Why The C2 and Not a Converted BREN?
- Thread starter The Wizard
- Start date
Lol so true. I was lucky to have the C6 around when I was in. The only C5s still sticking around were for the odd grizzly/cougar mount. I remember seeing them and feeling sorry for the guys who had to deal with that thing in the light role.
stencollector
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- shilo MB, the armpit of Canada
I was still issued a C5A1 for my APC here in Shilo right until 1997. All the rest of the Battery got 50s....I didn't complain though. It was a lot easier hauling the 30 up to the top than the M2QCB.
Eaglelord17
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Sault Ste. Marie
Well there is some benefits to the C2 from a practical standpoint.
1. Its weight the C2 was 13lbs vs 21lbs for the Bren.
2. Common parts with the C1, which is something most people seriously underestimate the value of (you only need a small amount of extra C2 specific parts as opposed to a whole section of completely different parts that was required for the Bren, simplifies training for armourers, and keeps things easy logistically).
3. The Bren L4 required significantly more maintenance to keep running than the original .303 Bren. The original .303 you could basically ignore and periodically do some small maintenance to, the L4 was constantly requiring maintenance as 7.62 Nato was pushing the design (paraphrased words of a British Master Armourer from that era).
It really surprises me the hatred some have for the C2 considering it is basically just a C1 with a full auto switch and heavier barrel (especially considering how so many love the C1). I know my father loved his, but that's also just him as well.
1. Its weight the C2 was 13lbs vs 21lbs for the Bren.
2. Common parts with the C1, which is something most people seriously underestimate the value of (you only need a small amount of extra C2 specific parts as opposed to a whole section of completely different parts that was required for the Bren, simplifies training for armourers, and keeps things easy logistically).
3. The Bren L4 required significantly more maintenance to keep running than the original .303 Bren. The original .303 you could basically ignore and periodically do some small maintenance to, the L4 was constantly requiring maintenance as 7.62 Nato was pushing the design (paraphrased words of a British Master Armourer from that era).
It really surprises me the hatred some have for the C2 considering it is basically just a C1 with a full auto switch and heavier barrel (especially considering how so many love the C1). I know my father loved his, but that's also just him as well.
NavyShooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- XMU Local .303
So, here's the thing, a rifle, a Squad Automatic Weapon, a machine gun, etc, are not just the mechanical piece of equipment when you look at it from the perspective of a military organization.
Let's look at the steps, and the whole program - yes program.
1. Identify need
2. Solicit manufacturers
3. Test products
4. Evaluate tests - decide on winner
5. Build items
6. Put into service
7. Train personnel to use
8. Maintain in service
9. Consider future replacement
With a rifle program like the C1 and C2 Automatic rifle, the expensive part is really 'train and maintain'.
Training - having the ability to simplify the training process because you have a common platform means that converting someone from a C1 rifleman to a C2 Gunner would require very little additional work - maybe an extra day or two on the range with ammo, plus some classroom work.
If there was a completely separate weapon (BREN) then you'd need to maintain a completely different training stream for it, with little or no crossover.
Maintain. That's the big one though - looking at the C7FOW (Family of Weapons) one of the big considerations with them is the major commonality of parts. Consider that almost 85% of the parts on a C-7 are the same as those on a C-8. It would have been much the same with a C1 vs C2. A simplified maintenance stream is much less expensive to maintain and sustain.
Also, consider the 'other' stuff that would have had to change - magazine pouches, slings, cleaning kits, etc etc. And, you'd have many units that still had .303 Brens in their inventories for a long time - unless you drew 100% of them back in to change them over, the possibility of mixing them up would be high. Armourers maintaining two sets of calibration tools, two training streams for that...
The military has to look at replacing a small arm as a systemic approach. It's a lot more than just a couple of parts on a rifle - and the parts in the background are the really expensive bits.
Consider - one of the reasons the US didn't implement the XM-8 was that it wasn't 'enough' better than the M-4 or M-16 to justify the cost. They have been playing around with mediocre cartridges (6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, etc) that are crippled because of the necessity for them to fit and function in a standard M-16 magazine well - because if they change the lower receiver (which is the gun) they will have to change the training and supply streams that support it - and for a country with millions of weapons in service, that is literally billions of dollars.
Just my thoughts...
TLDR: multiple platforms instead of a common receiver adds training and logistical support costs.
NS
Let's look at the steps, and the whole program - yes program.
1. Identify need
2. Solicit manufacturers
3. Test products
4. Evaluate tests - decide on winner
5. Build items
6. Put into service
7. Train personnel to use
8. Maintain in service
9. Consider future replacement
With a rifle program like the C1 and C2 Automatic rifle, the expensive part is really 'train and maintain'.
Training - having the ability to simplify the training process because you have a common platform means that converting someone from a C1 rifleman to a C2 Gunner would require very little additional work - maybe an extra day or two on the range with ammo, plus some classroom work.
If there was a completely separate weapon (BREN) then you'd need to maintain a completely different training stream for it, with little or no crossover.
Maintain. That's the big one though - looking at the C7FOW (Family of Weapons) one of the big considerations with them is the major commonality of parts. Consider that almost 85% of the parts on a C-7 are the same as those on a C-8. It would have been much the same with a C1 vs C2. A simplified maintenance stream is much less expensive to maintain and sustain.
Also, consider the 'other' stuff that would have had to change - magazine pouches, slings, cleaning kits, etc etc. And, you'd have many units that still had .303 Brens in their inventories for a long time - unless you drew 100% of them back in to change them over, the possibility of mixing them up would be high. Armourers maintaining two sets of calibration tools, two training streams for that...
