What's the worst gun?

[chris11246]

Spoiler: this.

It has the accumulative amount of zero kills

Spoiler: I believe somebody would disagree with you

 

[Pyro Paul]

Ok first off anyone who put the AK 47 or M1 gerand down as the worst rifles never fired them or only fired a cheap version when speaking of the AK 47.Another thing for all you Halo/MW2 players FULL AUTO IS NOT HOW YOU SHOULD FIRE A RIFLE!

OT: M 16 any generation all i can say is i want a rifle that was designed to kill not maim.

the AK-47 is the cheap version.
it is a cheap gun

even the AKMs suffer problems of unruley kick, flexing, and weak round. and they even buffed up the frame to handle it better. the weapon is taxing to fire for prolonged periods of time, its recoil pulls you off to the right and makes it hard to line up subsquent single shots. and i am not a fan of its open sites which is very easy to lose in shooting. the off center bolt really doesn't help either.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

This is a problem with most any air cooled machine gun you care to name. One can RUIN an M249 barrel if they simply burn through an entire box in a single burst. People often think about the maximum cycle rate of a machine gun when considering rate of fire, but the more useful number is it's maximum sustained rate of fire. If one cannot sustain more than say 60 or 90 rounds per minute until the ammunition is gone, then the weapon really doesn't have a place in an infantry unit as a rifleman can deliver 20 - 30 AIMED shots per minute.

This can be exacerbated if the weapon's barrel cannot readily be swapped. Most purpose built machine guns have the capacity to quickly replace a barrel in combat in order to facilitate a higher rate of sustained fire. During gaps in fire, the riflemen are expected to increase their own rate of fire to compensate for the machine gun's down time.

 

[Atmos Duality]

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.

Either way, the weapon was largely worthless since you were betting it all on one shot, and even that wasn't guaranteed.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Wait so hold on you two, the Desert Eagle is a crappy gun in real life or is it just not as bad ass as videogames make it seem?
Don't chew me out for comparing it to a videogame please just answer the question.

It's heavy, doesn't penetrate all that much, kicks like a ***** and did I mention it's heavy? Like, it'd be easier to just use a revolver or a sub-machine gun.

 

[Duskwaith]

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

There is a saying in the armed forces of many countries. "Always remember that your gun was made by the lowest bidder!"

I can speak from personal experience and say that the SA-80 the average British Army soldier gets (as well as other-ground based units of the Navy and RAF) is a pile of wank. I've fired one a few times and can see why it was called the "Airfix Rifle". When I was at a weekend camp at Proteus in Ollerton (it's now closed and until recently was a fucking sweet airsoft skirmish site) with the ATC I recall seeing a sign by the discharge pit. It spoke of the SLR and the SA-80 (as both were in use at the time) and while the instructions were clear and to the point for the SLR, the SA-80's had an additional caveat that had the soldier check to make sure the mag wasn't about to fall out.

No wonder the SAS don't use it, instead preferring the M-16A2 (with M203 grenade launchers in many cases) or the Canadian equivalent, the C5.

The Beretta M92 had it's issues in the beginning but they got it sorted and it remains my favourite handgun of all.

Wardy

The SAS did use it but there was a mission in the first gulf war where an entire recon squad's SA-80's jammed, every last one, in the middle of firefights leading to their capture.

 

[ssgt splatter]

Wait so hold on you two, the Desert Eagle is a crappy gun in real life or is it just not as bad ass as videogames make it seem?
Don't chew me out for comparing it to a videogame please just answer the question.

It's heavy, doesn't penetrate all that much, kicks like a ***** and did I mention it's heavy? Like, it'd be easier to just use a revolver or a sub-machine gun.

Oh.
So the only thing it has going for it is that it looks like it could tear you head off.
After all the picture that keifer posted is pretty cool looking.

 

[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.

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

Wait so hold on you two, the Desert Eagle is a crappy gun in real life or is it just not as bad ass as videogames make it seem?
Don't chew me out for comparing it to a videogame please just answer the question.

In real life it is unreasonably heavy, has an absurdly low magazine size (for the weight), and has a floating mag.

The first actually helps some with recoil (I guess), but, beyond that, it's still a 1.7kg handgun.

To the second, you're hauling around ~ twice the weight of standard handgun to spit out 7 - 9 rounds of ammo.

A floating magazine is one that isn't securely held in place. I'm sure there's some circumstance where this is desirable, I just have no clue what that situation would be, and what this means for the DE is, that unless you handle the weapon properly it WILL JAM when it attempts to cycle.

 

[David Eller]

 

[Starke]

More or less that's a Buntline special, and they actually do have their uses.

 

[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.

How many midrange ammunition types are they using??? Id be pissed if I had to fill out those acquisition forms.
My dad and uncle had a fairly high success rate with the M14 especially after they found out that the M16 was shit they went back to the supply Sergent and put in a request to get the M14's back. Its not going to give you walking fire but as far as being proned out with the bi pod you can still get suppressing fire.

Ive been shooting .308 round rifles for YEARS mind you. And there's no reason to get pissy.

