Why The C2 and Not a Converted BREN?

tjhaile said:
Contrary to what some would believe, there is no such thing as a machine gun that is "too accurate". This myth seems to be commonly applied to the Bren Gun.

The narrower the cone of dispersion, the farther out it can produce a beaten zone with sufficient density to assure a hit on anyone in it. Where dispersion is required, it can be done by adjusting aim.

The C2 and the other heavy barrel versions of the FAL could be said to be the product of the same line of thinking as the US Light Rifle concept that lead to the M14: one weapon type to replace all weapons in the infantry squad, i.e. the rifle, SMG, and automatic rifle or LMG. As appealing as the prospect of simplified logistics may seem, this is simply too ambitious and results in something that cannot fill all roles well. The C1 was a fine rifle for its time, but adding a heavier barrel, select fire, and a bipod did not make a proper machine gun out of it.

If the Bren L4 did require greater maintenance compared to the originals in .303, it may have been a function of the guns being worn out, the Bren having been in service for a long time by then. Considering that the ZB26 was designed 7.92mm Mauser, and 7.92mm Brens built for China, 7.62x51mm doesn't seem much different in terms of pushing the envelope of the design.
Click to expand...

True, depending on the range to target from firing point will affect the beaten zone, close in fire produces a long/narrow zone, further out wider/shorter, lay(slope) of the land also GREATLY effects the beaten zone. JUST as important is the location of the target in relation to the beaten zone with the target standing (or being in the center) so the rounds striking the ground before target can deflect in the direction of travel (if they do not go into the soil) with the rear half of the zone being catches on target. Lastly is the "Cone of Fire" , cones can be symmetrical or biased in a vertical or horizontal manner depending on the platform and are the shape of the weight of rounds in flight on way to target, till they start landing that produces the beaten zone . I always cringe when I hear someone yakking away about a LAR being a "area weapon" and that hosing off a huge number of rounds is the answer when the controlled application and AIMED fire achieves the results expected. If I want to put fire into a building window or a point like a trench that is where I would want the rounds going not all around it in the hope of maybe getting lucky. After assaulting to the objective and the LAR/LMG gunner(s) shifting their fire and sweeping the ground plus of the objective to cut off and prevent EN escape or reenforcement during the assault I would want the MG to be accurate and not spewing bullets all over the ground I would be in or closing on.
 
Last edited:
tjhaile said:
...snip...

If the Bren L4 did require greater maintenance compared to the originals in .303, it may have been a function of the guns being worn out, the Bren having been in service for a long time by then. Considering that the ZB26 was designed 7.92mm Mauser, and 7.92mm Brens built for China, 7.62x51mm doesn't seem much different in terms of pushing the envelope of the design.
Click to expand...

PL stated on milsurps that the 7.62 L4 was on the limit of the Bren action, but I believe that is a huge oversimplification of what the issue actually was.

As you state, 7.92x57 service ammunition is far more powerful than 7.62 NATO, and .303 is functionally identical (loaded with the same weight bullet, charges and velocity are very similar).

The L4 had a secondary sear notch in the bolt carrier because 7.62Nato (just like the 7.62x39 conversions) may not fully cycle the bolt, resulting in a runaway.


The major difference between the 7.62 L4A2 pattern conversion and a 7.92 or .303 Bren is that the adopted service L4 did not have a hold open. This would result in the bolt impacting the receiver "bolt stop lugs" (on either side of the barrel seat) every time a magazine ran dry in firing.

The ZB and Bren 7.92 and .303 guns had a substantial follower which acted as a bolt stop.

The reason (well one of them) the bolt stop trialed in the L4A1 was not adopted is because it destroyed FN magazine followers.

Rather than lose FN L1A1 magazine interchangeability, they elected to removing the hold open feature, which had the unfortunate effect of potentially reducing the service life of the receiver.


Of course that raises the question regarding if flame cutting the receiver blanks from plate, rather than drop forging them contributed to the durability problem...in a 20 to 50 year old receiver (L4A2 & L4A3 conversions were from 1959 thru 1980, and receivers from 1943 to 1960)...

