What's the worst gun?

[JWAN]

the M-16. considered the worst assault rifle in the world. any sort of melee with it would shatter the spring-loaded stock and the overly complex firing mechanism was a ***** to clean and jammed alot. the only reason it became the standard american infantry rifle was politics, "buy my gun and you get my vote". it was originally designed for MPs at stateside military bases

It's since been fixed though. Several times. Pretty sure that the M16 A4 (the most recent version) has most of the creses ironed out.

i know, i was just referencing the original. but i dont see what was wrong with the m-14

It was too light for its relative heavy ammonition. And it lacked a pistol-grip.
Both things that made it uncontrollable when firing full-auto.

it had a pistol grip, and it was meant to be a semi-automatic rifle.

Arent we talking about this one?

Dont see any pistol-grip^^


Besides, full auto was the whole point. The M16 did have alot less stopping-power, but the new smaller round made it able to fire bursts or even full auto, with relatively great precision.

Instead the M-14 got the role as DMR.


I recommend this video for everyone interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf6CxQh3YXA

I think its from Discovery or some other channel I'm not familiar with.

maybe hes talking about the M14 EBR
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.eairsoftsniperrifles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/gp-ebr-m14kit.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.eairsoftsniperrifles.com/airsoft-gun-reviews/kart-m14-ebr-airsoft-sniper-rifle-review/&h=499&w=450&sz=41&tbnid=oK7VNxZG2Ey6kM:&tbnh=236&tbnw=213&prev=/images%3Fq%3DM14%2BEBR&zoom=1&q=M14+EBR&usg=__7m6RjqzMjy6mB8Q4NkesyPkLgTY=&sa=X&ei=W56NTPvmA4mbnAe7p7DgCw&ved=0CBgQ9QEwAA
this one is an airsoft version but its the same principle

 

[JWAN]

the M-16. considered the worst assault rifle in the world. any sort of melee with it would shatter the spring-loaded stock and the overly complex firing mechanism was a ***** to clean and jammed alot. the only reason it became the standard american infantry rifle was politics, "buy my gun and you get my vote". it was originally designed for MPs at stateside military bases

Those problems have all been fixed. Now it is an exemplary military rifle. As for what was wrong with the M-14 well... too expensive... too heavy and the recoil is just fucking awful on that fat bastard. Though it supposedly works beautifully as a sniper and semi-automatic battle rifle.

Worst gun? Desert Eagle, that thing is horrifically impracticable. Too heavy, nasty recoil, the bullets are too big and it has a horribly limited magazine capacity.

i was referencing the original m16, but currently it is probably far from an exemplary military rifle, else why are they replacing it with the ACR? as for the m14, the semi auto battle rifle is what it was designed for, punch big holes in your targets. the auto setting was just for suppressing fire on the occaision that you didnt have an LMG available

There are no official plans to replace the M-16 and M-4 series of rifles. Competitions have been held but no replacement has ever been chosen and the United States military hasn't even placed any orders for the ACR as far as I am aware (someone has been playing too much MW2 it seems). The M-16 does its job very well and the M-4 does its job pretty well(There have been reports of reduced stopping power on the M-4 but it still kills people). They are considered very good weapons by the people who are actually familiar with them. The M-14 was designed as you said to deliver accurate shots with full auto being used for suppressing actions but the problem with that is that almost All fire in a combat scenario is suppressing fire. The ammunition is too heavy for what it would be used for and so a new weapon was designed using a round that was better suited for the majority of small arms use in a warzone. The M-14 just doesn't work as well for that purpose as the M-16 because the recoil is awful so it is very difficult to keep the volume of fire going where it is supposed to go and you will run out of bullets faster because you just can't carry enough to maintain the fire that you need to maintain.


EDIT: Also in response to some of your earlier comments the M-14 does not come standard with a pistol grip. A Pistol grip is a grip that is separate from the stock and the M-14 only accepts one with heavy modification. The Ammunition for the M-14 may not sound much larger but there is a large difference.

Thats the 5.56 on the left with the 7.62 on the right and a 30-30 Winchester in the center. As you can see there is in fact a significant difference in size. The weight is also very different with the 7.62 weighing between 9 and 12 Grams and the 5.56 weighing about 4 grams. That may not seem like much but you are carrying hundreds of these things around and you can carry twice as many 5.56's as 7.62's. Are you starting to understand now?

Right but the 7.62 puts a man down in 1. Every. Single. Time. The 5.56 you need a center mass hit every single time. With a 7.62 you put a hole the size of a grapefruit in your target. The 5.56 may cause cavitation but remember the rule of center mass. All the cavitation in the world wont drop someone if it cant hit a vital and when the insurgents are hopped up on meth they wont even flinch when a 5.56 hits them.

 

[JWAN]

The AK-47 is one of the worst. Yeah, it's a quick fire rate, and it almost never jams, but that doesn't fix the terrible accuracy, the strength needed to wield it(it's not heavy, but start firing it and you have a real problem with it not jerking up and blowing YOUR face off) the enormous recoil, and when it DOES finally overheat and jam, you can NEVER use it again.

Also, and I know I'm gonna catch a TON of flak for this, but fragmentation grenades and shotguns. They're both VERY situational,. and with the frag grenade you have as much chance of injuring/killing yourself as others if you don't use it properly.
And shotguns are pretty much pathetic if someone's more than 10 feet away from you.

If your using a 3 inch sabo deer slugs your going to be able to kill at 220-250 meters.

I've answered this about a million times. I was taking liberties with the aiming, and hunting slugs are different than battle slugs. A battle slug sprays areas with a larger radius to nullify a room and put people down faster. A hunting slug keeps the pellets closer together to do more damage.

No your not even on the same page:
2 main types of shotgun ammunition

Buckshot (for home invaders, terrorists, and some medium game depending on the state)
Slugs (large game and terrorists)

Buckshot are large pellets covered in copper with lead centers (think BB gun size)
Slugs are full metal jacket(copper) solid lead core bullets, it is ONE projectile
Both the military and hunters use slugs
The military does use buckshot but it has a tight choke on it to focus the pellets in a TIGHT pattern. Why you ask? Because the wars nowadays are mainly fought in close quarters where you need to know exactly where your lead is going to go.

 

[Starke]

I'm not sure about absolute worst gun of all time, but the Desert Eagle is very much up there in terms in of impracticality and is ridiculously over-rated by the type of people that learned everything they know about guns from Modern Warfare 2.

There is a brilliant ideal. Let's make a semi-automatic with a floating mag...

Still, no love for the South African Vektor CP1? The gun so advanced it could decide to fire on its own. Whenever it felt like? At random?

 

[Canid117]

the M-16. considered the worst assault rifle in the world. any sort of melee with it would shatter the spring-loaded stock and the overly complex firing mechanism was a ***** to clean and jammed alot. the only reason it became the standard american infantry rifle was politics, "buy my gun and you get my vote". it was originally designed for MPs at stateside military bases

Those problems have all been fixed. Now it is an exemplary military rifle. As for what was wrong with the M-14 well... too expensive... too heavy and the recoil is just fucking awful on that fat bastard. Though it supposedly works beautifully as a sniper and semi-automatic battle rifle.

Worst gun? Desert Eagle, that thing is horrifically impracticable. Too heavy, nasty recoil, the bullets are too big and it has a horribly limited magazine capacity.

i was referencing the original m16, but currently it is probably far from an exemplary military rifle, else why are they replacing it with the ACR? as for the m14, the semi auto battle rifle is what it was designed for, punch big holes in your targets. the auto setting was just for suppressing fire on the occaision that you didnt have an LMG available

There are no official plans to replace the M-16 and M-4 series of rifles. Competitions have been held but no replacement has ever been chosen and the United States military hasn't even placed any orders for the ACR as far as I am aware (someone has been playing too much MW2 it seems). The M-16 does its job very well and the M-4 does its job pretty well(There have been reports of reduced stopping power on the M-4 but it still kills people). They are considered very good weapons by the people who are actually familiar with them. The M-14 was designed as you said to deliver accurate shots with full auto being used for suppressing actions but the problem with that is that almost All fire in a combat scenario is suppressing fire. The ammunition is too heavy for what it would be used for and so a new weapon was designed using a round that was better suited for the majority of small arms use in a warzone. The M-14 just doesn't work as well for that purpose as the M-16 because the recoil is awful so it is very difficult to keep the volume of fire going where it is supposed to go and you will run out of bullets faster because you just can't carry enough to maintain the fire that you need to maintain.


EDIT: Also in response to some of your earlier comments the M-14 does not come standard with a pistol grip. A Pistol grip is a grip that is separate from the stock and the M-14 only accepts one with heavy modification. The Ammunition for the M-14 may not sound much larger but there is a large difference.

Thats the 5.56 on the left with the 7.62 on the right and a 30-30 Winchester in the center. As you can see there is in fact a significant difference in size. The weight is also very different with the 7.62 weighing between 9 and 12 Grams and the 5.56 weighing about 4 grams. That may not seem like much but you are carrying hundreds of these things around and you can carry twice as many 5.56's as 7.62's. Are you starting to understand now?

Right but the 7.62 puts a man down in 1. Every. Single. Time. The 5.56 you need a center mass hit every single time. With a 7.62 you put a hole the size of a grapefruit in your target. The 5.56 may cause cavitation but remember the rule of center mass. All the cavitation in the world wont drop someone if it cant hit a vital and when the insurgents are hopped up on meth they wont even flinch when a 5.56 hits them.

That is why Soldiers are taught to aim for the center of mass which they hit with regularity and even if they do not there are still the other five guys in your squad firing three round bursts into the guy with the AK. You can not carry around enough ammo for the M-14 to stay competitive with the AK series in a volume of fire fight. The United States military would not continue using a weapon for 50 years if it did not work. Stopping power isn't everything if it was we would be issuing these things to our soldiers.

and this would be our sidearm.

 

[Jonny The Kay]

Any gun fired in a movie or comic book. Those guns never seem to hit the hero.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

The AK-47 is one of the worst. Yeah, it's a quick fire rate, and it almost never jams, but that doesn't fix the terrible accuracy, the strength needed to wield it(it's not heavy, but start firing it and you have a real problem with it not jerking up and blowing YOUR face off) the enormous recoil, and when it DOES finally overheat and jam, you can NEVER use it again.

Also, and I know I'm gonna catch a TON of flak for this, but fragmentation grenades and shotguns. They're both VERY situational,. and with the frag grenade you have as much chance of injuring/killing yourself as others if you don't use it properly.
And shotguns are pretty much pathetic if someone's more than 10 feet away from you.

If your using a 3 inch sabo deer slugs your going to be able to kill at 220-250 meters.

I've answered this about a million times. I was taking liberties with the aiming, and hunting slugs are different than battle slugs. A battle slug sprays areas with a larger radius to nullify a room and put people down faster. A hunting slug keeps the pellets closer together to do more damage.

No your not even on the same page:
2 main types of shotgun ammunition

Buckshot (for home invaders, terrorists, and some medium game depending on the state)
Slugs (large game and terrorists)

Buckshot are large pellets covered in copper with lead centers (think BB gun size)
Slugs are full metal jacket(copper) solid lead core bullets, it is ONE projectile
Both the military and hunters use slugs
The military does use buckshot but it has a tight choke on it to focus the pellets in a TIGHT pattern. Why you ask? Because the wars nowadays are mainly fought in close quarters where you need to know exactly where your lead is going to go.

The US Army does not use solid core shotgun shells in standard loads, of this I am sure. Non-standard? Not sure. But the ammunition ordering sheet I am viewing does not include slugs, which inclines me to believe that its not just me thats never seen military slug ammunition.

http://www.kmike.com/Ammo/tm%2043-0001-27.pdf

The stand ammo load out for door kicking are Key Masters (Which are also absent from the TM) and 00.

EDIT: Looking to see if this TM has been superseded.

 

[Slaanax]

The m60. It's called 'the pig' for a reason.

Everyone I know who has fired the M60 absolutely loved it so I doubt it.

 

[Lusional Sjenn]

I dont know my rifles too well, and shotguns are generally all around pretty reliable. But as far as jamming, malfunctioning, misfiring, and being general shit. Your worst guns are probably either the american M16A1, or the Russian Makarovs. On the opposite end of the spectrum if your looking for a really good gun, few handguns are quite as reliable as the Walther P99 or the Beretta M92. And anyone who knows anything about guns knows the Ak47 is still the best assault rifle ever made.

 

[JWAN]

the M-16. considered the worst assault rifle in the world. any sort of melee with it would shatter the spring-loaded stock and the overly complex firing mechanism was a ***** to clean and jammed alot. the only reason it became the standard american infantry rifle was politics, "buy my gun and you get my vote". it was originally designed for MPs at stateside military bases

Those problems have all been fixed. Now it is an exemplary military rifle. As for what was wrong with the M-14 well... too expensive... too heavy and the recoil is just fucking awful on that fat bastard. Though it supposedly works beautifully as a sniper and semi-automatic battle rifle.

Worst gun? Desert Eagle, that thing is horrifically impracticable. Too heavy, nasty recoil, the bullets are too big and it has a horribly limited magazine capacity.

I love the M-14 if you cant handle the recoil get it with a recoil assist stock. I shoot .300's and .308's all day long and I just wear 2 of those tank top undershirts under my t shirt. It takes awhile to get used to it. They had a bunch of them made fully automatic so basically it was a deadlier version of the BAR that shot superior rounds and had amazing accuracy. They turned it into 2 sniper rifles and used it up until the 90's. You could actually qualify with it (in the USMC) until the mid 90's but Clinton ordered them to be melted down so very few survived, that's truly unfortunate because I think we need to go back and relearn why light machine guns shooting fast bullets isn't always the answer. For my last viewpoint I think they should have turned it into a carbine and put 3 shock absorbers in the stock.

The first shot had amazing accuracy but every single one after that would be thirty feet or higher above the target. The problem isn't that recoil harms the shooters its that it messes up people's shots even in bursts your going to have awful accuracy after the first round on the M-14. It also had a weight problem. Both it and the ammunition it used weighed too much for fast moving fully automatic use. It is still used as a Designated Marksman rifle in the marine corps and as a sniper by special forces units. It's fantastic in a semi auto capacity but sadly doesn't work as well as a standard infantry rifle. The M-14 also costs a lot more to make.

the M14 costs more than the M16? That strikes me as backwards. But the ammunition costs I can see a substantial cost difference although Im a firm believer in making "whatever you hit the first time dead" so its not always about how much you shoot, its about how much you hit. Besides the .308 is a versatile round where as the 5.56 needs to be a direct center of mass hit to incapacitate. A .308 can put a hole the size of a grapefruit. Im not knocking the NATO small arms standard Im just giving a personal preference. I can argue its combat effectiveness through my dad and uncle. They talk about begging borrowing or stealing M14's because they would drop the target with one shot and when things got really close they could swing it like a damn baseball bat.

Carved wood costs more than molded plastic shocking I know. The M-16 and M-4 are extremely accurate for an assault rifle being capable of putting all three shots of a burst into a very small area and soldiers are trained to aim for center of mass anyway so it isn't that big a deal. They can also do something that the M-14 is a horrible choice for and that is suppression fire. A vast majority of the shots in a warzone no matter what weapon you are using is meant to keep the enemies heads down so that a squad can get into position to finish the enemy off which the AR-15 type weapons can do very well. Unlike the troops equipped with eh M-14, soldiers using an M-16 0r M-4 can actually carry enough bullets to compete with the AK series for suppression while being accurate enough to beat out most enemies in a long range shoot out. It does what it needs to do better than the M-14 would at a cheaper price. In war you just need to put a guy down and the hydrostatic shock from a 5.56 mm NATO will often do that just as well as the blood loss from a 7.62 mm bullet shearing off your arm.

Well why use carved wood when you could use the M14EBR. And its not molded plastic anymore now its actually high quality composites. The same shit they use on drag fuel racers and space shuttles. Wait wait wait. The AK 47 shoots almost the same exact round as the M14 the Ak shoots a: 7.62x39mm
M-14 shoots a: 7.62x51mm
And if you want to argue supressive fire I would like to point out that the M-14 comes from the same blood as the BAR who damn near invented the term suppressive fire. Yes the M14 did come in an automatic vatient actually with almost the exact same bi pod. Why keep there heads down when you can punch through the wall there hiding behind with a clip of AP rounds? Id still rather not put my trust in the smaller cartridge because I dont want to have to spray him with bullets. I want to use 1, know hes down and move on. Let me give you an example. If your hunting elk, lets say that elk has opposable thumbs armed with a large caliber small arm like the AK, do you want to fuck around by shooting him with several 5.56 rounds and hope that the hydrostatic shock was enough? Do you want him to be able to stumble away? I sure as hell dont, I want to kill him. I want to be 100% sure that that fleshy object that just gouted out his opposite side was a vital organ, possibly several. The best way to do that is to drop him with 11.3 grains of democracy. Just because you can pump out more lead does not guarantee that you will A hit your target or B keep your target pinned down. Chances are that ambush they picked out made it easy for them to get away so as soon as they use something for cover it becomes important to have the ability to fuck up said cover.

 

[Starke]

and this would be our sidearm.

God. My ears still haven't recovered from the last time I was on a range and someone whipped one of those out.

 

[JWAN]

The m60. It's called 'the pig' for a reason.

Everyone I know who has fired the M60 absolutely loved it so I doubt it.

They call it the pig because its heavy. Not because its shitty. You need to feed it like a hog , it only eats hog like things, meaning BIG things like 7.62x51mm rounds. For the record that's 11.3 grains of democracy, enough power to punch a hole the size of a grapefruit in a cinder block wall, and with AP rounds essentially destroy light vehicles. Its round is also known as close to a .308, so in layman terms its a machine gun, that shoots sniper rounds, with an effective range of damn near 1,200 yards.

 

[JWAN]

the M-16. considered the worst assault rifle in the world. any sort of melee with it would shatter the spring-loaded stock and the overly complex firing mechanism was a ***** to clean and jammed alot. the only reason it became the standard american infantry rifle was politics, "buy my gun and you get my vote". it was originally designed for MPs at stateside military bases

Those problems have all been fixed. Now it is an exemplary military rifle. As for what was wrong with the M-14 well... too expensive... too heavy and the recoil is just fucking awful on that fat bastard. Though it supposedly works beautifully as a sniper and semi-automatic battle rifle.

Worst gun? Desert Eagle, that thing is horrifically impracticable. Too heavy, nasty recoil, the bullets are too big and it has a horribly limited magazine capacity.

i was referencing the original m16, but currently it is probably far from an exemplary military rifle, else why are they replacing it with the ACR? as for the m14, the semi auto battle rifle is what it was designed for, punch big holes in your targets. the auto setting was just for suppressing fire on the occaision that you didnt have an LMG available

There are no official plans to replace the M-16 and M-4 series of rifles. Competitions have been held but no replacement has ever been chosen and the United States military hasn't even placed any orders for the ACR as far as I am aware (someone has been playing too much MW2 it seems). The M-16 does its job very well and the M-4 does its job pretty well(There have been reports of reduced stopping power on the M-4 but it still kills people). They are considered very good weapons by the people who are actually familiar with them. The M-14 was designed as you said to deliver accurate shots with full auto being used for suppressing actions but the problem with that is that almost All fire in a combat scenario is suppressing fire. The ammunition is too heavy for what it would be used for and so a new weapon was designed using a round that was better suited for the majority of small arms use in a warzone. The M-14 just doesn't work as well for that purpose as the M-16 because the recoil is awful so it is very difficult to keep the volume of fire going where it is supposed to go and you will run out of bullets faster because you just can't carry enough to maintain the fire that you need to maintain.


EDIT: Also in response to some of your earlier comments the M-14 does not come standard with a pistol grip. A Pistol grip is a grip that is separate from the stock and the M-14 only accepts one with heavy modification. The Ammunition for the M-14 may not sound much larger but there is a large difference.

Thats the 5.56 on the left with the 7.62 on the right and a 30-30 Winchester in the center. As you can see there is in fact a significant difference in size. The weight is also very different with the 7.62 weighing between 9 and 12 Grams and the 5.56 weighing about 4 grams. That may not seem like much but you are carrying hundreds of these things around and you can carry twice as many 5.56's as 7.62's. Are you starting to understand now?

Right but the 7.62 puts a man down in 1. Every. Single. Time. The 5.56 you need a center mass hit every single time. With a 7.62 you put a hole the size of a grapefruit in your target. The 5.56 may cause cavitation but remember the rule of center mass. All the cavitation in the world wont drop someone if it cant hit a vital and when the insurgents are hopped up on meth they wont even flinch when a 5.56 hits them.

That is why Soldiers are taught to aim for the center of mass which they hit with regularity and even if they do not there are still the other five guys in your squad firing three round bursts into the guy with the AK. You can not carry around enough ammo for the M-14 to stay competitive with the AK series in a volume of fire fight. The United States military would not continue using a weapon for 50 years if it did not work. Stopping power isn't everything if it was we would be issuing these things to our soldiers.

and this would be our sidearm.

The AK and the M14 shoot almost the same damn exact round, the difference is you can aim an M14 and the new M14 EBR is lighter and more accurate still.

 

[Starke]

As almost a random footnote, you can use the quote button multiple times per page to cue up multiple responses. It doesn't do as much for your post count, but it will keep the mods off your back for multi-posting (on those rare occasions when they care). *Returns to topic at hand.*

 

[DefunctTheory]

I dont know my rifles too well, and shotguns are generally all around pretty reliable. But as far as jamming, malfunctioning, misfiring, and being general shit. Your worst guns are probably either the american M16A1, or the Russian Makarovs. On the opposite end of the spectrum if your looking for a really good gun, few handguns are quite as prone to cracking and/or breaking as the Beretta M92. And anyone who's watched too many movies knows the Ak47 is still the best assault rifle ever made.

Fixed.

The M92 is the civilian version of the M9 (Or rather, the other way around), and for that very reason it should be spurned for having such a miserable spin off.

As for the AK-47, this board has had numerous discussions about the weapon. The standard Soviet AK-47 is absolute garbage, regardless of its firing rate or tendency to not jam. Modern version manufactured by better civilian fire arm companies have done much better, but have yet to fix the basic issue: The AK-47 is a loud weapon which is too loose to hit accurately after the first shot with miserable recoil.

And to top it all off, the ammunition sucks.

The AK and the M14 shoot almost the same damn exact round, the difference is you can aim an M14 and the new M14 EBR is lighter and more accurate still.

No. Oh god, no.

The 7.62 NATO round is a full sized, full powered rifle round. The Soviet 7.62x39mm is an intermediate round in the same family as the 5.56.

 

[JWAN]

What's with all the hate on the Desert Eagle? Sure the .50 cal AE version is totally pointless as a sidearm, but the gun comes in like two other flavors (.44 magnum and .357 magnum).

Worst firearm in modern history: The M16/M4 and it's variants (not including the HK M416/417). Probably caused the deaths of more Americans than any firearm the enemy (if your in the US) ever used. Indirectly of course, but a jammed gun might as well be a bullet to the face.

