Why did they get rid of the Bren design? Was it because the magazine interfered with your ability to see the enemy at distance? I do like that you can lay as low as possible because the mag is on top instead of on the bottem. It dies have a slow rate of fire though. I do think the US made SAW is far better.
BREN appreciation
- Thread starter Kirk1701
- Start date
stencollector
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- shilo MB, the armpit of Canada
It was the magazine period. The world was (generally) going to belt fed for the SAW. We did perpetuate the magazine feeding with the FN C2, but fortunately that problem has now been rectified.
The internals of the bren bolt/piston is not a lot different from the FN MAG and Minimi in my opinion.
The internals of the bren bolt/piston is not a lot different from the FN MAG and Minimi in my opinion.
I would agree, I owned my bren before I first was exposed to the C9 and when I did first take a C9 appart I was strongly remined of the bren.
Much about the C6 design is very BREN-like—the buttstock for one. (I always get the numbers mixed up--C6 vs. C9.)
Last edited:
The Brits were still using BRENS when I was serving with our NATO Brigade in Nord Rhein Westphalen in the late 60's early 70's.
There were converted to 7.62mm NATO and were easily identified by their straight magazines. Saw them on Recce Scout Cars. Spoke to the crews and they said they preferred them to the GPMG's which were replacing it.
There were converted to 7.62mm NATO and were easily identified by their straight magazines. Saw them on Recce Scout Cars. Spoke to the crews and they said they preferred them to the GPMG's which were replacing it.
