I generally liked the FN in service use. It was heavy and beat me up when I shot it, but it was easy to maintain, reliable and I could shoot it pretty well. Years later I got some of the CA M14s that came onto the market ($379!!). It was love at first shot. They handled better (for me), shot better (for me), and were so much more pleasant to shoot. To this day, I am always a little surprised at the FN following in the US, often to the detriment of their own rifle.
Opinion of the U.S. M-14 vs our FN C1 Rifle
- Thread starter x westie
- Start date
Leftent...
Oh yeah - forgot about that...
Making the world safer, one regulation at a time.
(Harumph!). :x
Oh well, maybe I'll invite myself over to your house with a six pack in hand one day, if you're willing, just so I can have a little grope (of your rifles, that is!).
Neal
Oh yeah - forgot about that...
Making the world safer, one regulation at a time.
(Harumph!). :x
Oh well, maybe I'll invite myself over to your house with a six pack in hand one day, if you're willing, just so I can have a little grope (of your rifles, that is!).
Neal
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
All this remembering of soldiering in the Good Old Days is appropriate so close to 1100hrs 11 Nov.
The C2 was a good automatic RIFLE. It was never a good squad automatic WEAPON. If you can get your head around the light-weight doctrine of the day (for example '64 Pattern webbing with no carrying pouches, and everything left in the truck or track between engagements) it makes a certain sort of logic. Like a lot of things post war, it was an effort in economy that was flawed from the start.
I like the safety on the C1 better than the M1/M14, because it has a huge surface and only one stop. But nobody had a thumb stroke long enough to get the C2 Change Lever from S to R to A in one sweep. Honesty time fellas - who on the board never missed getting the Lever all the way to A without fumbling?
I smiled reading the comment about C1 shooters bringing their personal weapons to the range, but C2 gunners bringing mags. The C2 mag has an extra nub on the spine to sharpen the feed angle. Worked better than C1 mags. One trick I learned too late to put into use, was to pour the oil on the moving parts of any machine gun. Friction is the biggest cause of stoppages.
The comment about the C1 back sight being better than the M14/M-305 is puzzling. How is windage adjusted with a screwdriver better than adjusted with a knob? Likewise, the shooter only had Battlesight, 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 settings. Not really comparable to 1/2 minute clicks.
The hump on the C1 stock bruised an awful lot of prone shooters, but that stock and the pistol grip are correct for position or field shooting.
And finally, some guys shot unbelievable scores with the earliest production C1s because the barrels were chromeplated AFTER production. The plant missed a step, or read the drawings wrong. Rather than scrap the run, the fix was to plate them as they were. Those few thou' of chrome tightened very good bores even more. Then the engineers overbored the remainder of the 70,000 odd rifles and they shot only average.
(But I am partial to the C1 SMG)
The C2 was a good automatic RIFLE. It was never a good squad automatic WEAPON. If you can get your head around the light-weight doctrine of the day (for example '64 Pattern webbing with no carrying pouches, and everything left in the truck or track between engagements) it makes a certain sort of logic. Like a lot of things post war, it was an effort in economy that was flawed from the start.
I like the safety on the C1 better than the M1/M14, because it has a huge surface and only one stop. But nobody had a thumb stroke long enough to get the C2 Change Lever from S to R to A in one sweep. Honesty time fellas - who on the board never missed getting the Lever all the way to A without fumbling?
I smiled reading the comment about C1 shooters bringing their personal weapons to the range, but C2 gunners bringing mags. The C2 mag has an extra nub on the spine to sharpen the feed angle. Worked better than C1 mags. One trick I learned too late to put into use, was to pour the oil on the moving parts of any machine gun. Friction is the biggest cause of stoppages.
The comment about the C1 back sight being better than the M14/M-305 is puzzling. How is windage adjusted with a screwdriver better than adjusted with a knob? Likewise, the shooter only had Battlesight, 200, 300, 400, 500 and 600 settings. Not really comparable to 1/2 minute clicks.
The hump on the C1 stock bruised an awful lot of prone shooters, but that stock and the pistol grip are correct for position or field shooting.
And finally, some guys shot unbelievable scores with the earliest production C1s because the barrels were chromeplated AFTER production. The plant missed a step, or read the drawings wrong. Rather than scrap the run, the fix was to plate them as they were. Those few thou' of chrome tightened very good bores even more. Then the engineers overbored the remainder of the 70,000 odd rifles and they shot only average.
(But I am partial to the C1 SMG)
Greenhorse six
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
True ,But you were suppose to use your left hand to work the Change Lever.Thats what the NCOs told us .
If you give a Grunt easly adjustable sights he well adjust them for better or worse.
The C1 SMG ROCKs,"Hey ,Lieutenant want me to carry your SMG and you take my rifle so you don't stand out" :twisted:
All our SMG users here were support weapon users or signallers. Ncos and officers carried rifles and sometimes if our Bn rerolled to airmobile with more milan posts, 65 instead of 32 I think, we were short of smgs and 84mm men occaisssionally carried rifles or det commanders for milan or 81mm mortars did. I was given the 84 as I had been a good GPMG man but as I made Class 1 Assault Pioneer and we were coy reserve section they couldnt spare a gunner to do OC recce party for defensive posns so the 84mm was left in the 1 tonne land rover and I swanned around in Lynx or Gazelle with the seniors whilst the lads went in the chinook food blenders!
Fun days and later when we returned to airportable role and the UK I ended up in RECCE which had Fox as a Rarden gunner. SMGs again! Somewhere in between we squeezed in a tour in the Falklands. as a thought all our L1 drills were taught with the dominant hand on the pistol grip, right thumb for most on the safety!
Fun days and later when we returned to airportable role and the UK I ended up in RECCE which had Fox as a Rarden gunner. SMGs again! Somewhere in between we squeezed in a tour in the Falklands. as a thought all our L1 drills were taught with the dominant hand on the pistol grip, right thumb for most on the safety!
Greenhorse six said:
The Bren converted to 7.62mm could indeed feed from the L1A1 SLR's magazines. It was a bit more accurate than was ideal for a LMG, developing a smaller beaten zone than was wanted.
The Bren wasn't retained as the LMG for the infantry section, and the reason the heavy barrelled automatic FAL wasn't selected for the role was that they didn't think a pair of magazine-fed automatic rifles would have enough firepower. They wanted a belt-fed weapon, so the GPMG L7 (licensed variant of the FN MAG) became the LMG for the infantry section. The converted Bren was used by other arms for local defence, e.g. artillery batteries, and only occasionally by the infantry in particular circumstances, e.g. we swapped the GPMGs for Brens in jungle operations.
Having used the C1 and C2 before I joined the British Army, I found myself completely agreeing with the idea that two light automatic rifles didn't give an infantry section enough firepower when I saw what we could do with the GPMG. When they brought in the SA80 weapon system it had features I really liked, but I did express some reservations, to the experts who were explaining it, about the two magazine-fed LSWs per section instead of a belt-fed LMG. They were adamant that with the new tactical doctrine and the extreme accuracy of the LSW ("...often you are going to find that you can suppress the enemy with well-aimed single shots, you won't even have to use full auto...") we no longer needed a belt-fed LMG in the section. It was interesting to later see them rushing a belt-fed LMG into service in Iraq to beef up the infantry's firepower.
Last edited:
