Boil Them Out and Pull Them Through: Rifle Cleaning

I recently re-watched a favorite episode of “Dad’s Army”, the classic comedy about the Home Guard.  This particular episode had a sequence that stood out to me.  The men return from a long nighttime patrol; they are cold and tired, but excitedly report they had fired at an enemy airplane.  Their officer announces he already has the kettle on, and the men’s spirits are raised in expectation of a hot cup of tea.  Their hopes are then dashed when the officer says the first kettle is for cleaning the rifles; once that task is done, they may have their tea.  The men clean their rifles, as ordered; not only are they still cold and tired, they are sullen and resentful.

I always disagreed with that approach.  I felt that a quick cup of tea would give the men’s spirits and energy a lift; not only would they clean their rifles more cheerfully, they would likely do a more effective job of it.

But this article is not about man management.  What also struck me about this sequence was that it reminded me of the first time I heard the phrase, “boil them out and pull them through”.

Oiler & Pull-Through

The Number 4 rifle with the oiler, pull-through and a 4×2 piece of flannelette removed from the butt-trap.  The sling, bolt and magazine are to be removed prior to cleaning.  All photos in this article are by the author.

I have been a firearms enthusiast even longer than I have been a reenactor.  As much as I love British history, I am grateful to live in a nation that still allows private firearms ownership.  I learned to clean my rifles with a cleaning rod with various attachments, as well as patches, brushes, and solvents.  I was taught to keep my weapons dry and well-oiled to prevent rust.  The idea of deliberately pouring water through a rifle was completely shocking when I first heard of it.

Most military ammunition, at least until the 1950’s, was made with primers that create a corrosive residue when fired.  Rather, these chemical salts themselves are fairly inert, but form an acid when mixed with water.  The salts dissolve so easily that humid air can form enough of the caustic substance to damage a rifle barrel; perhaps that Home Guard officer was right.  However, large amounts of water, especially when hot, will completely dissolve the residue and wash it away.  Therefore, standard British military procedure after firing a rifle, whether in action or simply on the range, was to pour boiling water through it.  The official training manual recommended using 5 to 6 pints of water; it also stated that using cold water was better than not cleaning the rifle at all.  There was even a funnel designed specifically to help guide the boiling water into the bore.  The barrel was then thoroughly dried and oiled to prevent rust.

Most British troops were not issued cleaning rods.  Normal cleaning was done with a “pull-through”, a length of cord with a loop at one end and a metal weight on the other.  A piece of soft cloth, called “flannelette”, was put into the loop of the pull-through.  The flannelette was manufactured as a four-inch-wide strip that was issued in a long roll; the cloth was marked with a line every two inches indicating where it was to be cut.  The individual pieces were then often referred to as “four by two”, and each soldier was issued with several pieces.

4x2 Flannelette 1

Flannelette, with one four by two piece removed from the rest of the sheet.

Each rifle was issued with a pull-through and a small oil bottle; these items were stored inside the rifle’s butt-trap.  That way, the pull-through and oiler were always with the rifle, and cleaning could be done in the field nearly as easily as in barracks.  The oil bottle was originally made of brass; during World War II the oiler was made in “Bakelite”, an early form of plastic, to save precious brass for ammunition.

Oiler 2

Bakelite oil bottle.  Note the “spoon” built into the lid.

The pull-through was also issued with one or two small squares of wire gauze.  To the modern eye, the wire gauze pieces look like they have been cut from a window screen.  The wire was fine enough that a gauze square could be wrapped around the pull-through to provide extra scouring ability.  However, excessive use of the wire gauze could cause barrel wear.  In peacetime, the gauze was only to be used when the rifle was exceptionally dirty, and only when authorized by the Armourer; a soldier could be put on a charge for using the gauze without authorization.  However, according to the 1942 training manual, gauze was to be kept on the pull-through in wartime.

Wire Gauze 1

A piece of wire gauze before attaching to the pull-through.

The sling, bolt and magazine were to be removed from the rifle prior to cleaning.  After “boiling out” the barrel, it would be “pulled through” with a flannelette until dry.  To do this, the rifle was held with the muzzle down and the pull-through’s weight fed into the breech until the weight appeared at the muzzle.  Then the butt was placed on the floor, the cord wrapped around the hand, and the flannelette pulled through the bore; this process was repeated until the barrel was dry.  Then a different flannelette was used, this time to apply oil to the barrel.

Feeding Pull Through

Pulling-through:  the weight is dropped down the bore.

