Author Topic: FN C2  (Read 3441 times)

Rick Goebel, Hamish Seggie and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Shrek1985

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 6,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 331
Re: FN C2
« Reply #25 on: October 09, 2019, 15:09:15 »
What of reliability?

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 487,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,404
Re: FN C2
« Reply #26 on: Yesterday at 13:28:02 »
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.


The basic load, for war, was, back in the 1960s and '70s, 200 rounds per rifleman per day: 4 X 20 round mags and 1 X bandolier with 120 rounds.

The C2 man was, as I recall ~ and it's a long time ago ~ meant to have 4 X mags = 120 rounds plus 3 X bandoliers = 360 rounds which totalled up to 480 rounds per day. My recollection was that each rifle company CQMS had about 200 bandoliers in boxes, and the QM had another 175,000+ rounds in boxes, on wheels, in addition to a lot of 9mm.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,632
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FN C2
« Reply #27 on: Yesterday at 15:58:31 »
What of reliability?

Good mags and a good gunner and it worked fine, a lot of our issues were worn out mags, but most soldiers did not understand the importance of magazine care or their role in the proper functioning of the gun. Using mags to open beer bottles looks cool, but is utterly stupid.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 207,115
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,467
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: FN C2
« Reply #28 on: Yesterday at 17:27:30 »

The basic load, for war, was, back in the 1960s and '70s, 200 rounds per rifleman per day: 4 X 20 round mags and 1 X bandolier with 120 rounds.

The C2 man was, as I recall ~ and it's a long time ago ~ meant to have 4 X mags = 120 rounds plus 3 X bandoliers = 360 rounds which totalled up to 480 rounds per day. My recollection was that each rifle company CQMS had about 200 bandoliers in boxes, and the QM had another 175,000+ rounds in boxes, on wheels, in addition to a lot of 9mm.

Not infantry in those days except for one brief summer. My recollection was that there were two C2 gunners per section and that while your description of the "basic load" is close to what I recall there was also the fact that pretty much everybody was issued a "bra" magazine pouch that was worn across your chest and which was only useful for carrying the 30 rd C2 magazines. The explanation was that this was similar to the old Bren pouches for the Pattern 51 web gear which were issued to every man in an infantry section to carry additional Bren (or later C2) magazines by other folks in the section to give to the Bren/C2 gunners as they used up their ammunition. While everyone had the magazine pouches, I don't recall ever seeing enough 30 rd magazines in our stores to actually make that happen. Mostly the C2 pouches stayed at home because, unlike the old Bren pouch, they were really not useful for anything other than those 30 rd magazines.

 :cheers:
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 daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 253,155
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,041
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: FN C2
« Reply #29 on: Yesterday at 19:19:58 »
It seems that the Grey Scouts were fond of the C2:

"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 Petard

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 32,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,279
  • Once a gunner, always a gunner
Re: FN C2
« Reply #30 on: Today at 11:01:06 »
What of reliability?

This guy gives a pretty good summary of the weapon, overall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eL1G5hlF8wc

It was a product of its time, and not much different in concept than say the M14A2, or RPK for that matter, with the idea of commonality of parts seeming to be paramount. In so far as tactics, I think the idea was engagements were expected to be short in mechanized warfare, and so a lighter more maneuverable weapon seem to be better than a heavier one designed for more sustained fire. This, of course, has long since changed

I'm no fan of it from my own experience, first as an infantryman with a Reserve unit then Reg Force arty, mostly because of the drawbacks mentioned earlier and in that video.
 On my CLC I had a stoppage while firing blanks, in carrying out my IA I retracted the bolt and a round went off in my face. I got powder burns and luckily my glasses prevented it from being worse (No BEW back then). It also caused temporary deafness, and ringing that lasted days. Later, I was told I had wrongly used a C1 breechblock instead of a C2 one (IIRC the C2 breech block had a slightly different extractor); 'course, it was the only one issued to me, but somehow the investigation concluded "operator fault"