So the last L4's in British service were c.1991 Gulf war so the receivers would have ranged from 31 to 48 years old.
 
Last edited:
My last experience with C2 was a sunny day on the Wainwright ranges doing target indications for CF5s with tracer ammo.:cool:

My last experience with a BREN was before the Liberals made them all safe queens about 15 years ago.:mad:
 
When I was in Petawawa serving with the regiment, our inter base unit hockey games were quite the showcase. A sergeant from the museum, wearing WW2 uniform and carrying a period correct Bren gun. I tell you what, every time our team scored a goal, he'd let rip a long burst of wooden bullet blanks, full auto of course.
With those wooden blank bullets and cordite you'd almost swear is a black powder firearm all that debris hanging in the still air for a long time.
You would not believe how loud that is, inside a typical hockey rink, of giant quonset construction curved steel roof.
 
Brutus - sounds like good times! ;)

I mostly carried the C2 around not even shooting very many blanks or live rounds if at all with the bare exception of qualification. I think the bipod should have been separate from the forend. I agree it required a lot of practice to get any good with the C2. Well this range time never materialized beyond a very paltry amt of time compared to range time with the C1A1. At this time the armourers were not bothering to do important work like fit the rifle butts to the soldier, & the breeches of every rifle were hopelessly mixed up. Nobody cared as long as you turned in a C1 or C2 breech to company stores after range qualifications or endex. Far more emphasis was placed on ensuring the squaddies were well trained in the use of the C5 machinegun. Doing drills in garrison with the C5 mg took up a lot of time between exercises. Not long after this the C7 & C9 were issued. Long serving NCOs repeated 1960s gossip about the M16A1. Well the first iteration of the C7 had its problems. The most glaring one was the lack of a drum rear sight such as on the USMC iteration. Then there was the poor fit between the upper & lower rcvr & the trashy magazines. Hey sera sera.

Edit: the European BAR such as used by Sweden with detachable barrel was probably superior to the C2. The parts commonality with the C1 might have been the reason for the C2. Logistics. In hindsight the C2 seemed to have not much of an edge on the US BAR, which boasted a cyclic rate reducer. Very important.
 
Last edited:
fat tony said:
Long serving NCOs repeated 1960s gossip about the M16A1. Well the first iteration of the C7 had its problems. The most glaring one was the lack of a drum rear sight such as on the USMC iteration. Then there was the poor fit between the upper & lower rcvr & the trashy magazines. Hey sera sera.
Click to expand...

Personally I see that two position sight as a benefit rather than a problem. The reality is most soldiers are not well enough trained to properly utilize a drum sight, coupled with in battle the amount of known distances is much smaller than a target range. The other thing is practically the original C7 really was only effective to 300-400M max (I would say the same for the modern M16 and C7 variants as well), so you didn't need to have the ability for tons of fine adjustment. The KISS method works.
 
Mostly right, the terrain an average soldier will be fighting in will be probably an average of 300 m with a clear line of sight. IIRC the C1A1 had an effective range of 600m. I am not sure what the eff range of the C2A1 was I think it was probably the same as the C1A1 or maybe a little more. That was a long time ago.
 
Last edited:
I used both the Bren and the C2. The C2 was a whole lot lighter to carry and as mentioned earlier, same parts as the C1. That made it a very handy fit. As a piece of machinery though, the Bren was hands down better. Heavier barrel, quick change barrel, more accurate, (the C2 sights had a habit of falling apart). The crap about the Bren being too accurate was, well, crap. You could put all 30 rounds into a window at 3 to 400 yards. The C2, not so much.
I have a Bren sitting on display in my living room and it just looks so awesome.
 