The military has to look at replacing a small arm as a systemic approach. It's a lot more than just a couple of parts on a rifle - and the parts in the background are the really expensive bits.
Consider - one of the reasons the US didn't implement the XM-8 was that it wasn't 'enough' better than the M-4 or M-16 to justify the cost. They have been playing around with mediocre cartridges (6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, etc) that are crippled because of the necessity for them to fit and function in a standard M-16 magazine well - because if they change the lower receiver (which is the gun) they will have to change the training and supply streams that support it - and for a country with millions of weapons in service, that is literally billions of dollars.
Just my thoughts...
TLDR: multiple platforms instead of a common receiver adds training and logistical support costs.
NS
If you hold a MAG58 and a Bren side by side, you can seed the lineage for the MAG/C6 as being a belt fed Bren.
I come from the C2 era and shot it a bit on the Granville range. Since then have shot the Bren a bit. Both were fun and then you have to clean 'em.
I still have a small scare on my left hand from grabbing the C2 barrel in 1978.
I come from the C2 era and shot it a bit on the Granville range. Since then have shot the Bren a bit. Both were fun and then you have to clean 'em.
I still have a small scare on my left hand from grabbing the C2 barrel in 1978.
Lee Enfield
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Republic of Alberta
Awesome topic.
Truely a C2 and a Bren are not an apples to apples comparison.
A C2 is merely a modernized 1918 BAR in comcept, while a Bren was intended to be the British 1930s version (it was intended to replace everything from the vickers HMG down to the Hotchkiss and Lewis guns) of what today is a GPMG, however most of it's use and designation was as an LMG.
The C2 is a major step backwards as it was employed in cdn service in the role of an lmg.
IMHO, no bottom fed magazine weapon could possibly be considered an MG due to feed change issues during prone or emplaced firing. The top fed magazine weapons being the
exception.
As a crew served weapon an emplaced Bren will hang with a belt fed.
If there is no loader, or movement is necessary, the 30rd mag compares poorly to a belt fed, having said that, the germans were issued 50rd drums for movement senarios.
Last edited:
Lets use the correct terminology the C2 was a Light Automatic Rifle (LAR) the battle proven and ever trusty Bren Gun was a true Light Machine Gun (LMG) . To me the Bren is, was, and ever will be the far and away better gun of the two, capable of fixed line fire off the tripod (an early version of the SF kit for the C6), reliable beyond belief, rifle like accurate and you just have to love a LMG that you can do barrel changes on (seemed to keep the Chinese/N.Korean hordes away in Korea).
I do not buy into the whole "train and maintain" sails pitch that it was more cost saving to buy a useless LAR (C2) based off of a rifle (C1)............otherwise we must be doing things all wrong today with C7-8 and....................the C9 LMG
I do not buy into the whole "train and maintain" sails pitch that it was more cost saving to buy a useless LAR (C2) based off of a rifle (C1)............otherwise we must be doing things all wrong today with C7-8 and....................the C9 LMG
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I was never really impressed with the crazy dispersion of full auto short bursts with the C2. Plus it was the only small arm in our inventory that sometimes, would self destruct in colder temperatures firing just blanks.
To be honest, it was not a very inspiring weapon IMH infantry O.
I owned and shot both guns. If I had to fight with the C2, I would shoot it semi-auto as fast as I could. On FA it is just a noise maker.
I can appreciate all the technical explanations about parts and training, etc, but my assessment of the C2 on FA is that it is just useless.
I can appreciate all the technical explanations about parts and training, etc, but my assessment of the C2 on FA is that it is just useless.
- Location
- Prince George. BC
How many of you c2 experts, have ever carried a C2 or shot Live rds out of one, You say how accurate a Bren gun is, How with a C2, first shot on Target, and rest all over. ON ANY SHOULDER CONTROLLED FULL AUTO Rifle, You SHOULD have a beaten zone about 6 feet wide and 12 feet long, A beaten zone is WANTED because more people are hit. Auto fire is not putting all you shot in the same hole,or killing one man 10 times, Even the so call accurate Bren gun when fired on full auto, will jump around, as will the American Bar. I have fired 15, 30rd mags, 450rds on full auto. Weapon take in and had barrel checked on return from range. NO DAMAGES. , Had a Trooper as a loader, Shot till all mags empty, no stoppages. That was NOTHING WRONG WITH THE WEAPON , In the time period of it,s use. Nothing.
So you fired a heap of rounds out of a C2 and think the world of it..... good for you. I think you really need to bone up on your "Theory of MG Shooting" study the characteristics of both guns, the history and application of use then get back. Your knowledge of beaten zones is rather limited and does not address distance to target, lay of the land or the gun itself. Yes Donny I have fired both guns, a lot, and as a Bren owner think it was 1. way ahead of its time and superior to the C2 which was a step backwards and 2. a far, FAR, better gun then the C2 LAR. Fires from a open bolt, has the weight to actually stay on target, can work off the bipod or a tripod, top vs bottom feed, robust enough to not start falling apart (sheared off gas blocks seem to be a C2 weak point) during prolonged fire............ Anyways, to each their own.
Last edited:
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.
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.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Our C2 was never tested in combat but it's Australian cousin failed (as already pointed out)
The Americans had thier squad full auto rifle ready for the Leclerc trials of 1966. And it failed these trials quite miserably. IIRC it was the M15 designation. Heavier barrel, fixed barrel, bipod, fires from closed bolt even in full auto selection. Just like our C2.