The magazine, bolt, and the rest of the rifle would be carefully wiped down with an oiled cloth, which was often stored in the webbing entrenching tool carrier.  If necessary, the magazine could be disassembled by removing the spring and platform, but this was only to be done when very dirty.

It is worth noting that the 1942 Small Arms Training Pamphlet for the Rifle starts with cleaning and maintenance before moving on to aiming and firing.  The Pamphlet also has notes on the use of cover, and use of the rifle in strengthening exercises, such as holding the rifle in the firing position using only one arm.

Pulling Through 1

The flannelette is then pulled through until the barrel is dry.  The process is repeated with an oiled flannelette.

Old surplus .303 used to be fairly common, but is sadly becoming increasingly scarce.  Most modern gunpowder solvents should also effectively clean corrosive primer residue; but sometimes the old ways are the best ways, and I still boil out my rifle after firing surplus ammo.

Several years ago, I was at a gun store hoping to find some surplus .303.  I heard other customers raving about a new cleaning product called a “Bore Snake”.  I had to laugh; this revolutionary new product was just a fancy pull-through.

Advertisements

Film Review: The Way Ahead

While I generally enjoy films about World War II, I have a particular fondness for motion pictures made about the war while it was still being fought.  Not only are they entertaining, but as an amateur historian, I find them valuable tools in gaining an insight into the mindset of the time.

Perhaps my favorite wartime motion picture is “The Way Ahead”.  This is a propaganda film first released in 1944, and tells the story of typical new recruits coming together to form an infantry platoon.

Way Ahead Poster

David Niven portrays Lt. Jim Perry, the young officer assigned as Platoon Leader.  Perry had served in the Territorial Army (Britain’s volunteer reserve) before the war.  He is very keen on all things military; a more recent generation would call him “Army Barmy”.  His Platoon Sergeant is Sgt. Ned Fletcher, played by William Hartnell; he was a pre-war professional soldier.

Wm Hartnell Way Ahead

Sgt. Fletcher (William Hartnell) on the parade ground.

In contrast to the officer and sergeant are seven private soldiers, who had been called up from civilian life and sent to the Army.  They represent very different backgrounds and personalities.  The men resent being conscripted; some have families, others feel their civilian jobs were too important to have been taken from them.  They complain about their situation whenever they are out of earshot of their officer and sergeant.  Based on an early incident, they feel Sgt. Fletcher is unduly harsh to them.

There is tension within the group of conscripts, as well.  Pte. Beck, a former travel agent, is very enthusiastic and optimistic, which puts him at odds with the others.  Pte. Stainer has a boyish fondness for automobiles, and generally seems less mature than the others; he frequently makes threats and boasts, but does nothing.  Pte. Lloyd is reserved but somewhat sour; he gets angry with Stainer and decides to take action himself.  He complains to Lt. Perry about Sgt. Fletcher’s supposed unfair treatment.  Perry is baffled by the situation; he does not understand the men’s resentment.

Way Ahead Spud Bashing

Pte. Ted Brewer (Stanley Holloway) complains while his comrades peel potatoes.

Eventually, the men are allowed out of camp on a weekend.  They encounter some civilians and learn of their efforts to support members of the armed forces.  They meet a pilot of the RAF, who is on medical leave after having been shot down.  They also find themselves in a social situation with Lt. Perry; things start off quite awkwardly, but they finally start getting to know one another.  This is the film’s turning point; nothing is said outwardly, but the men’s attitudes change.  They realize they have been selfish and foolish; they finally become proficient soldiers and learn to work together, and they develop respect for their superiors.

Finally, the platoon completes its training, and is sent overseas to see action in North Africa.  After successfully defending against a German attack, the finale shows the men fixing bayonets and taking the fight to the enemy, with rousing music playing.

While some wartime films were made for escapist entertainment, many were made for propaganda purposes, including “The Way Ahead”.  While it would seem that the film was intended to teach conscripts what they could expect, by the time it was released in 1944, most young men in Britain were already in uniform.  “The Way Ahead” was really intended to bolster civilian morale, to say that the darkest days of the war were over and that final victory was around the corner.  It was intended to instill civilian confidence in the Army, its leadership and structure, and its fighting ability.  In 1944, everyone knew that the Allies were preparing to invade continental Europe; only the specifics were kept secret.  The final scenes highlight the successful Anglo-American landings in Morocco and Algiers (Operation Torch) to remind the civilian populace of its success, and to prepare them for the upcoming invasion of Europe.  The film closes with the titles, “The Beginning”, likely a reference to Churchill’s speech about the great victory at El Alamein being “the end of the beginning”.

