Author Topic: FN C2  (Read 2523 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Drobb

  • Guest
  • *
  • 80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6
FN C2
« on: January 20, 2019, 18:01:09 »
How been the C2 proform campared to other SAW’s of the day? Did the hand guard/bi-pod actually work?

Thanks

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 207,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,726
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: FN C2
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2019, 18:14:28 »
As a hand-guard it was a great bi-pod.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Drobb

  • Guest
  • *
  • 80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6
Re: FN C2
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2019, 20:44:57 »
Was it as good as Bren? Or more like a PKM? How many were used in a section?

Offline dangerboy

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 331,489
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,937
Re: FN C2
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2019, 21:33:55 »
Was it as good as Bren? Or more like a PKM? How many were used in a section?

There were two per section.
All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us... they can't get away this time.
- Lt Gen Lewis B. Puller, USMC

Offline expwor

  • Donor
  • Member
  • *
  • 21,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 123
Re: FN C2
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2019, 21:43:14 »
Was it as good as Bren? Or more like a PKM? How many were used in a section?

When I was in the Militia (now called Army Reserve) it was two LAR (carried the FNC2) men commanded by the Section 2IC. Section Commander carried SMG, everyone except "C2" men in the section carried an FNC1
Don't know about the Bren or PKM
BTW A section was 12 men total
This was my experience

Tom

Offline Drobb

  • Guest
  • *
  • 80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6
Re: FN C2
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2019, 21:49:26 »
So 2 per section then? From your experience if your were still in the Forces when the switch was made to the C7 and C9 did vastly increase the firepower of the section?

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 339,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,682
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: FN C2
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2019, 21:55:11 »
You may find this article of interest: http://regimentalrogue.com/papers/sect_atk.htm

Offline expwor

  • Donor
  • Member
  • *
  • 21,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 123
Re: FN C2
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2019, 21:55:46 »
I was in the Militia 1979-1981, never saw the C7. Just FNC1, FNC2 and SMG were the three personal weapons I used.  No way to compare to any others the CF used/uses

Tom

Offline kkwd

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 84,822
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 520
Re: FN C2
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2019, 22:39:31 »
It made a very satisfying sound when fired.
Here is a YouTube video of the weapon being fired on a range. They mostly use the 20 round C1 mags but at the 6 min mark of the video a proper 30 round mag is used.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvewxOYU6Go&t=319s
Here is the C2 "bra". A carrier for 4 mags meant to be strapped to your chest. It was bizarre.
https://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/product.jsp?productid=77679
It didn't have a quick change barrel. I would have figured by the time this weapon came out the lesson of changeable barrels would have been learned.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2019, 22:43:30 by kkwd »
I like beer.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 219,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,837
Re: FN C2
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2019, 22:40:14 »
I was going to stay out of this, but I joined in December 1957 and trained on the Bren, which I enjoyed firing. The C2, on paper, had all sorts of advantages, not the least was its compatibility with the C1. However I thought it was awkward and cumbersome. On the other hand it could be fired from either shoulder (I am a leftie) and its magazines were interchangeable with the C1. I qualified as a first class shot on the Bren in recruit training. Later as a very junior NCM before going on officer training I had worn both crossed rifles and crossed rifles and crown, so I had some ability as a shot.

I think the only time we used the C2 in action was by the Airborne Regiment in Cyprus in 1974.

Hopefully some of the experienced infantreers here will step forward.

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 225,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,858
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: FN C2
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2019, 22:58:20 »
The C2 wasn't meant to be fired standing or kneeling for any amount of time. The handguard was meant to do exactly that, stop your tender flesh from sticking to a hot barrel. The bra may have looked goofy, but once you had it dialed in, it was infinitely preferable to having 120 rds of 7.62 thumping around in your pockets. If the C2 had a flaw, it's that it was too accurate; if you had a good grip, the 30th round didn't land far from the first one. Great to keep one guy's head down, but little to no cone of fire, just a straight line of lead. If you got good with it you could be deadly from a long way away. Rundowns from the 600 yd point sucked. Keep it clean because when you had to turn the gas down it would hammer the crap out of your shoulder.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2019, 23:03:34 by Kat Stevens »
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 219,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,837
Re: FN C2
« Reply #11 on: January 20, 2019, 23:11:02 »
Kat

Remember 7-45 and the bits about the rest of the section carrying loaded Bren magazines in the basic pouches, and refilling empty mags. This, of course, was written in the Lee-Enfield days and the Bren was the main source of firepower in the section.