Eaglelord I disagree. By holding over it was possible to get 12" 5 shot groupings on 4' frame @500m with the early C7 & iron sights, prone though. You could say that much holdover with the early C7 at 500m with irons does not fit the real world and 'point'. A nice summer day at the range is not the reality you are preparing for. Had the CF went for drum sight, irons at 500m might have been within reach for that many more soldiers giving that much more of an edge & not having to bother with glass. I guess the powers that be factored statistics into the requirements & the process churned out'300m' Also mil. svc.in the 80s was centred around a set piece conflict in Western Europe where lines of sight could have been long as well as in your face.
 
Last edited:
My experience with the C2 was good, I liked it for the bipod and the ability to do 2 shot taps especially from a trench. I did a couple live fires with pop up targets in Wainwright and like 20 shot magazines better for quick swings side to side and accurate 2 shot bursts. The C2 was just an upgraded C1 that was tweaked for auto fire, you could swap many parts with the C1. I would have liked a single shot selector on it. It was meant to be a support gun or a better longer range gun for a section if required on a quick assault and not take the place of the GPMG which I also carried as a No1 gunner for awhile(mine was a 1943 Browning made by the Singer Sewing Machine Company).

I shot on the Battalion Rifle Team my last summer before going to 2 Commando and my main gun was the C1 but my second gun was the C2, we did 2 man rundowns that were timed and I did mostly 1 shot taps with the C2. I got to handle a Bren on exchange in Australia, it was bigger and heavier and had a different job to do, never fired it though. I also got to handle an M16 that the police used at Sarcee range in Calgary but never shot it. My dad liked the Bren though, but just because it wasn’t a hunting rifle and you weren’t shooting to eat. Just my opinions having used them.
 
Last edited:
That reminded me , the reservist team I was in competed against the DCRA in chilliwack, it was an annual event. They brought their Bren . The two-men teams ran from 200 to a 100 and shot at metal plates and believe it or not the C2 beat the Bren, they were shocked bcos they said it was the first time it ever happened.
 
Last edited:
Leg said:
More important question. Why is no one bringing in semi only versions of the Bren from India?

http://www.ofbindia.gov.in/products/data/weapons/wsc/16.htm
Click to expand...

Those will be either full auto, or at best converted automatic guns = prohibited.

There were some brand new receivers made up in the US, and intended for the closed bolt semi automatic operation, but in the end, due to the availability of cut up kits which were more cost effective at making up semi auto guns there, production was curtailed.
 
stencollector said:
Those will be either full auto, or at best converted automatic guns = prohibited.

There were some brand new receivers made up in the US, and intended for the closed bolt semi automatic operation, but in the end, due to the availability of cut up kits which were more cost effective at making up semi auto guns there, production was curtailed.
Click to expand...

Yes, I realize that. That’s why I mentioned a semi version. I have no idea if they’d do it or how many you’d need to order for them to make a run but they’re in 7.62mm, use L1A1 pattern mags and would likely be cheaper than semi receiver made in the US.

I don’t think you can make a legal semi in Canada from a torch cut receiver. Would it not be considered a CA?
 
Leg said:
Yes, I realize that. That’s why I mentioned a semi version. I have no idea if they’d do it or how many you’d need to order for them to make a run but they’re in 7.62mm, use L1A1 pattern mags and would likely be cheaper than semi receiver made in the US.

I don’t think you can make a legal semi in Canada from a torch cut receiver. Would it not be considered a CA?
Click to expand...

The thing is the operation and difference between working from closed and locked bolt vs open bolt so there would be more to this then cranking out new made "SA" receivers. The Bren receiver is a work of the machinists art and took according the the author of The Bren Gun Saga 247 machining operations that used 273 fixtures needed for locate and hold the workpiece during its progress through the production cycle, and 740 gauges employed in 18 separate inspection operations (page 127). All that machining brought the receiver down from a 38.5 lbs flame cut blank to a finished receiver weighing 4.5 lbs for the Mk3 Bren. A "rewated", Dewat would be big time prohib. I Long time ago FA receivers where band saw cut, then ATF said they had to be flame cut three times, then upped that to flame cut four times with more then one inch of receiver torched out in the cuttings.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom