What's the worst gun?

[Capt. Crankypants]

I don't know about the least practical gun, but I've always said that this is the worst looking gun ever made.

Spoiler: My eyes!

can't that gun function while being submerged completely in water? making it very practical...

that looks like a modded AK

That's a specially designed Russian rifle which fires modified, needle-like projectiles of about 12cm length, and yes, it is based on the AK, but it's --ONLY-- meant to be discharged underwater. It's a submersible firearm for russian special forces, where it functions very well, however, repeated discharging in atmosphere will wreck it, as well as only having an effective range (out of water) of a few tens of meters.

 

[II2]

Cheers, thanks for your thoughts, guys.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The "worst" gun is simply any object that could not reasonably propel a projectile with sufficient velocity to cause damage. Just take something large enough and you'll find it makes a poor "gun". Anything with mass (or the ability to exert a force on another object) can technically qualify as a gun per the above, but it becomes unreasonably difficult to use in such a fashion.

If I instead interpreted the question a different way, I would have to say that the question is impossible to answer. Very generally, the further back one goes in history, the worse the firearms. Sure there are weapons that have one or more failures associated with them, but what does that prove? The M-60 for example is based on the MG-42. While the latter is often considered one of the finest weapons in the history of warfare, the former struggled under a laundry list of fatal flaws for decades before being replaced by most military forces. The failures one finds are, as often as not, simply a failure to fulfil the intended role of the weapon. Most manufactured weapons are quite capable of being lethal in the right hands an circumstance.

To that end, I'd suspect that the "worst" gun would be any of the countless examples of home-made versions. The Potato cannon, for example, could certainly be used to inflict damage on something but the bulk, rate of fire very low rate of fire and other issues ensure that it would be an inferior weapon in most any circumstance.

 

[DefunctTheory]

The "worst" gun is simply any object that could not reasonably propel a projectile with sufficient velocity to cause damage. Just take something large enough and you'll find it makes a poor "gun". Anything with mass (or the ability to exert a force on another object) can technically qualify as a gun per the above, but it becomes unreasonably difficult to use in such a fashion.

If I instead interpreted the question a different way, I would have to say that the question is impossible to answer. Very generally, the further back one goes in history, the worse the firearms. Sure there are weapons that have one or more failures associated with them, but what does that prove? The M-60 for example is based on the MG-42. While the latter is often considered one of the finest weapons in the history of warfare, the former struggled under a laundry list of fatal flaws for decades before being replaced by most military forces. The failures one finds are, as often as not, simply a failure to fulfil the intended role of the weapon. Most manufactured weapons are quite capable of being lethal in the right hands an circumstance.

To that end, I'd suspect that the "worst" gun would be any of the countless examples of home-made versions. The Potato cannon, for example, could certainly be used to inflict damage on something but the bulk, rate of fire very low rate of fire and other issues ensure that it would be an inferior weapon in most any circumstance.

You're just trying to be difficult.

Let me rephrase, so you can actually answer the question as intended: What would you view to be the worst fire arm produced, in bulk, from a weapons manufacturer, taking into account the time period it was produced, and what role it was designed to fill? Limit your answers to the mid 1800s and up, please.

 

[joshuaayt]

The. Fucking. Klobb.
I always found myself stuck using it, against lasers and other, better things.
Wait, real guns? Why on Earth would I know?

 

[Sacman]

I don't know about the least practical gun, but I've always said that this is the worst looking gun ever made.

Spoiler: My eyes!

can't that gun function while being submerged completely in water? making it very practical...

that looks like a modded AK

it's not it's an APS Amphibious Rifle...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APS_amphibious_rifle
Okay it's modded from an AK but whatever...

 

[captaincabbage]

Spoiler: This thing

I mean, nobody's ever shot it twice, must be terrible.

I beg to differ

It doesn't even shoot bullets
(I was in fourth grade when I first saw it)

I honestly don't know what I'm seeing, but I'm pretty sure it should be in a special school.

 

[Starke]

- 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?)

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

For the random and babbling record: 5.56mm chambered AK-74s do exist, and pop up from time to time. However, they are, to the best of my knowledge, quite rare.

I'm uncertain if this was a separate production variant with the intent for use in situations where scavenging NATO munitions was expected as part of mission parameters, or if these weapons have been modified by a gunsmith.

 

[IamQ]

I don't know that much about it, but wasn't one of the larger issues with the XM8 rifle that it's barrel melted if fired too long?

 

[Starke]

I don't know that much about it, but wasn't one of the larger issues with the XM8 rifle that it's barrel melted if fired too long?

