Why The C2 and Not a Converted BREN?

T

The Wizard

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado USA
The John Inglis Company made a mess of BREN guns during "The War to Make the World Safe for Democracy" (you know the one that came after "The War to End All Wars"). And there must have been a heck of a lot left over from that unpleasantness. So why did the Canadian military decide to go with a heavy barreled FAL (C2) and not team with the Brits and convert all those BRENs to 7,62 mm NATO?
 
Who knows?
The Brits used Inglis 7.92mm breechblocks when they started converting Brens to 7.62x51.
The L4 Brens were well thought of. The C2s, not so much.
 
The Wizard said:
The John Inglis Company made a mess of BREN guns during "The War to Make the World Safe for Democracy" (you know the one that came after "The War to End All Wars"). And there must have been a heck of a lot left over from that unpleasantness. So why did the Canadian military decide to go with a heavy barreled FAL (C2) and not team with the Brits and convert all those BRENs to 7,62 mm NATO?
Click to expand...

instead teamed up with the aussy on their L2.

while i have not fired the bren but have competed against them. it seems much heavier plus C2 shares 95% with C1 from chamber to the buttplate.
 
Both were a bit of a mistake. The "squad automatic" is far better off being a belt fed, as opposed to a magazine fed weapon.

As to why a new gun instead of recycling an old one, perhaps it was a combination of modernizing as well as commonality of the parts shared with the C1. But in the role of suppressive fire, a quick change barrel (as on the Bren) would have been a better option than the fixed barrel of the C2. Perhaps weight was a factor. The C2 is lighter and easier to carry than a Bren.
 
ipscgraz said:
^^^
Yup.

I loved the C1, didn't care at all for the C2. If they could have converted the bren into 7.62 X 51 and used C1 or C2 rifle mags, it might have been a different story.
Click to expand...

L4 Bren magazines do fit inch-pattern FALs.
 
stencollector said:
Both were a bit of a mistake. The "squad automatic" is far better off being a belt fed, as opposed to a magazine fed weapon.

As to why a new gun instead of recycling an old one, perhaps it was a combination of modernizing as well as commonality of the parts shared with the C1. But in the role of suppressive fire, a quick change barrel (as on the Bren) would have been a better option than the fixed barrel of the C2. Perhaps weight was a factor. The C2 is lighter and easier to carry than a Bren.
Click to expand...

The C2 gave the impression it was designed by a committee, not soldiers.

I don't recall ever hearing that the WWII infantrymen complained about the weight of the BREN. It's predecessor (ZB 28?) with finned barrel was widely used by European armies and Chinese in 7.92 Mauser. The US was quite happy with their mag fed BAR.

If an MG doesn't work reliably, it's useless. My late German FIL was a Panzer Grenadier. His favourite weapon was the MG 34. Why? "Because when you needed it, it worked!". He didn't mention the weight being a problem.
 
The C2 was a result of "the one weapon concept" which meant that one arm was supposed to do many roles.
In the US it meant that the M14 was supposed to be a rifle, auto rifle, sniper rifle , SMG and carbine replacement. In Canada it meant that the C1 was not a sniper rifle so the Army dropped sniping for 20 years.
As the name says the C2 was an "Automatic Rifle" not an LMG or GPMG.
 
The only advantage of Bren was the barrel changewhich allowed better sustained fire. Sustained fire is not really necessary in a Squad auto rifle as the squad does not operate independently. Two C2s in a section under direction of the 2IC was sufficient to give the rifle group local mobility.
 
The C2 was a real comedown from the BREN. Adopting it was all about logistics commonality with the FN and not much else. The Brits got it right when they converted their BRENs to 7.62; we didn't.
 
I used to shoot my C2 and wonder why it was adopted. On full auto only the first round would hit a 4' target. #2 went in the dirt and #3 to the moon. It was good for making noise and converting ammo to hot brass.

The Bren would put a burst into a target.
 
