Is there such a thing as a semi-auto Bren in Canada?
- Thread starter AlexV
- Start date
The semi auto Brens being made up in the US use rewelded original receivers. They are closed bolt, hammer fired, and are ATF approved.
A rewelded receiver is not acceptable here.
I am not aware of anyone manufacturing new semi auto only receivers.
A semi auto rifle made on a new, purpose built receiver would be non-restricted.
A rewelded receiver is not acceptable here.
I am not aware of anyone manufacturing new semi auto only receivers.
A semi auto rifle made on a new, purpose built receiver would be non-restricted.
I suppose receivers could be produced with well programmed CNC machining centers. For this to be economically feasible, there would have to be sufficient demand. SSD sold some FG42 reproductions for the better part of $10 000. How much would a Bren have to sell for? The Bren receiver is a lot more of an undertaking than the receiver used in the TNW 1919a4, and these were in the $4 000 range. Manufacturing all new parts would be prohibitive. The assumption would be that original parts could be reused as far as possible.
A Cdn. Bren cost almost six times as much to manufacture as a No. 4 rifle. The billet for the receiver weighed some 35 pounds; the finished receiver less than 10. That is a lot of specialized milling.
A Cdn. Bren cost almost six times as much to manufacture as a No. 4 rifle. The billet for the receiver weighed some 35 pounds; the finished receiver less than 10. That is a lot of specialized milling.
no need, they already have the drawings or can reverse-engineer one of the INGLIS canandian made ones- we supplied a LOT of those in 8mm back in ww2- all we have to do is supply the DEMAND - and we could get it in 308 as well, as the bren uses a quick-change barrel
the .308 brens used FAL mags, the chinese also made 7.62x39 conversions that used AK mags, AFAIK they are all the same reciever etc, just kits to adapt them.
No sale then!
I'm betting there are some 12-5 s out there.Just about everything else that was full auto, was converted to semi only and flogged here in the 80s. Remember seing ads for .50 M2s and DSHKs . Couldn't afford one, damn it.
Grizz
12-2, 12-3. Never heard of a 12-5.
Brens in 8mm were manufactured for, and supplied to China. Probably .303 as well, judging from period photos. Don't know that the manufacturing package was ever supplied.
To reverse engineer a Bren, the design altered to acceptable semi auto, would be possible. But how big would the market be? Made in China, it would not be importable into the US. That eliminates what would be a major market.
If there are still any good Patternmakers out there, it should be possible to start with an original, engineer a pattern from that, make the waxes and just investment-cast the frame/gas tube.
Just as good would be to do the gas tube and frame as separate parts and screw 'em together. Just has to be good and solid bcause EVERYTHING rides on that gas cylinder.
But it should be possible economically.
Talking about the Brownings. Kits were down to $400 in the States and basically needed ONE frame-element to build a gun. Basically, it was a chunk of flat plate and a few holes for Rivets. Starting with flat plate, likely the drilling would take an hour and the milling another, unless you were in a real production situation. The vast bulk of that 4 grand purchase price went to refinishing and greed.
"The value of an item is what it will bring": legal maxim
Want proof? Look at the EE.
.
Just as good would be to do the gas tube and frame as separate parts and screw 'em together. Just has to be good and solid bcause EVERYTHING rides on that gas cylinder.
But it should be possible economically.
Talking about the Brownings. Kits were down to $400 in the States and basically needed ONE frame-element to build a gun. Basically, it was a chunk of flat plate and a few holes for Rivets. Starting with flat plate, likely the drilling would take an hour and the milling another, unless you were in a real production situation. The vast bulk of that 4 grand purchase price went to refinishing and greed.
"The value of an item is what it will bring": legal maxim
Want proof? Look at the EE.
.
Investment casting larger, more complicated shapes is definitely possible. Catch is, if you reverse engineer from an existing piece like a Bren receiver, obtain the dimensions, and then a die sinker creates the dies to inject the waxes, which are then used to produce castings, the dimensions of the casting aren't going to be the same as the original. The product must be redesigned for production by casting. With allowances built in for machining critical areas. Making a two piece unit would likely simplify things. The castings become smaller.
In the 1980s, a simple three piece die to injection mould a synthetic stock cost $90 000 (conversation with Lee Six). Dies to produce production ready castings for a Bren reciever - and any other parts which could not be adapted from originals - would make that sum look like a pittance. Develpoment costs to produce usable Bren receivers by casting would be substantial.
One reason that limited production runs are done with CNC rather than casting is because of cost of designing and developing production ready dies.
At one time I owned 12 dies to inject the waxes for some gun parts. Investment casting is a valid technique, but it is not a gimme.
The cost to develop and produce the dies - and do the product development to get the resulting parts working - is the same for 100 or 10 000 units. Up front cost is heavy.
If a company were to take on such a project, it would be a substantial one from an industrial standpoint. It would take a serious investment of time, money and engineering talent before gun #1 appeared.
And, of course, spending dollar one before knowing if the resulting product would be classified non-restricted would be unwise. Recent tales of woe demonstrate the risks involved in production of paramilitary firearms.
In the 1980s, a simple three piece die to injection mould a synthetic stock cost $90 000 (conversation with Lee Six). Dies to produce production ready castings for a Bren reciever - and any other parts which could not be adapted from originals - would make that sum look like a pittance. Develpoment costs to produce usable Bren receivers by casting would be substantial.
One reason that limited production runs are done with CNC rather than casting is because of cost of designing and developing production ready dies.
At one time I owned 12 dies to inject the waxes for some gun parts. Investment casting is a valid technique, but it is not a gimme.
The cost to develop and produce the dies - and do the product development to get the resulting parts working - is the same for 100 or 10 000 units. Up front cost is heavy.
If a company were to take on such a project, it would be a substantial one from an industrial standpoint. It would take a serious investment of time, money and engineering talent before gun #1 appeared.
And, of course, spending dollar one before knowing if the resulting product would be classified non-restricted would be unwise. Recent tales of woe demonstrate the risks involved in production of paramilitary firearms.
There is a good section on the converted 7.62 x 39 Brens in the SECOND addition of the Bren Gun Saga by Dugelby....
Mk. II Brens were converted in England and South Africa to the L4 config. They used the metric pattern mag and not the Canadian with the front lug on the mag
As a side note, the Chinese converted 7.62 x 39 Bren used a sleeved chamber and the existing .303 cal. bore (311 - 314) diameter. It was a rather ingenious conversion but did suffer from a gas problem. Even with the ports bored out it would not meet western reliability requirements.
Last edited:
