Now that is one fine piece...

By The Armorer on July 12, 2007 | | Comments (12)

...of Brit- or Canadian-built pulchritude.

Bren Mk 1

Yes, of course I mean that Bren Mark 1 sitting on the table. Geez, remember where you are, people! The home of the Armorer!

Share This Article:

Categories:

12 Comments

By Chuck Simmins on July 12, 2007 9:53 AM
John, that pic is smokin'!
 
By MajMike on July 12, 2007 10:39 AM
izzn't that Julie Andrews??
 
By Boquisucio on July 12, 2007 10:42 AM
Lovely Gas Vented Humped Butt... on the Mk1 dat is
 
By Justthisguy on July 12, 2007 1:39 PM
I always wondered how the sights were arranged on that piece, what with the big magazine sticking up there.
 
By Casey Tompkins on July 12, 2007 1:49 PM
I don't know what would upset squishy post-modern libs worse; the gun or the cigarette... ;) John, how would you compare the Mk 1 to a BAR? ...found this on YouTube: re-enactment of British Paras firing a Bren Mk 1.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 12, 2007 3:32 PM
JTG - the sights are offset to the left side of the piece. Casey - I've never *shot* the Bren, only held it and schlepped it around a bit. I have fired a BAR. For advancing fire, shooting from the hip, I would prefer the Bren if only for the pistol grip and it isn't quite as nose-heavy as the BAR. That's said, of course, without ever having actually *fired* it from that position, only carried it. I suspect in most other considerations it's a wash - though the 30 round magazines of the Bren vice the 20 round magazines of the BAR might be telling in a sustained fire role.
 
By Murray on July 12, 2007 6:09 PM
I've used one as a section gun, very very accurate weapon. I also top scored on my basic meaning I killed my snowman the fastest and started working over other peoples before getting bawlled out. The Sgt used one like a rifle to clear the sheep before we started. I've also seen a 90 year old North Africa vet shoot six figure targets off their sticks then be helped back into his walking frame. some things you don't forget how to do. I've used the hard barrel SLR which is a more recent idea on the theme of the BAR and I'd prefer the Bren.
 
By Casey Tompkins on July 12, 2007 11:16 PM
Oh, kewl, answers! :) While I'm pestering people, I'll ask a question which has been bugging me for a while. Why didn't the US Army purchase Colt Monitors as their main rifle, instead of the M1 Garand? Or (at least) why didn't they buy the Monitor instead of the BAR? From what I've read, the Monitor is lighter, the compensator eliminated muzzle climb, and the thing was five pounds lighter than a BAR. I suppose there are valid reasons why they didn't buy the Monitor which aren't obvious to the moderately-informed laymen such as myself, but the bloody thing even looks like an M-16 prototype! I keep wondering how things might have been different if our troops had a fully-automatic, 20-round per magazine rifle available, instead of the Garand, which I grant is still one of the classic designs of all time. I'll say that the Garand is as nearly a work of art (for its milieu) as the Pennsylvania long rifle. Still, the Monitor seems superior. So what am I missing? :)
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 13, 2007 6:54 AM
Um, because the Monitor was a modified commercial BAR and the Army already *had* the BAR? It would have been simpler, to just arm everybody with a BAR... btw - have you ever *carried* a BAR? Suckers are heavy. Total Weight of Rifle: 16 pounds, 3 ounces. Weight of Filled Magazine: 1 pound, 10 ounces. Weight of Compensator: 11 ounces. Loaded Weight of Weapon: 18.5 pounds. Length of Barrel: 18 inches. Length of Rifle: 38 1/2 inches. With Compensator, 42 1/2 inches. Caliber: .30-06 Cyclic Rate of Fire: 500 rpm. Aimed shots per minute: Semi-auto, 60. Vice the M1: Weight 9.5 pounds, loaded. Weight With bayonet M1 and sling M1907 11.2 pounds, loaded. Length: (over-all) rifle only 43.6 inches Length (over-all) with bayonet M1 53.4 inches Length of barrel 24 inches The M1 weighed less, was slightly more accurate, and while I can't find any cost numbers, probably cost less, too. Those would be some reasons, Casey.
 
By Pogue on July 13, 2007 10:57 AM
Also there was a lot of resistance even to a semi automatic rifle in the hands of the troops for fear of excessisve ammo consumption. Check out "Hatcher's Book of the Garand" if you can find a copy. And a personal observation, while I've never fired the BAR, it is more difficult to shoot accurately with a weapon that fires from an open bolt.
 
By John of Argghhh! on July 13, 2007 11:39 AM
I wasn't going to go into the whole "Ghost of Ripley" aspect of the thing - I hadda get posts up this morning!
 
By Casey Tompkins on July 13, 2007 2:15 PM
Ooookay, that answers that question! :) I was under the impression that the weight of the Monitor was suffciently lower than the standard BAR to make it preferable. I suppose not. ...So using the Garand took off 10 pounds, was much more wieldy, and was (probably) cheaper. Gotcha.