Good question OP and I am sure it has been well answered. To tag along to your initial question I will throw this out there. Why in the name of god did Canada hang on to M1919/C1/C5 MG for so F,ing long when the MAG58 (later C6) came into being? The C5 was a fun gun to tinker about with to get working half way reliable on a range but to go to war anytime after the 1960s would have been a sick joke. And next is why did we (Canada ) not replace the old war horse Browning HP during the SARP ? No doubt that old gun will be still around for a couple decades to go at the way we love to drag procurement out.
 
This thread needed a pic....20181203_202519.jpg

I got qualified on the C2 just before we went to black rifles. It was good in some areas, not so in others. Really sucked prone!!! Unless you had a neck like an owl.

Played with the Bren pictured here numerous times. Blew me away every time just how amazingly accurate it was!!! Semi or full. Wicked DMR :)

Insteresting topic this one.

Enjoying it as it unfolds.

Cheers all!!
 

Attachments

  • 20181203_202519.jpg
    20181203_202519.jpg
    41.3 KB · Views: 515
purple said:
The C2 was a real comedown from the BREN. Adopting it was all about logistics commonality with the FN and not much else. The Brits got it right when they converted their BRENs to 7.62; we didn't.
Click to expand...

Got it more right with the FN MAG as L7 GPMG in the light role in every rifle section. The converted Bren worked very well in 7.62NATO and was a useful thing in its limited roles thereafter but it could never match the volume of fire of a belt-fed gun.
 
XRCD011 said:
Good question OP and I am sure it has been well answered. To tag along to your initial question I will throw this out there. Why in the name of god did Canada hang on to M1919/C1/C5 MG for so F,ing long when the MAG58 (later C6) came into being? The C5 was a fun gun to tinker about with to get working half way reliable on a range but to go to war anytime after the 1960s would have been a sick joke. And next is why did we (Canada ) not replace the old war horse Browning HP during the SARP ? No doubt that old gun will be still around for a couple decades to go at the way we love to drag procurement out.
Click to expand...


Because it would cost money a Canadian government would rather use to buy votes than military equipment.
 
thebigbully said:
this thread needed a pic....View attachment 226989

i got qualified on the c2 just before we went to black rifles. It was good in some areas, not so in others. Really sucked prone!!! Unless you had a neck like an owl.

Played with the bren pictured here numerous times. Blew me away every time just how amazingly accurate it was!!! Semi or full. Wicked dmr :)

insteresting topic this one.

Enjoying it as it unfolds.

Cheers all!!
Click to expand...

Chimo!!!
 
TheTooner said:
Got it more right with the FN MAG as L7 GPMG in the light role in every rifle section. The converted Bren worked very well in 7.62NATO and was a useful thing in its limited roles thereafter but it could never match the volume of fire of a belt-fed gun.
Click to expand...

I agree . I've also shot the C2 and the Bren , the Bren is a far better weapon IMHO . To be blunt , I really didn't like the C2 .
 
From; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZB_vz._26

"ZB-26" is a factory designation (Československá zbrojovka v Brně), while "vzor 26" or "vz. 26" is an army designation.

The Czech army used the vz.26, which used the German "S" cartridge.

The ZB-30 was for export and used the German "sS" cartridge.

7.9mm cartridges; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92%C3%9757mm_Mauser

A good book on the Bren and it's development is; The Bren Gun Saga. by Dugelby, T. B.
 
sail32 said:
A good book on the Bren and it's development is; The Bren Gun Saga. by Dugelby, T. B.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is a great book. Wolverine has a copy for sale in the Wolverine section of the forum. Make sure you are sitting down before opening the link though: https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1801102-Book-Sale

Sure glad I bought all the collectors grade books when they were still in print. I wish I had the foresight to have bought multiple copies....there is a better return on books than there is on the guns.
 
purple said:
The C2 was a real comedown from the BREN. Adopting it was all about logistics commonality with the FN and not much else. The Brits got it right when they converted their BRENs to 7.62; we didn't.
Click to expand...

BAOR had some 7.62 BRENS when our Brigade was attached to the 2nd Div BAOR in Nordrhein-Westfalen. I only saw them on light armoured recce vehicles. The Brits I parachuted with loved the GMPG (Gimpy) which was replacing the BRENS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom