|
|
Post by peregrinvs on Dec 8, 2009 20:54:56 GMT 1
I'm currently toying with investing in a deact Lithgow MkIm to complement my Enfield MkI and Inglis MkII. A quick web search suggests those currently available mostly have Mk3 bipods fitted.
I was under the impression that Mk3 bipods were only fitted to Canadian MkII's and a Lithgow should have a Mk1 bipod up until circa 1943 and a Mk2 bipod (and barrel) thereafter. Is this correct?
Obviously parts get mixed up over time, but I prefer 'factory spec'.
Thanks,
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by peregrinvs on Dec 11, 2009 11:07:31 GMT 1
OK, I'll rephrase the question. Does anyone know if any Australian Brens were officially retrofitted with Canadian pattern Mk3 bipods when they were FTD'd in the 1950s? Although I suspect I'm still going to look out for a MkIm with a Mk2 barrel and bipod.  Cheers, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by britplumber on Dec 11, 2009 20:48:34 GMT 1
I had a Inglis made Mk1m which was FTRd by Lithgow. The original bipod would have been the mk3 but it had a Lithgow made Mk1 fitted. I assume that when many Brens were FTRd the parts were mixed up. I also believe that Lithgow made their own mk3 bipods, they (as previously mentioned) liked to make things easy for them selves and the Mk3 was probably the easiest for them to make as the British MK2 would involve new casting tools. Also the Mk2 used Lee Enfield No4 bayonet scabards as legs (I dont know how true this is) which is somthing Lithgow wasn't making, having continued to manufacture and assemble the SMLE.
|
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Dec 11, 2009 23:25:52 GMT 1
i had a look at my no4 bayonet and the legs on my mk11 bren they are very diferent in taper and circumfrence also the number 4 bayonet scabard is 8" long the legs on the bren are 9" long so i think that the myth has been busted  cheers all ian |
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Dec 11, 2009 23:45:19 GMT 1
also Britplumber i agree with you in that i dont think they would re tool to produce a bipod that is esentialy inferior to the dipods they allready have or are tooled to make
cheers all ian
|
|
|
|
Post by NZ L1A1 Collector on Dec 12, 2009 7:00:54 GMT 1
The story is a bit mixed, No.4 Scabbards weren't used for Bren Bi-pod Legs, it's the other way round that some Bren Bi-pod legs were used as scabbards for the No. 4 Bayonet.
It's been one of those long running rumor/myths that has persisted over the years, no one had seen an example of such a conversion, then one surfaced and was touted as an example. Well a friend of mine also has one, hes a long time collector of bayonets-that-should-not-be-named. He picked it up complete with a bayonet out of a drum of bayonets and had it for many years and wondered why the scabbard wasn't quite right. Turns out this scabbed is a converted Bren Bi-pod leg. One of only two known examples.
|
|
|
|
Post by peregrinvs on Dec 15, 2009 15:03:26 GMT 1
Thanks for all the input so far. I'm still keen to confirm what types of bipod were factory fitted to the Lithgow Brens and at which times.
Is there an Australian List of Changes or suchlike that covers Bren manufacture? Also, is this covered in Ian Skennerton's book on Australian machine guns?
Or an alternative avenue; does anyone have or know of Mk3 bipods with Australian manufacture markings?