By the way if were going to talk about the BAR and its original caliber the 30.06 and how its weight held it down, this is true but the M14 with a bipod is just a couple pounds lighter. The catch is the 7.62x51 has 20% LESS recoil meaning that the recoil will balance out the weight issue.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050925-israel-bullets.htm

They have to carry a lot of bullets and the M-14 is horribly suited for that task.

And you would think that the recoil wouldn't be that big a deal but the BAR weighed about 20 pounds and the M-14 weighs about 12 pounds. It is too light too fire full auto with anything resembling accuracy. The M-14 wasn't even based on the BAR it is essentially a highly modified M-1 Garand. Your dad and uncle were probably using the M-14 back when A) the M-16 was full auto instead of burst and they didn't have to pick up as much slack and B) When the M-16 actually had substantial jamming problems which were not the fault of the weapons design but something that the accountants were responsible for which were all fixed during the Vietnam war. The original M-16 was shit, the M-16A1 introduced a few years later fixed all the major problems and it has received continuous updates since then. It fills its role better than the M-14 would.

 

[Terminate421]

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.

Its a gun that doesn't shoot bullets, it just slaps with a plank.

In other words, it sucks.

Also its from the most inhuman and retarded TV show I remember growing up......

 

[ecoho]

Ok first off anyone who put the AK 47 or M1 gerand down as the worst rifles never fired them or only fired a cheap version when speaking of the AK 47.Another thing for all you Halo/MW2 players FULL AUTO IS NOT HOW YOU SHOULD FIRE A RIFLE!

OT: M 16 any generation all i can say is i want a rifle that was designed to kill not maim.

the AK-47 is the cheap version.
it is a cheap gun

even the AKMs suffer problems of unruley kick, flexing, and weak round. and they even buffed up the frame to handle it better. the weapon is taxing to fire for prolonged periods of time, its recoil pulls you off to the right and makes it hard to line up subsquent single shots. and i am not a fan of its open sites which is very easy to lose in shooting. the off center bolt really doesn't help either.

ok what is considered the AK 47 by most people is the one that was made near the end of the cold war by the USSR. This weapon is NOT an AK 47 this is a cheap peace of crap the real AK 47 was made in 1947 with stamped steel parts which is how the american and afgan ones are made. as to the sights IF youve been trained on the M 16 (which BTW has iron sights exactly like the AK 47) you can and will fire accuretly. Also its always nice to mention that the
AK-47 can use ANY asault rifle round makeing it extreemly versital. As to its kick and recoil its no worse then an M 16 unless your an idiot who has it on burts or full auto which is exactly what the military tells you NOT to do. You fire an asault rifle on a single round bases, full auto is only good for supressing fire and depleating ammo.

 

[Canid117]

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.

Its a gun that doesn't shoot bullets, it just slaps with a plank.

In other words, it sucks.

Also its from the most inhuman and retarded TV show I remember growing up......

You mean "Don't do what your parents say because an animated 12 year old brit in sunglasses says so!"

 

[Booze Zombie]

Oh.
So the only thing it has going for it is that it looks like it could tear you head off.
After all the picture that keifer posted is pretty cool looking.

It's a gun for showing off with and the head most likely to be torn off when using a gun like that is the user's.

 

[Pyro Paul]

Ok first off anyone who put the AK 47 or M1 gerand down as the worst rifles never fired them or only fired a cheap version when speaking of the AK 47.Another thing for all you Halo/MW2 players FULL AUTO IS NOT HOW YOU SHOULD FIRE A RIFLE!

OT: M 16 any generation all i can say is i want a rifle that was designed to kill not maim.

the AK-47 is the cheap version.
it is a cheap gun

even the AKMs suffer problems of unruley kick, flexing, and weak round. and they even buffed up the frame to handle it better. the weapon is taxing to fire for prolonged periods of time, its recoil pulls you off to the right and makes it hard to line up subsquent single shots. and i am not a fan of its open sites which is very easy to lose in shooting. the off center bolt really doesn't help either.

ok what is considered the AK 47 by most people is the one that was made near the end of the cold war by the USSR. This weapon is NOT an AK 47 this is a cheap peace of crap the real AK 47 was made in 1947 with stamped steel parts which is how the american and afgan ones are made. as to the sights IF youve been trained on the M 16 (which BTW has iron sights exactly like the AK 47) you can and will fire accuretly. Also its always nice to mention that the
AK-47 can use ANY asault rifle round makeing it extreemly versital. As to its kick and recoil its no worse then an M 16 unless your an idiot who has it on burts or full auto which is exactly what the military tells you NOT to do. You fire an asault rifle on a single round bases, full auto is only good for supressing fire and depleating ammo.