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 225,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,858
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: FN C2
« Reply #12 on: January 20, 2019, 23:17:48 »
If we were lucky in the C2 group, we got one extra guy to hump a couple boxes of clipped ammo and a couple of mag chargers.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 245,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,732
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: FN C2
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2019, 00:33:29 »
Here's Lee Ermey (RIP) demonstrating the differences between the Bren and the BAR.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKj1W91cB9M

I fired the C2 in the CAF, and the Bren - re-barrelled to 7.62mm - in the British Army. Neither were as awesome as the C6, of course, and while the Bren was better in that it had a changeable barrel, the C2 was lighter.

IMHO, we should always have at least one belt fed support weapon in the section. Magazines empty out pretty quickly, causing the embarrassing silence just as #2 rifleman gets up to chuck a grenade :)

"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 200,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,378
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: FN C2
« Reply #14 on: January 21, 2019, 00:38:45 »
Two points.

Firstly SAW v FN C2. the first is 5.56 mm while the C2 was 7.62 so a more powerful weapon but limited by the thirty round magazine v box fed.

Secondly, the thirty round magazine stuck out of the bottom of the C2 v the Bren's top. This created a problem in any position (prone or trench) where the weapon needed elevating as the magazine was as long as the bipod and it would block raising the barrel up easily.

Drobb. Who are you and why do you care about this?

 ???
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Drobb

  • Guest
  • *
  • 80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6
Re: FN C2
« Reply #15 on: January 21, 2019, 20:10:38 »
I have also been a fan of the FAL and C2 seems like a strange beast compared to heavy barreled FN’s of the Israelis. When I was the CF I only used the c7 and it was very limited as my time was short due to a injury.

Offline Drobb

  • Guest
  • *
  • 80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6
Re: FN C2
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2019, 17:58:36 »
Follow up question did everyone in the section carry C-2 mags or extra 20 round magazines for the C-2’s and how does it work now is every men carrying rounds for the C-9?

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 225,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,858
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: FN C2
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2019, 18:49:16 »
C1 had a 20 rd mag, and everyone had five of them. C2 had a 30 rd mag, each gunner had four in the bra and one on the gun. Everyone in the section carried as much clipped ammo as the stores/ammo rep issued them.  As I said before, a lot of the time the LAR group had a spare guy from the HQ section to hump a box or two of ammo.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 245,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,732
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: FN C2
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2019, 18:54:52 »
C1 had a 20 rd mag, and everyone had five of them. C2 had a 30 rd mag, each gunner had four in the bra and one on the gun. Everyone in the section carried as much clipped ammo as the stores/ammo rep issued them.  As I said before, a lot of the time the LAR group had a spare guy from the HQ section to hump a box or two of ammo.

IMHO, that's a good way to go vs. everyone carrying 10 mags, or more.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 218,402
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,480
Re: FN C2
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2019, 18:58:10 »
From my experience, only the gunners got the bras and thirty-round mags. The bras covered up the chest pockets on the combat shirts, so riflemen would have had an even harder time getting their own mags in and out from behind the bras, and mags were always part of the weapon EIS, so four for C1s and four for C2s.

I didn't mind the C2 at all, but preferred the C1 to anything else available.

Or maybe Kat is right - I remember four for each, but it could have been five. The clipped ammo was issued in olive green plastic bandoleers with tear-away pockets for each pair of five-round clips or cardboard boxes. We usually got the bandoleers even for range practices in my early days, and rarely boxes.