Many thanks,
Mark
|
|
|
|
Post by woodsy on Dec 15, 2009 19:38:36 GMT 1
My 1944 Lithgow MkI (Upgraded) is fitted with the Mk II bipod. This gun is in original, near new condition, and has never been FTR'd. Skennerton's book does not go into great detail on any gun but does mention that the Aussies experimented with a lightweight gun (a MkI Upgraded modified to Mk III characteristics) which did have a bipod with simplified feet. Close examination of the photo of this modified gun shows the Mk II spikes still in place but the shoes have been reduced in size. As my gun is quite late (only 1153 from the end of production of 17,335) my guess is that Lithgow did not make the Mk III bipod. All Aussie production parts should have a small MA stamped on them for Lithgow, or BA and OA for the Bathhurst and Orange feeder factories. I hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Post by Kev on Dec 15, 2009 23:34:35 GMT 1
The key plate of the Australian 1945 IPL shows either the MKI bipod BE 9418 or the Aussie patern MK2 CAA 1087 bipod (which had a MKI bracket and sleeve assy). The MK2 leg is a different pattern from Canadian version as it's formed in at the bottom to mate with the round casting on the foot.The Aussie pattern feet can sometimes be found with a casting number on them . Parts are MA marked on this one,but as Rod said bipods can be found with other feeder factory marks.  As for FTR'd guns that were done in the 50's you will see plenty of Canadian MK2 bipods on them. I prefer to see Aussie bits on Aussie guns,but each to his own. ATB Kevin  |
|
|
|
Post by Kev on Dec 15, 2009 23:41:57 GMT 1
P.S. peregrinvs,from factory made
UK had MKI,MK2(cast),MK3 (cast ,but small feet).
Canada had MKI and MK2 (MK2 same as MKI but fixed legs)
Australia had MKI and MK2 Aussie pattern (as per picture)
|
|
|
|
Post by peregrinvs on Dec 16, 2009 11:18:16 GMT 1
P.S. peregrinvs,from factory made UK had MKI,MK2(cast),MK3. Canada had MKI and MK2 (MK2 same as UK MK3) Australia had MKI and MK2 Aussie pattern (as per picture) Thanks Kev - highly informative. So just to wrap this up; if I want a 'factory spec' Australian MkIm 'Upgraded' Bren, I want one with a Australian Mk2 barrel and a bipod that looks like a UK Mk3 / Canadian Mk2 but has the spiked feet etc. as per your picture? Cheers, Mark PS. Unfortunately this means I've missed out on a mint and matching 1943 Lithgow Bren I recently saw for sale as I thought it had a Canadian bipod. Oh well.  |
|
|
|
Post by peregrinvs on Dec 16, 2009 11:23:48 GMT 1
My 1944 Lithgow MkI (Upgraded) is fitted with the Mk II bipod. This gun is in original, near new condition, and has never been FTR'd. Skennerton's book does not go into great detail on any gun but does mention that the Aussies experimented with a lightweight gun (a MkI Upgraded modified to Mk III characteristics) which did have a bipod with simplified feet. Close examination of the photo of this modified gun shows the Mk II spikes still in place but the shoes have been reduced in size. As my gun is quite late (only 1153 from the end of production of 17,335) my guess is that Lithgow did not make the Mk III bipod. All Aussie production parts should have a small MA stamped on them for Lithgow, or BA and OA for the Bathhurst and Orange feeder factories. I hope this helps. Thanks Woodsy. I used to own a 1945 Lithgow MkIm with serial B7297 which I believe is 132nd from last. (I sold it when I bought my 1940 Enfield MkI) It was non-matching, had been FTR'd in the 1950s and had an Australian Mk2 barrel and British Mk2 bipod. Cheers, Mark |
|
|
|
Post by tom on Dec 18, 2009 12:32:04 GMT 1
You can have my Mk I/M Mk II Upgraded if you like for £200 if you cant, I'm getting rid of all my pre 1945 stuff except a SMLE and the Besas.
Unfortunately the internet link at home is fouled up so I'm having to use the library link. It won't let me search for the pics of it I think are on Richards LMG site (the hippies!) as it has the naughty word weapons in it's name. (I'm suprised it lets me here!).
Does any one have pics of the MK I/m / Mk II Upgraded minter from FTR of mine?
ATB
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by tom on Dec 18, 2009 12:38:07 GMT 1
Yes its the one used at the lightmachinegun site to illustrate the type, although I can't get to it from here!
I've also a spot on complete holdall less barrel to go with it thats going.
ATB
Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by Kev on Dec 18, 2009 15:20:58 GMT 1
Toms Lithgow  |
|