Maybe. I'm unsure, but I vaguely remember this was an issue with one candidate rifles in the XM8 trials. There was also a water cooled medium machine gun from WWI that had the exact same issue, and would ship with a pair of heavy gloves and an extra barrel to facilitate replacing the barrel in the field to prevent overheating.

 

[DefunctTheory]

- 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?)

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

For the random and babbling record: 5.56mm chambered AK-74s do exist, and pop up from time to time. However, they are, to the best of my knowledge, quite rare.

I'm uncertain if this was a separate production variant with the intent for use in situations where scavenging NATO munitions was expected as part of mission parameters, or if these weapons have been modified by a gunsmith.

You're actually referring to the AK-101/102 family of weapons. They are nothing more than AK-74's chambered for 5.56 though, so you're still right.

They were designed for export only. Basically, a cash grab aimed at NATO countries.

 

[chainer1216]

yeah... Desert Eagle, fucking terrible.

 

[Starke]

What I want to know is why everyone is saying the Deagle is the worst gun. Sure, it's impractical as hell and overhyped. But even the weakest round in that thing will put someone flat on their ass in one hit, and they're reliable. I'd rather have a Deagle over a Chauchet.

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?

Yup. Colossal piece of shit those things.


Yet I wouldn't mind having one, if only to say I have one. I'd never try to shoot it though, that'd just be an exercise in futility.

I'm told that if you retool them to some kind of functional consistency and keep them clean they can be fired... sometimes... Of course if I was looking for weird French guns the Lamat would be far higher on my list of preferences.

 

[Zykmiester]

FAMAS

 

[Booze Zombie]

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.

It's a good gun... in fiction.
Also, you've pretty much said what I was going to say... I feel hollow.

 

[Starke]

H&K G11?

 

[Ze_Reaper_Of_Zeath]

The Desert Eagle. I can't think of any functional use for it. Sure it is awesome and has an intimidation factor, but as a weapon it defies all reasons for using a handgun in the first place.

I agree, Desert Eagle is only the "fear/intimidation" factor, nothing more to it.

Quite a bad handgun.

 

[Wadders]

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.

Yeah grenades are dangerous to the user, but the people who use them are pros, trained in their use.

Have you ever used a shotgun? or is your knowledge of them gleaned entirely from CoD? In that game they are useless, but in real life with the correct ammunition and chokes they are capable of shooting a lot further than that. Mine certainly is, and thats just a basic over/under.

I've used a shotgun, I took liberties with the range. Not all grenades are used by professionals. You'd be surprised at what gang members get their hands on. And yea, I know shotguns are decent weapons, but they're still very situational. Even the S.C.A.R. Shotgun is unreliable when attempting to get a wound/kill. Hunting slugs are different from regular shotgun shells. They have less of a spread. There's a reason shotguns are called "room sweepers." Large area of effect, not a lot of aiming.

That being said, if you're looking for a very good weapon, you can't do much better than the M-16 or M-15

Hmm yeah, good call with the grenades being used by gang members, I didnt realise that

While I agree shotguns are situational, they are very effective at what they do within those situations. Door breaching, Close Quarters Combat, less-than-lethal ammo for riot control and their size and noise are also rather intimidating. Shotguns excell at these kinda things, and thats just military and police usage. In fact, recently militaries have been testing ammunition such as the Frag-12, which allows what is basically a mini grenade to be fired from any shotgun, dramatically increasing a soldiers firepower without him having to lug a grenade launcher around.

For civilians, given the right cartridges depending on what youre shooting at (birdshot, buckshot, rifled slugs) you can hunt anything from cute ickle rabbits to big game. The amount of different types of shotgun ammunition is pretty staggering.

Also, what is the SCAR shotgun? Do you mean undermounted shotguns like the KAC Masterkey? Because I believe the primary funtion of those weapons is not to wound/ kill, but for door breaching. Hence the name "masterkey". Being undermounted, the soldier dont need to waste waste space carrying a full size shotgun, and it can be easily switched to as and when it is needed.

 

[DazBurger]

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

I hope not, as we are talking about why the M16 replaced the M14, whick happened in 1962-1965.

The M14 EBR first hit the drawing-board in 2000 and entered service in 2004.

 

[Kermi]

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.

The Desert Eagle is a piece of crap in MW2. If anyone is obsessed with the Deagle it stems from playing older PC games like Counter-Strike or Soldier of Fortune (in SoF the Desert Eagle had enough power to blow off limbs and explode heads, making it a mainstay for the majority of the game), and a lot of people only use the gun because it the gaming community has an overrated opinion of it thanks to games like that.