And i'm also a little confused as to the hate on the XM8. The thing beat out all the other rifles in the US trials. That is to say, it beat the FN SCAR, Colt M4, and HK M416. Personally, I'd rather have a rifle that jams once every 10,000 rounds that one that jams ever time it see a speck of dirt or sand. (unless the issue is the NATO 5.56mm round, which is shit.)

Update your rifle knowledge. The M16 and the M4 have been upgraded substantially and are absolutely fine for being around for 30 years. The only real issue now is that the 5.56 is just too small to have put down power. Sure if you get a center mass hit the hydrostatic shock is strong enough to cause cavitation and damage organs but I;d rather blow them over with a 12 gauge deer slug or a .308. Either one of those can kill even if it hits you in a limb.

Yes, yes, it's true the M family has gotten some upgrades, but the fact that they STILL jam so frequently is the issue. Last year, a Marine way station was hit by insurgents in Afghanistan. over 50% Marines stationed there were wounded or killed when their rifles (M4s) jammed. And it isn't a matter of poor maintenance, they're Marines. They take care of their weapons. M4s are good to about six thousand rounds. Six thousand rounds isn't much when you are have to train in marksmanship with you rifle. Then add in sand and dirt and you have a mess. The M series rifles are obsolete. They need to be replaced with rifles that don't fire the NATO 5.56 round and don't jam after so few rounds are fired thru them. And that makes them one of the worse modern firearms.

I know the Marines, there my boys, I'm training to become one and LEAD them. But also remember that the Marines always get equipment that's been used or its been in storage for years. I also agree that they need to be replaced but they are still by no means the worst.

Maybe not the worst EVER. Definitely the worst the US military was ever issued. Give our boys some M14s or maybe the HK M417 (it's in NATO 7.62mm like the M14). The fact that you can't drop someone (that is to say you can't knock them down) with an M4 leads me to believe it is inadequate for it's job. The largest thing i'd shoot with a .223/5.56mm round is like a deer. MAYBE. If i had to go into combat, id want a full rifle round or maybe something like the 6.5mm round made my Alexander Arms. That's why i hold the M16 in such low regard. I suppose it'd be cool to plink around with, even if it is expensive.

I agree I think we need to look at the new M14 EBR or look at the 6.8 because that does cause WAY more HS (hydrostatic shock) and it has less of a chance of going through and wounding civilians.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

That a Boys ATR?

 

[Starke]

I dont know my rifles too well, and shotguns are generally all around pretty reliable. But as far as jamming, malfunctioning, misfiring, and being general shit. Your worst guns are probably either the american M16A1, or the Russian Makarovs. On the opposite end of the spectrum if your looking for a really good gun, few handguns are quite as prone to cracking and/or breaking as the Beretta M92. And anyone who's watched too many movies knows the Ak47 is still the best assault rifle ever made.

Fixed.

The M92 is the civilian version of the M9 (Or rather, the other way around), and for that very reason it should be spurned for having such a miserable spin off.

As for the AK-47, this board has had numerous discussions about the weapon. The standard Soviet AK-47 is absolute garbage, regardless of its firing rate or tendency to not jam. Modern version manufactured by better civilian fire arm companies have done much better, but have yet to fix the basic issue: The AK-47 is a loud weapon which is too loose to hit accurately after the first shot with miserable recoil.

And to top it all off, the ammunition sucks.

I still maintain a pretty vocal hatred of the M9 because of their habit of throwing shell casings all over the map. Including into my face when I actually needed to use the damn thing. (Strictly speaking it was one of the M9 knockoffs, but even the branded Beretta 92s do the same thing in my experience).

As for functional iterations of the 47's design, from what I'm told the SIG 550 actually falls into this category more or less, while being a top notch assault weapon.

Finally, and for the second mention in this thread, no thoughts on the Vektor CP1 being "the worst" for its habit of randomly discharging?

 

[Ell Jay]

The one that shoots you?

 

[Contun]

Spoiler: this.

It has the accumulative amount of zero kills

I'm not too sure about that...


Nice headshot right there...