|
|
Post by Kev on Nov 16, 2009 23:52:01 GMT 1
hi everyone i may be wrong here but i was thinking mabe the designation 7.92mk 1 makes sence even though its a bren mk2 reciever as we know it we are thinking of the .303 seriese of guns if this is the first 7.92 then it is a mk 1 of that series as the L4 series should realy be designated 7.62 bren mk1 and so on just a thought cheers ian From varifiable all matching number guns I have examined this is not the case ... but then again I haven't seen that many ! These Brens have had MK4 butt plates and MK3 carry handle stems which would make them later than CH and 0T prefix MK2 1st production guns. ATB Kevin |
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Nov 17, 2009 9:21:53 GMT 1
hi Kev i dont know if ive miss read what you said here
but i think you may not be thinking lateraly here
put the 303 bren to one side for a min
mabe in the factory they have grabed a reciever any one they could find
fitted a but and a modified breach block
modified any barrel they could find
and then designated it as 7.92 bren mk 1
that is what it is it no longer has any connection to the 303 bren series it is to all intence a different gun
no matter how we would recognise the parts
but this only makes sence if we stop seeing 303 parts
and see them as new 7.92 parts which i think is why it was designated as 7.92 bren mk1 to stop mixups so it was seen as a new and different gun
this adds up to me but then im not a specialist in this subject
cheers ian mabe im not explaning my self very well i hope you get the drift of what im trying to say
|
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Nov 17, 2009 9:42:11 GMT 1
now ill try and be a bit clearer if i can
L4 serries
they take a 303 bren mk 3 reciever and re designate it 7.62 L4
it has now become a different part
it has a new part no and must not be used on any other gun even though it used to be a a mk 3 reciever
i think this is what they have done with the 7.92 reciever
it is a 303 bren mk2 reciever by sight only
it has now become 7.92 bren mk1 reciever
a different part
cheers ian
|
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Nov 17, 2009 9:57:59 GMT 1
infact a different gun altogether
the only thing it has in common with a 303 bren now
is that it looks like one
|
|
|
|
Post by Kev on Nov 17, 2009 22:05:05 GMT 1
Ian,hope this pic explains  In the foreground (with the red stripe and just about visable 7.92 writing) is an 0T prefix serial number 1st production 7.92 Bren. In the middle (with Chinese characters) is a CH prefix serial number Bren .The production of these started after 0T prefix Brens. At the back is a 'covert' 7.92 Bren with the body pantographed MKI.As mentioned before all original Brens of this type I have seen have MK4 butt plates on them which would make them later ( not 1st) production 7.92 MK2 Brens. All the best Kevin |
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Nov 17, 2009 22:43:59 GMT 1
kev you are still seeing mixing 303 brens mk4 buts mk 10 safty catchess  ?? its a new and diferent gun you canot see it as a 303 sorry mate but it is something diferent it doesnt matter what mk of part it is mqade from it has nothing in comen with a bren gun other than it looks like one please try to see the diference it is a 7.92 mk1 bren a new at the time and a diferent animal alltogether same as 7.62 L4 it is a diferent gun \it just looks the same im gwetting quite adamant about this cos \ ive seen the same with the gpmg more designations for the same gun than you could shake a stick at no4 t L37 to look at them you would sweare they were the same rifle ?? but they are so diferent they cannot be mixed up do you see what i meen there is such a diference they have to be designated diferently |
|
|
|
Post by Richard Fisher on Nov 17, 2009 22:58:36 GMT 1
Ian,
I think I see it the same way as you. As it was the first 7.92mm gun, it was the Mk. I. It didn't matter what .303-inch gun it was based on, it was still the Mk. I 7.92mm.
In the same way, when they did the .5-inch Vickers, they started the nomenclature markings again, rather than make it a Mk. II Vickers. This causes confusion sometimes as the Mk. V .5-inch gun is completely different to the Mk. V .303-inch gun.
Is this what you meant?
Rich
|
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Nov 17, 2009 22:59:37 GMT 1
serial no have been proven not to make sence
i have had a berreta 92f issued to me with a serial number younger than it age made by a diferent company ??
ive had an m4 with a serial number alocated to an m16a2
so serial nos are not perfect
and if these guns were made for SOE or people like that
then any serial numbers cannot by the very nature of the beast believed
which ever way you look at it they are still 7.92 bren mk 1
and have nothng in comen with 303 brens to me it is simple
diferent caliber diferent gun
|
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Nov 17, 2009 23:08:22 GMT 1
richard !!! thanks that someone sees it
ive seen so many gpmg that are the same d**n gun but becouse 1 was fitted to a tank and 1 was a sustained fire gun they had diferent designations but were the same d**n gun you would not believe how often this comes about
the smallest diference requiresa a new designation
|
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Nov 17, 2009 23:23:23 GMT 1
yes Kev they are mk 2 recievers but they are still 7.92 mk1 designation can you not see what i mean here any way whats the news on what we talked about have you cleared your garage yet ? please cheers ian doyou know i love this forum its great fun and im learning so much and we can have a good argument without punching each other wonmderfull cheers all ian |
|
|
|
Post by Kev on Nov 18, 2009 0:46:01 GMT 1
I can fully see your reasoning, but the 0T and CH prefix 7.92 Brens were never pantographed with any Mk on the body.If the nomenclature was 7.92 MKI why were these not marked as such ?
I'll try and fight my way into the garage this weekend ;D
ATB Kevin
|
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Nov 18, 2009 1:00:02 GMT 1
kev all of the pics and all of this dicusion is becouse they are marked as souch odd but isnt this what makes this forum so much fun let me know as soon as you have dug your way into the garage im like a cat on a tin roof cheers ian |
|
|
|
Post by iannrmn on Nov 18, 2009 1:25:53 GMT 1
Kev you are still trusting serial numbers they tel lies like cheep NAAFI watches even wors G1098 watches you cannot and must not trust serial numbers especialy anything to do with MI6 or SOE they by there nature will be a load of bo#####cks hiding the truthe was there job dont always believe what you see even wors what you think you see remember the old saying denyabble ? IE it wasnt us we didnt give them these guns ?OOOOOOOPS? ? YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN most western govenments are still doing it but the m16 dont have us govenment property stamped on the recievers and no serial numbers funny that EH in iraq the main ID on ak47 that we had was chinease but bwe know that they where russian becouse the chinease didnt make that mk of ak infact the most came from the check republic and some from slovakia and hungary but they were marked up as having come from china ?? so dont believe all that you see or read nothing in this world is what we think or see ive been in the game long inof to see allsorts of things go on every thing is denyable if there are no records NOT US IT WAS THEM see NO SERIAL NUMBERS or THOSE ARE NOT OUR SERIAL NUMBERS |
|
?? 