Offline Target Up

    ........pull, patch, and score.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 225,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,858
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: FN C2
« Reply #20 on: January 23, 2019, 19:05:29 »
I wasn't infantry, but did hump that humourless hunk of metal and mahogany for two years. I seem to remember pretty clearly having five mags, 150 rds total load out. On second thought, riflemen did only carry four mags of 20 rds.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline expwor

  • Donor
  • Member
  • *
  • 21,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 123
Re: FN C2
« Reply #21 on: January 23, 2019, 19:19:36 »
When I carried it, it was always on weekend exercises, not on operations (actually never was on any operations, unless Flyover Training to West Germany counts, and that was Fall Ex exercises) On exercise five thirty round mags carried, four in the bra, on the LAR.

The FN C1 by today's standards would be considered heavy (11 pounds fully loaded) but the C2 was 15 pounds, not factoring in you carried 5 30 round mags while the rest of the section carried 4 20 round mags for the C1.

This was just my experience with it when I was in the Militia

Tom

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 511,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,504
    • The job.
Re: FN C2
« Reply #22 on: January 23, 2019, 22:34:00 »
Just FNC1, FNC2 and SMG were the three personal weapons I used. 

Me too. I was in a transportation company ( PRes ). Fired the C2 on the range, but never carried one on an exercise.
 

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 185,471
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,083
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: FN C2
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2019, 08:14:40 »
Some interesting discussions and perspective from the troops who carried them back in the day. 

One of the so-far unmentioned 'advantages' to the C-2 was it's ability to appear to be a C-1. 

If you consider a squad of soldiers in WWII or Korea, it was plainly obvious who was carrying the Bren, and who was carrying the Enfields.  So, upon observation, it was easy for an enemy to establish where the base of fire would be coming from.

If you look at a similar squad of soldiers with FN's, it was no longer as obvious.  Both weapons have a similar profile, particularly if observed from a distance. 

The original question of comparing the C2 to other "SAWs of the day" means that we have to look at military small arms in the 1950's and see what was actually an 'equivalent'.

Options that existed (not a comprehensive list, just a few exemplars):
-RPD
-M-14A1/E2
-VZ-59
-BREN
-BAR
-DP-28

Of these, the 'most' equivalent would be the M-14A1/E2.  Reason?  It is the only one that is not a dedicated design - it's a design adapted from a battle rifle, which is exactly what the FN C2 was.

The full auto M-14 was decidedly NOT a success.  The reasons varied, but the summary was that it was effectively uncontrollable on Full Auto - it was too light for the cartridge it was firing. 

How much of a success was the C-2?  Well, we kept it going for over 30 years of service - that says one of two things, either it worked 'well enough' or, it was too hard to replace it with something better through our supply and procurement system. 

In looking at the other weapons on the list above, all of them were designed from the start as SAW/LMG type weapons, they were not converted rifles.  I would posit that the best of them is a toss up between the RPD and the VZ-59.  Then again, I've never been fired at by either of them, so I'm not sure how good they really are!

Something to consider is that the C-2 was only one of the tools in the toolbox.  We had the C-5 Browning for sustained fire, or the M2 Browning. 

In the role of providing direct, automatic fire during the assault, or in support of the defence, the C-2 seems to have worked well enough that we kept using it.  Perfect?  No.  Good enough - I guess so.  We made something work that the US didn't with their M-14A1/E2. 

Food for thought anyhow.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Online Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 182,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,971
Re: FN C2
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2019, 14:24:46 »
The original question of comparing the C2 to other "SAWs of the day" means that we have to look at military small arms in the 1950's and see what was actually an 'equivalent'.

Options that existed (not a comprehensive list, just a few exemplars):
-RPD
-M-14A1/E2
-VZ-59
-BREN
-BAR
-DP-28


While you've included some of the squad automatic weapons that were contemporaries of the C2, the most obvious direct comparison is missing.  The Soviet weapon in the hands of all those motor rifle squads that sat on the other side of the inner German border was the RPK (LMG variant of the AK-47) and subsequently the RPK-74 when the Ruskies adopted a lighter cartridge.  The RPK, like the C2, was based on and had a similar profile to their standard rifle.  It also had a fixed barrel with bipod and its magazine was an increased capacity version of the rifle magazine (though the RPK also had a 75 round drum mag).  The same basic design appears to be still employed as the Russian infantry squad auto.
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.