I enjoy the film as a piece of cinematic storytelling; the characters are interesting, and I like watching them learning to become soldiers and overcoming their differences.

As an amateur historian, I appreciate the film for how it depicts training and life in the barracks.  The men grumble that they are issued blankets, but not sheets.  They are seen cleaning rifles, polishing boots, and peeling potatoes.  There are repeated scenes of the men going through an assault course:  climbing walls, swinging on ropes, all while small arms are fired over their heads.  The men clumsily stumble through the first time, but each attempt shows significant improvement.

The men are in a fictional regiment:  The Duke of Glendon’s Light Infantry.  My favorite sequence is one in which the privates return to barracks after a field exercise; the men had intentionally gotten themselves disqualified so they could leave the exercise early.  Lt. Perry, normally calm and reserved, is visibly upset.  He explains the history of their regiment and its battle honours in an attempt to instill them with pride in their unit, to motivate them to act honorably and to take their training seriously.  It is as good an introduction to the Regimental System as any I can think of.

Way Ahead Bayonets

Lt. Perry (David Niven) and Pte. Beck (Leslie Dwyer) prepare to advance on the enemy during the film’s dramatic finale.

There is another set of characters, a pair of Chelsea Pensioners; they are former soldiers who live at the Chelsea Hospital, The British Army’s retirement home.  Their role in the film is similar to that of a Greek chorus; while they do not influence the plot, they comment on the progress of the war and compare it to their service.  They, too, had served in the same fictional regiment as Perry and his platoon, and are keen to see their descendants carry on the glories of their unit.

The film was released in the United States, under the title “The Immortal Battalion”; not surprisingly, I find the British version more emotionally satisfying.  The Chelsea Pensioners were edited out of the American version, causing it to lose some of the charm and humor of the original; it also loses some of its sense of continuity and stability, of the ability to ride out the storm.  The American title is also troubling to me; after all, it is the regiment that is important, not the battalion.  For many years, “The Immortal Battalion” was the only version available in the United States; fortunately, though, there is now a company producing NTSC Region 1 format DVD’s of “The Way Ahead” for the US market.

“The Way Ahead” was written by Eric Ambler and Peter Ustinov, and directed by Carol Reed.  It starred David Niven, William Hartnell, Peter Ustinov, Stanley Holloway*, James Donald, Leslie Dwyer, Jimmy Hanley, and John Laurie.

Way Ahead Group Shot

“The Way Ahead”:  the men prepare for their first action in North Africa.

*George MacDonald Fraser once wrote that all wartime British films featured Stanley Holloway, or at least that was how it seemed.

The Bren Light Machine Gun: Legendary Reliability

One of the most important and iconic weapons of World War II was the British Bren light machine gun.  The Bren’s distinctive top-mounted curved magazine made it easy to recognize by friend and foe alike.  Troops throughout the British Empire praised the Bren for its reliability.

burma 1945 - 2

A Bren gun position in Burma, 1945.  All photos in this article are from the Imperial War Museum.

During World War I, machine guns were used as defensive weapons, and were outstanding in that role; combined with barbed wire, they made it extremely difficult for the opposing force to advance.  Both sides used very similar machine guns as well as similar tactics, and a stalemate ensued.  Machine guns were belt-fed, mounted on heavy tripods, and fitted with a water-filled jacket to keep the barrel cool; with sufficient water and ammunition, a machine gun could fire almost indefinitely.  Because of their weight and bulk, they were not easily moved and therefore kept in emplaced positions.

The light machine gun appeared towards the end of the war in an effort to break the stalemate by giving more firepower to the advancing infantry.  These new weapons were air-cooled, portable, and typically magazine-fed.  Arguably the best light machine gun of the time was the Lewis gun; however, it was mechanically complex, required more advanced training than a rifle, and was somewhat unreliable.  However, it was vastly superior to the French Chauchat, which had a dreadful reputation for jamming; the American Browning Automatic Rifle (or “B.A.R.”), while more reliable, came out too late in the war to see much service.

In the 1930’s, the British Army’s Small Arms Committee began the search for a new light machine gun to replace the Lewis gun.  They tested a number of weapons, including the Danish Madsen and the French FM 24/29, which had replaced the despised Chauchat.  The American B.A.R. performed well in the trials and was an early favorite.  However, it had a significant flaw:  it had a fixed barrel, while the others had a detachable barrel.  After extensive firing, the gun needed to cool; continued firing would cause permanent damage.  The other light machine guns could have a spare barrel fitted, and then continue firing as before.  As the trials continued, a new favorite emerged:  the Czech Zb 26, made by the Brno arms factory.   The Czechs made updates to the design based on feedback during the trials; what started as the Zb 26 eventually became the Zb 30 and then the Zb 33.  The Brno designers called the final iteration the ZGB, which was adopted by the British government.

Late in the trials, the ZGB was given an endurance test.  The plan was to fire 150,000 rounds and see how many stoppages would ensue.  After about 146,000 rounds, the test was cut short because the gun was still firing as flawlessly as when it started, and the testers felt firing the last allocated rounds would simply be a waste of time and ammunition.

The original Zb series fired 7.92mm ammunition, the same round developed for the Mauser rifle.  Late in the trials, the ZGB design was converted to fire British .303 ammunition, and the plans were converted from metric to Imperial measurements.  A licensing agreement was signed allowing for the weapon to be built in Great Britain at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield.  The gun was given a new name:  “Bren”, taken from “Brno” and “Enfield”.

The gun was officially adopted in 1935 and the first Bren was completed in 1937.  When the British Expeditionary Force (B.E.F.) was sent to France and Belgium in 1939, enough Brens were available to equip most units.  However, the gun was still new, and evidence suggests that not all units had been effectively trained in its use.  Additionally, when the B.E.F. was first sent to the continent, most of the men were still wearing their old service dress uniforms with the 1908 pattern webbing equipment, which gave no method of carrying Bren magazines.  Fortunately, most troops were re-equipped with the 1937 pattern webbing and battledress before the German invasion of France and the Low Countries in May of 1940; the new equipment had been designed around the Bren, with pouches large enough for the magazines.

After the Dunkirk evacuation, the Army conducted an inventory and found there were only about 2,300 Brens available.  While most soldiers returned from France with their rifles, many of the Brens had been abandoned or intentionally destroyed, along with heavier weapons, vehicles, and supply dumps.  If the weapon had not been so new, and the men more thoroughly trained in its use, it may not have been left behind in such numbers.

Near Tobruk 1941

Dug-in British troops near Tobruk, Libya, in 1941.  They were lucky to have a Bren; at this point, many troops were using the less-reliable Lewis gun.

As the war in North Africa intensified, there were insufficient Brens for the need, and stocks of old Lewis guns were brought out of storage.  Britain also ordered a number of B.A.R.’s from the United States; but by the time they arrived, Bren production had increased and most of the B.A.R.’s went to the Home Guard.  By late 1942, most units in the desert had been supplied with Brens.  Since the Bren was more reliable under desert conditions than most other machine guns, this gave the British an advantage.

Upon adoption, the Bren had been intended as a multiple-use weapon in order to replace both the Lewis light machine gun and the Vickers water-cooled gun.  A tripod was produced so that the Bren could be used in the sustained-fire role.  By adding an extra leg, the tripod could be reconfigured to use the Bren as an anti-aircraft (A.A.) weapon; if anything happened to the tripod extension, an S.M.L.E. rifle could be substituted.  A special A.A. sight could be clipped on the barrel, and an A.A. drum magazine was developed that could hold 100 rounds.

HomeGuard Bren 1941

England, 1941.  Volunteers of the Home Guard train on the Bren in the anti-aircraft configuration.  This Mark I still has the rear grip.

The Bren was also mounted on vehicles.  A brass-catching device, essentially a heavy canvas bag with steel mount, could be inserted into the ejection port.  Every vehicle with a Bren was supposed to be issued with the brass-catcher, but this did not always happen; crews of Dingo armored cars in particular were subject to having hot brass dumped on them.

Unfortunately, the Bren was not particularly successful as a multi-purpose gun.  Its slow rate of fire and magazine feed were not terribly effective for either the sustained fire role or as an anti-aircraft weapon.  The magazine feed was fine in open-topped vehicles, but very awkward in the cramped confines of a tank.  Eventually, the belt-fed Besa machine gun was adopted for use on tanks, and the old water-cooled Vickers gun was brought back into use for sustained fire in fixed positions.  The Bren was also replaced by dedicated anti-aircraft guns, including the 20mm Polsten and Oerlikon guns and the 40mm Bofors gun.

