each gun with two barrels (one installed, one spare). All BRENs are fed from top-inserted 30 rounds box magazines. Each BREN can be fired from integral folding bipod, from tripod mount or can be installed on vehicle (pintle or turret) mount. According to many sources, the BRENs were one of the best light machine guns of its time.

--------
The BREN has seen a lot of combat and was employed by many users during and after the second world war.

Now I figure we have plenty of former Indian soldiers and officers that can go into detail about the BRENs current and past employment in their nation, such as reviews about the gun and details about employment (squad or platoon level) and the plans of the future for the largest current user. Nepal is another major user but they seem to be moving them out for the more modern Minimi. Some turn up in Pakistan but mostly the 303 models as they mostly use the MG-3. Did they not recieve as many or was there a different reason for Pakistan ditching the BREN and India keeping scores in service?

Nepal
India
India
Pakistan

[Beaugeste93]

Nice overview, but then I am established as an anglophile as far as british guns are concerned. If I had about 20k to blow on a transferable machinegun, the BREN would probably be #2 or #3 on the list (after the BAR and MG34 or MG42/MG3).

[leib10]

Bren was a fine weapon, reliable and easy to transport. However, like all light machine guns with magazine feed systems, it had a major flaw: a lack of the ability to provide true sustained fire, thanks to the lack of a belt-feed system.

[troung]

it had a major flaw: a lack of the ability to provide true sustained fire, thanks to the lack of a belt-feed system.

Well lets be honest very few light machine guns could do so as the decent working ones that people would actually want to carry used boxes back then. I'm leaving out GPMGs.

I find the 7.62mm version rather interesting.

Indonesia also employed the BREN (303 models) back in the 1950s and 1960s. It was often used as a platoon level weapon within the RPKAD (now called Kopassus). 3 BRENs in the machine gun support squad and 9 AK-47s and 1 RPG-2 in the rifle squad. A lot of firepower for 1964.

Funny but they actually turned them on the people who sold/supplied them to them in the first place...

[sniperdude411]

How does the .303 stack-up against the 7.62?

"Technically, all BREN machineguns are gas operated, tilting bolt locked, air cooled, magazine fed machine guns."
Never heard of that before.

[leib10]

.303 is a slower round and more difficult to use in automatics because of its rimmed casing. It's an archaic round that few regular armies use on a widespread scale.

[sniperdude411]

I've heard it's naturally a dum-dum round; it caused a 4-inch shockwave that vaporized the redd Baron's organs, killing him with only one shot.
A very, very lucky shot. They did that in Unsolved History, very cool.

[leib10]

Regardless of whether it was Captain Brown or the Australian AA gunners, it would've been a .303.

[HOKUM]

20k? surely wouldnt need nearly that much! I saw one in a deactivated one in an antiques shop for 500 pounds about 10 years ago

i heard they were reliable and accurate, although i would take a stg44 if i had to choose, i know its in a different class but 8.5kgs is a bit heavy for my liking

[sniperdude411]

20k? surely wouldnt need nearly that much! I saw one in a deactivated one in an antiques shop for 500 pounds about 10 years ago

i heard they were reliable and accurate, although i would take a stg44 if i had to choose, i know its in a different class but 8.5kgs is a bit heavy for my liking

But is is very cool.

And it was Snowy White who killed the Red Baron.

[cottage cheese]

Bren L4 (UK)

India keeping scores in service?

Simple - Bureaucratic inertia... you have to be here to experience our formidable bureaucracy. Even our damn military brass are bureaucrats and committee mongers at heart.

[lemontree]

Simple - Bureaucratic inertia... you have to be here to experience our formidable bureaucracy. Even our damn military brass are bureaucrats and committee mongers at heart.

Its a good MG then why ditch it?

[cottage cheese]

Its a good MG then why ditch it?

We'll I wasn't exactly implying it wasn't a good MG. I love it... its depandability, old world soldierly rugedness and the stable platform that it is. But one cannot help but admit that its feeling its age. There are better and more advanced weapons available now which can produce massive volume of fire for the same or lesser weight and bulk(though few that can compare against the quality ad build of the Bren) The lack of sustained fire capability in a Bren has always bothered me.
The INSAS LMG is a stupid 'replacement' though. The OFB manufactures the MAG under license but in our somewhat dated war doctrine we still have place for the MMG, and thats where the precious MAGs sit with their complex tripod assemblys and stuff. This may be changing since I've seen some Army or perhaps BSF troops humping an MAG in portable configuration (butt stock and bipod) - The MAG, though heavy is another weapon I like.

If the IA is to go with 5.56, well cost rules out the HK MG43, which leaves only the MINIMI and Negev- I see to be leaning towards the Negev as it seems less complex and offers a more reliable alternate corss feed option. Th MINIMIs' magazine feed is a ***** , I'm told. I assume this would be because of the odd angle that it sits at. It wouldn't be too difficult to adapt Negevs to INSAS magazines, since both the GALIL and INSAS magazine interfaces are based on the AK series (They attach in the same manner) and the Negev can handle Galil and M16 magazines. A Negev with a 100round+ CMag would be awsome!

Come to think of it I wonder if anyone has considered seeing if the Galil magazine will work in an INSAS....

If the IA is thinking of a good portable 7.62 MGs, perhaps we can go for the US Mk48 ... looks good to me.

[sniperdude411]

Idea spark!
Make a .408 dual mounted MG, feeding not from belts, but from electricly-fed hoppers (like ones in paintall guns). No need for a belt feed, which makes it simple. It just has to be mounted.

BTW, yes, I did say the .408 (the round used by the CheyTac Intervention rifle), which has more KE at 700 yards than a 50 BMG.

[lemontree]

We'll I wasn't exactly implying it wasn't a good MG. I love it... its depandability, old world soldierly rugedness and the stable platform that it is. But one cannot help but admit that its feeling its age. There are better and more advanced weapons available now which can produce massive volume of fire for the same or lesser weight and bulk(though few that can compare against the quality ad build of the Bren) The lack of sustained fire capability in a Bren has always bothered me.
The INSAS LMG is a stupid 'replacement' though. The OFB manufactures the MAG under license but in our somewhat dated war doctrine we still have place for the MMG, and thats where the precious MAGs sit with their complex tripod assemblys and stuff. This may be changing since I've seen some Army or perhaps BSF troops humping an MAG in portable configuration (butt stock and bipod) - The MAG, though heavy is another weapon I like.

The task and role of the LMG and MMG differ. The problem with belt fed LMGs is that once you are bingo ammo, then the weapon is just a club. But a magazine fed LMG can use the rifle magazines till more ammo is fetched up.
This is solved by the Minimi. But then we will have to change the whole logistics and would defeat the INSAS concept. The INSAS LMG has been introduced keeping in mind the interchangability aspect.