What's the worst gun?

[JWAN]

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EDIT: Looking to see if this TM has been superseded.

Im pretty sure they use slugs, I know the door breaching rounds are specially made for that job and those use a pellet. Well I could be wrong about slugs then but they still put on a restrictive choke enough that it would carry beyond the "9 meters" the first guy said. I know my 12 gauge with a full choke will make a tight pattern at 50 feet. I would just check with my uncle but that wouldn't do the sake of argument any good . I know my dads gunnery sgt used a mossberg 500 with slugs but that was back in the day.

 

[archvile93]

I only know from games, but wasn't the Browning HiPower kind of crappy?

The gun used by both sides in world war 2 and that the SAS would continue to use for 60 years or so? No.

M60 and M16 were both very useless in Vietnam , certainly contributing to America's eventual loss.

Also a lot of people hold the M1 Garand in to high a regard, fairly average in terms of accurracy and clip size with the added advantage of semi-automatic fire. However every time a clip was emptied it would spring from the gun and make a huge audible *TING* noise letting everyone know you're out of ammo, and that's the kind of thing that would get soldiers killed.

In the midst of combat you'd never hear that "ting." Even if you could, it would still be suicidal to rush the reloading soldier since that would require breaking cover with all his buddies pointing guns it you. It was considered so great since it was semi automatic which was a huge plus compared to the bolt action rifles at the time, it's ease of use, and reliability. In fact, the weapon was so reliable that there are reports of the weapon freezing. They work perfectly after thawing by means of urination.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

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.

The 6.8 is a wonderful round, but very few manufacturers support it.

But oh God... if the Army handed me a Barrett REC7... /shiver

 

[Starke]

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.

I thought the Soviet intermediate was the 5.45mm round?

 

[WolfThomas]

Actually, they mass produced the weapon, but never actually delivered them as intended.
Most of them were used after WW2 ended, primarily around Asia.

I thought they got dropped to Chinese and Philippenes based resistance during the war, I know they were barely used in Europe. But my point still stands is that they furfill their purpose correctly.

Now if they were being issued to police officers or actual soliders it would be ridiculous.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Spoiler

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.

Im pretty sure they use slugs, I know the door breaching rounds are specially made for that job and those use a pellet. Well I could be wrong about slugs then but they still put on a restrictive choke enough that it would carry beyond the "9 meters" the first guy said. I know my 12 gauge with a full choke will make a tight pattern at 50 feet. I would just check with my uncle but that wouldn't do the sake of argument any good . I know my dads gunnery sgt used a mossberg 500 with slugs but that was back in the day.

Interesting note: Key masters actually contain metallic dust, not pellets. This way, they destroy hinges, but dissipate a few feet later, reducing the risk or ricochet.

Very few people seem to know that, so this is less arguing and more 'Fun Facts.'

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.

I thought the Soviet intermediate was the 5.45mm round?

They both are intermediate.

 

[JWAN]

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.

the difference I find is that the NATO 7.62x51 holds more powder in a longer case. Based on the class of rifle cartridge its MORE than being necked different but its not a VAST difference. But if you've worked with both Ill give you the edge then, Ive worked with the 7.62x51 and Ive found that it gives a kick but then again I shoot 10 gauge shotguns alot. I havent been exposed enough to make a fair assessment.

 

[JWAN]

Spoiler

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.

The 6.8 is a wonderful round, but very few manufacturers support it.

But oh God... if the Army handed me a Barrett REC7... /shiver

Its fairly new isnt it? (edit* the round)

btw isn't it nice having a gun discussion without a bunch of damn whiny hippies break in and ruin the discussion?

 

[RUINER ACTUAL]

In MW2 the weakest weapon is the Vector. It's the same caliber as the UMP but has half the power. Riddle me that one. I still use it. It's definetly one of my top 3 weapons. I'm not a n00b, I use the difficult/fun weapons that no one else seems to really use.

 

[JWAN]

AND IN CONCLUSION
lol

The M16 was not, nor will ever be the wost rifle.
Because the french stole all the votes with the chauchat

 

[Chewster]

The Klobb. 'Nuff said.

 

[Skorpyo]

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.

To start off, I've never played MW2.

Okay, with that said...

The .357 version of the D.E. is actually decent. It is quite accurate and holds many (12, I think) rounds. Maybe a bit over-powered for self-protection, but it is useful for competition shooting, or protection while out hunting.

Unfortunately, most people think of the .44 magnum or .50 A.E. when the gun comes up in conversation. Those are only practical in Alaska.

 

[Starke]

The Chauchet gets my vote. If you got three rounds off before that thing jammed you were doing good.

Is that the LMG from WWI, with the cutaway mag with oiled rounds? The one that was machined so poorly that their components weren't cross compatible with other copies of the same gun?

 

[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.

To start off, I've never played MW2.

Okay, with that said...

The .357 version of the D.E. is actually decent. It is quite accurate and holds many (12, I think) rounds. Maybe a bit over-powered for self-protection, but it is useful for competition shooting, or protection while out hunting.

Unfortunately, most people think of the .44 magnum or .50 A.E. when the gun comes up in conversation. Those are only practical in Alaska.

I thought the .357 was a 9 round magazine.

The Eagle is a very attractive gun, aesthetically, but at, what? 4 lbs loaded? It's really got no place. As far as I can remember there isn't much you can do with it that a Glock 33 can't do better.

 

[WolfThomas]

pretty much. i also dont like the heavy machine gun the japanese used in WW2

Any reason why?

Are we talking about the Type 99? The one based of the Bren gun, probably one of the best machine guns ever made, used up to the Falklands war by the UK (and ocaisonally after) and still used by India today.

The only criticism of the Bren gun is that it was too accurate, it wouldn't spread fire out as much when using it to supress or target large groups. But this was fixed using worn out barrels and other modifications.

Though the Type99 may be a far poorer copy, I haven't read much about it.

 

[Canid117]

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.

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

The AK 47 bullet is significantly shorter and so weighs less. Not to mention the soviet union changed over to a more M-16 like round with the AK-74. At the end of the day a smaller round has shown to be more effective for various reasons. (Mostly economic and efficiency related.) At the end of the day the M-14 is a piece of shit on full auto. Too light to fire accurate sustained bursts but too heavy for refitting with a lighter round. Have you seriously never heard of the term recoil? The BAR worked because it was heavy enough to fire a big bullet without destroying the users accuracy. The M-14 does not have that advantage and so destroys any chance of maintaining fire on a position for suppression work. A cheap as shit Ak-47 can at least keep the bullets falling within ten feet of the enemies cover after the first round is fired. Research your point before making an argument.

 

[herpaderphurr]

The original M-16 was pretty terrible, although its full crappiness encompassed both design flaws and improper training.

Stuff

The M-14, a battle rifle, isn't designed for suppression fire. The fully automatic function was next to useless, because of the recoil.

 

[II2]

snip

snip

I've been doing my best to follow both of your stances on the subject of caliber and ideal armament - you both seem to have well thought out points of view. If you're willing to entertain a question or two from an interested layman, I was wondering:

- Rather than kiting everyone out with M14's in lieu of M16's... would a better compromise (on the part of military buyers) be to look at a modernized, automatic 7.62 NATO caliber battle rifle like the G3 or FN Fal? Following this train of thought it seems that both H&K and FN Herstal have accommodated this approach in the modular designs of the HK416 and SCAR respectively? My understanding was that it is *comparatively* very easy to swap parts and rechamber the weapon (correct me if I'm using the wrong terminology).

- Despite the early success of the AK 47, didn't the Soviet Union's military industry change the main line of production to the AK 74, chambered for the 5.56 round (despite the reluctance of Kalashnikov himself?)

- As for light machine guns, wouldn't a lighter cartridge be preferable in most situations due to it's high cyclic firing rate and use as a suppression weapon?

For the record, I don't claim to be in the "know"... but I want to learn.

 

[DefunctTheory]

snip

snip

I've been doing my best to follow both of your stances on the subject of caliber and ideal armament - you both seem to have well thought out points of view. If you're willing to entertain a question or two from an interested layman, I was wondering:

- Rather than kiting everyone out with M14's in lieu of M16's... would a better compromise (on the part of military buyers) be to look at a modernized, automatic 7.62 NATO caliber battle rifle like the G3 or FN Fal? Following this train of thought it seems that both H&K and FN Herstal have accommodated this approach in the modular designs of the HK416 and SCAR respectively? My understanding was that it is *comparatively* very easy to swap parts and rechamber the weapon (correct me if I'm using the wrong terminology).

- Despite the early success of the AK 47, didn't the Soviet Union's military industry change the main line of production to the AK 74, chambered for the 5.56 round (despite the reluctance of Kalashnikov himself?)

- As for light machine guns, wouldn't a lighter cartridge be preferable in most situations due to it's high cyclic firing rate and use as a suppression weapon?

For the record, I don't claim to be in the "know"... but I want to learn.

Point 1: Battle Rifles have been on the decline for decades. Though its looking up for the old BR: the US Army is entertaining the idea of increasing the number of M21s used. The M21 is a modified M14, modernized and turned into a sniper weapon. If the Army goes through with the idea, every squad would have one of these weapons, to be used in a fashion as you describe (Kinda).

As for BRs becoming a primary weapon again? No. The average soldier does not need more firepower, he needs more staying power, and lighter ammo provides that.

Point 2: The AK-74 is chamber for 5.45mm ammunition.

Point 3: Yes. Hence the rise of the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, a belt fed, shoulder fired, air cooled wonder that makes me feel all giggly inside. Though a higher cyclic rate is often undesirable. Most machine guns actually have regulators installed that retard the cyclic rate.

 

[Canid117]

The original M-16 was pretty terrible, although its full crappiness encompassed both design flaws and improper training.

Stuff

The M-14, a battle rifle, isn't designed for suppression fire. The fully automatic function was next to useless, because of the recoil.

And a vast majority of weapons fire in a warzone is meant to suppress the enemy.

snip

snip

I've been doing my best to follow both of your stances on the subject of caliber and ideal armament - you both seem to have well thought out points of view. If you're willing to entertain a question or two from an interested layman, I was wondering:

- Rather than kiting everyone out with M14's in lieu of M16's... would a better compromise (on the part of military buyers) be to look at a modernized, automatic 7.62 NATO caliber battle rifle like the G3 or FN Fal? Following this train of thought it seems that both H&K and FN Herstal have accommodated this approach in the modular designs of the HK416 and SCAR respectively? My understanding was that it is *comparatively* very easy to swap parts and rechamber the weapon (correct me if I'm using the wrong terminology).

- Despite the early success of the AK 47, didn't the Soviet Union's military industry change the main line of production to the AK 74, chambered for the 5.56 round (despite the reluctance of Kalashnikov himself?)

- As for light machine guns, wouldn't a lighter cartridge be preferable in most situations due to it's high cyclic firing rate and use as a suppression weapon?

For the record, I don't claim to be in the "know"... but I want to learn.

All battle rifles have the same problem that the M-14 had which is that they have nasty recoil on automatic modes. So simply switching over to the G3 and FAL (which are considered dated now anyway) would not really solve the problem. That said a battle rifle can theoretically work if distributed alongside assault rifles but having a single bullet is much easier on logistics than having three bullets used by everyone. Rechambering also takes a few minutes which is often valuable time you could be using to shoot at or outmaneuver the enemy. Lighter bullets means that you have less recoil, greater accuracy and your troops can carry more ammo. Which is why the soviets switched over to a more M-16 like round with the AK-74. The Most military's use light machine guns that fire the same round as their assault rifles (sometimes even simply converting the assault rifle into a light machine gun) for logistics purposes and reduced recoil.