As an infantry weapon, however, the Bren was outstanding.  One Bren gun was issued to every eight-man section; its simple design made it easy to use.  While each section had a dedicated Bren gunner who was authorized to wear a specialist’s badge (either “LMG” or “BG”), all troops were trained on its use so they could take over in time of need.  The magazine feed meant that the ammunition was easily distributed throughout the section.  The Bren fired the same .303 round as the Lee-Enfield rifles; during lulls in the fighting, the riflemen would reload empty magazines from their bandoliers.

The Bren was extremely robust.  Its reliability was one of the main reasons it had been adopted, and the troops were very fond of it for that reason.  This reliability was helped by the sliding dust-covers over both the magazine well and the ejection port, designed to keep dirt and debris out of the mechanism.  Additionally, the gas system was adjustable; as cordite residue built up in the gun, a larger aperture in the gas regulator could be selected which would allow more gas to cycle through and work the action.

The Bren was also very accurate; in fact it was almost too accurate, and experienced gunners preferred using worn barrels to give a wider cone of suppressing fire.  The top-mounted magazine required that the sights be offset by about a half-inch; this was not enough to have an appreciable impact on accuracy, especially at longer ranges.    The Bren used an aperture rear sight and post front sight.  Mounted on the tripod, the Bren’s effective range was around 2000 yards; on just the integral bipod, it was effective to over 600 yards.

The standard magazine had been intended to hold 30 rounds; however, this tended to over-compress the spring and cause feeding issues, so standard practice was to load 28 rounds.  The magazine’s distinctive curved shape was required to accommodate rimmed .303 ammunition.  Care had to be taken when loading the magazines to avoid overlapping the rims; most stoppages were caused by poorly-filled magazines, not by any mechanical issues with the gun itself.  During trials, it was noted that the top-mounted magazine was faster and easier to change than guns with bottom-mounted magazines, particularly the B.A.R.  Additionally, the B.A.R.’s magazine only held 20 rounds, as a larger capacity would impede the use of low cover.

Perhaps the most important feature of the Bren was the ability to change its barrel quickly; no tools were needed for this process.  The magazine had to be removed and the magazine well’s dust cover closed.  Raising the barrel nut unlocked the barrel, which was then lifted away by the carry handle; the spare was then installed and the barrel nut pressed back down.  The barrel was changed after every 10 magazines during automatic fire, and a well-trained crew could do it in eight seconds.  The barrel’s muzzle spread out in a conical shape as a rudimentary flash hider; the cone allowed expanding gas to dissipate more quickly than a straight muzzle.

CleaningBren Normany1944

Normandy, 1944.  A Bren gunner has removed the barrel for cleaning.

The theoretical rate of fire was around 500 rounds per minute, but of course with magazine changes, the actual rate of fire was much lower, around 120 rounds per minute.  Bren gunners were trained to fire 4-5 round bursts in suppressing fire or in engaging an exposed enemy.  In the defense, gunners were taught to fire single rounds at suspected targets, not only to conserve ammunition, but also to try to disguise the nature of the gun and avoid becoming the enemy’s primary target.

The Germans used belt-fed air-cooled machine guns, namely the MG-34 and its successor, the MG-42.  These guns, particularly the MG-42, were noted for their high rate of fire.  They were extremely effective psychological weapons; troops confronted by these guns were terrified by the sound and easily suppressed.  But this rate of fire came at a cost.  The Germans went through a staggering amount of ammunition, all of which had to be carried by the infantrymen.  It generally took longer to reload a belt-fed gun than one that was magazine-fed.  The German guns also overheated much faster, and it was not as easy to change out their barrels; a thick felt pad was used to protect the soldiers’ hands while handling the hot barrel.  The Germans encountered times when the spare barrel needed to be changed before the original had sufficiently cooled.

The Bren could be operated by a single soldier, but was more effective when crewed by a gunner and an assistant (The Bren Number 1 and Bren Number 2).  The Number 1 carried the gun, three magazines (one in the gun, two in webbing pouches), and the spare parts wallet.  The Number 2 carried six magazines, two in his regular webbing equipment, and four in supplemental pouches.  He also carried the spare barrel in its dedicated webbing holdall.  Typically, both magazine changes and barrel changes were done by the Number 2.

All infantry tactics revolved around the Bren gun, as it was the section’s primary fire-producer.  Defensively, the Bren was put at the section’s flank in order to engage the attacking enemy with defilade fire.  While the rest of the section dug straight 2-man slit trenches, the Bren was placed at the apex of an angled trench, which gave better access for the Number 2 to change magazines and barrels.

In the attack, the section would break into two groups:  the Bren group consisted of the assistant section leader, the Bren Number 1 and Number 2; the section leader and the riflemen were the assault group.  The groups would then engage in fire-and-movement, one group providing covering fire while the other group advanced.  The goal was to get the Bren into a good position to engage the enemy and either destroy them or suppress them so the assault group could take the position.

The Bren was also an integral part of anti-tank tactics.  While the .303 round would not penetrate a tank’s armor, it could force the tank commander and any other crew to stay inside the turret, reducing their visibility and effectiveness.  Bren gunners were also taught to fire at a tank’s viewing ports and prisms; if this was not possible, they were to engage any supporting infantry.  All of these tactics made it easier for an anti-tank team to move up on the vehicle’s flank with a Boyes anti-tank rifle or a PIAT (projector, infantry, anti-tank).

The Bren had an attached bipod, which could be folded up when mounted on a vehicle or tripod, or to allow the gunner to get into deeper cover.  It also had a sling; the gun could be carried with the sling over the shoulder taking most of the weight, and the left hand steadying the gun.  This way, the gun could be fired from the hip while on the move.  The carry handle could be rotated into the “assault position”, although it was more common to hold the gun under the folded-up bipod when firing from the hip.

The first Bren gun, the Mark I, had a wooden rear grip, very much like the carry handle, but mounted under the buttstock.  Bren gunners were trained to grasp the pistol grip with the right hand and the rear grip with the left; no allowance was made for firing the gun left-handed.  While there was little recoil because of the mass of the gun, it still needed to be stabilized during firing.  However, it was soon found that the rear grip did not provide enough stability and troops were instead taught to grasp the wrist of the stock, that is, the narrowest part.  This method provided the stability needed.  The rear grip was then eliminated in future versions of the Bren, and even removed from existing guns.

The Mark I had a dovetail slot cut into the receiver, or body, to accept an optical sight, intended for use when firing from the tripod in fixed positions.  However, very few of the optical sights were issued; in fact, many of the sights were mounted on rifles and issued to snipers.  The Mark I* receiver eliminated the dovetail.

The Mark I had an elevating wheel for its backsight, adjustable bipod legs, and the charging handle could be folded flat against the receiver after the gun had been cocked.  The Mark II had a simpler leaf-type backsight, non-adjusting bipod legs, and a simpler, non-folding charging handle; it also had a simpler carry handle.  These modifications were intended to increase manufacturing production, and it was estimated that the Mk II was nearly 25% more efficient to build than the Mk I.  Towards the end of the war, the Mark III and Mark IV were approved for production; these Brens had shorter barrels than the earlier designs, and were intended for use by the Airborne forces, or in the jungle.  However, the Marks III and IV came out too late to see much wartime service.

burma 1945

Troops on the march in Burma, 1945.  Note the Bren gunner with the weapon resting on his shoulder.

Originally, Bren gunners were trained to carry the gun by the carry handle.  However, “light machine gun” was a comparative term; it was only light compared to water-cooled machine guns.  The Bren Mark I weighed 23 pounds unloaded, well over double the Lee-Enfield rifle, and the Bren Mark II weighed slightly more.  Each full magazine weighed just short of three pounds.  When not in direct contact with the enemy, Bren gunners tended to march with the gun balanced on the shoulder, with a hand on the barrel to steady the gun.

The Bren was used throughout the British Empire.  Not only was it made at R.S.A.F. Enfield in England, it was also made by the John Inglis Company in Canada and the Lithgow arms factory in Australia.  The Indian Army began the war with the similar-appearing Vickers-Berthier; however, the gun was not sufficiently robust, and India adopted the Bren in 1942 and built them at the Ishapore factory.

RM Falklands

Royal Marines occupy a barn during the Falklands campaign, 1982.  The L4 L.M.G., in 7.62mm, faces the camera.

The Bren continued service after World War II; its reliability was again needed from the bitter cold of Korea to the jungles of Malaya.  When Britain adopted the NATO-standard 7.62mm cartridge in the late 1950’s, the Bren gun was converted to the new round and redesignated as the L4 L.M.G.  While new barrels and magazines were made, existing guns were rechambered to 7.62mm.  The new magazines were straight, not curved, and the muzzle cone was replaced with a “birdcage”-style flash hider.  If needed, the L4 was able to use the same magazine as the L1A1 self-loading rifle.  The L4 served nearly to the end of the 20th Century; its last use was in the 1991 Gulf War.

Gulf War

The last use of the classic British L.M.G.  This young soldier mans his L4 in the Persian Gulf in 1990, during the build-up to the liberation of Kuwait.