... you must have never picked up an AK in your life.

the AK-47 sites are located half way down the gun and are a raised ladder site.
the M-16 ironsites are located just above the reciever and are dialed in circle site.

that statement alone more or less proved you have no idea what you're talking about, but i'll continue to destroy your post any ways.

the AK-47 is a specific gun which holds the name AK-47. you have diffrent Productions of AK-47 based on the year and place of production but regardless all of these weapons are AK-47s. of course, you're not talking about that. you are confusing the AK-47 with the AK-74, the rifle adopted by the russian army during the 70s.

the AK-47 is chambered to fire the 7.62mm by 39mm round. it can not shoot any other round besides that one round. the 5.45mm x 39mm round does not seat properly and will not be struck by the firing pin resulting in the round not firing. the 5.56mm (NATO) and the 7.62mm (NATO) rounds are too large for the chamber (5.56mm is 45mm long, the 7.62mm is 51mm long) preventing in the chamber from closing completely. if you happened to pull the trigger with this round loaded it would explode in your hands. killing you.

now you can change out the reciever and like parts in order to make the weapon accept these rounds... but at that point it stops being an AK-47 and changes to a diffrent designation. for instance the AK-74 is machined to accept the 5.45mmX39mm round, the AK-101 is machined to accept the 5.56mmX45mm NATO rounds. and as to this date, i do not believe any AK (outside possibly the SVD and PKM) have been modified to accept 7.62mm NATO rounds at all.


as to the kick.
the bolt of the AK-47 is off centered, that is there is more weight on one side of the gun then the other. you can tell because the Iconic AK reciever. that giant chromed catch you pull to charge the gun... a single shot of this will pull it up and to the right. to further compound this, the AK-47 lacks any muzzle break which means the escaping gasses further push the gun in which ever direction it is going. even in single shot this gun gives you a kick.

 

[Starke]

Ok first off anyone who put the AK 47 or M1 gerand down as the worst rifles never fired them or only fired a cheap version when speaking of the AK 47.Another thing for all you Halo/MW2 players FULL AUTO IS NOT HOW YOU SHOULD FIRE A RIFLE!

OT: M 16 any generation all i can say is i want a rifle that was designed to kill not maim.

the AK-47 is the cheap version.
it is a cheap gun

even the AKMs suffer problems of unruley kick, flexing, and weak round. and they even buffed up the frame to handle it better. the weapon is taxing to fire for prolonged periods of time, its recoil pulls you off to the right and makes it hard to line up subsquent single shots. and i am not a fan of its open sites which is very easy to lose in shooting. the off center bolt really doesn't help either.

ok what is considered the AK 47 by most people is the one that was made near the end of the cold war by the USSR.

Honestly, what is considered an AK47 by most people is actually a family of firearms with (quite literally) dozens of different variants.

This weapon is NOT an AK 47 this is a cheap peace of crap the real AK 47 was made in 1947 with stamped steel parts which is how the american and afgan ones are made.

IIRC, I think you have this backwards. The AK47s were made with tooled parts and the AKMs were made from stamped steel. Though, if Paul says I have this backwards, I'll defer to him.

as to the sights IF youve been trained on the M 16 (which BTW has iron sights exactly like the AK 47) you can and will fire accuretly.

I have to ask. What the fuck are you talking about? The sights for the AK family of firearms are quite distinct, and off hand I can't think of another weapon that uses even a vaguely similar sight design. The rear sights, as Paul mentioned, are set above the forward hand grip, while the fore sight is in roughly the same position as the sight on an M16 (or for that matter most rifles). As I understand it the reason for this has to do with the scope. The scope that was designed to socket to AK47 mounts over the receiver, so the rear iron sight is out of the way while a scope is attached.

Also its always nice to mention that the
AK-47 can use ANY asault rifle round makeing it extreemly versital.

I'd like to see your hand after you test that out with the ammo from a Groza.

To be fair, the Soviet leadership did claim something to this effect. But that was really just propaganda. The AK47 family takes a wide range of ammo types, but an individual gun cannot fire multiple ammunition types without extensive internal modifications to convert the weapon to a new ammunition type.

As to its kick and recoil its no worse then an M 16 unless your an idiot who has it on burts or full auto which is exactly what the military tells you NOT to do.

Soviet military doctrine called for use of automatic fire, rather than selected fire. It's part of the reason why the AKs never implemented a burst fire system the way the NATO weapons eventually did.

You fire an asault rifle on a single round bases, full auto is only good for supressing fire and depleating ammo.

You fire an assault rifle on a single round basis very very rarely. Okay, I'm a weird fucker for preferring semi-auto fire with one, but, as we've mentioned, the AK47 was intended to be used exclusively as a full auto weapon.

and as to this date, i do not believe any AK (outside possibly the SVD and PKM) have been modified to accept 7.62mm NATO rounds at all.

For the record, the one concession I can give Ecoho, that the SVD is in fact a semiautomatic weapon. So that would be the one circumstance under which is his statement about using an AK47 in semi-auto would be accurate... then again, we're talking about a sniper platform, not an AK47.

There may be a NATO produced battle rifle, that uses 7.62 and is patterned off the AK's internals, but I'm unaware of it. (Though this would be a little like calling the SIG 550 an accurized AK101. (That is to say, not really the same thing at all.))

It's more designed as an experimentally overpowered device. Plus, it looks cool.

Otherwise, I say the Rocket Propelled Spud.
[sub]I suck at gun knowledge.[/sub]

You're still not a ninja... Okay, in all fairness you are onto something though. There was a pistol developed in the sixties that fires a self propelled gyro jet round. That's right. Jet propelled bullets. Good luck hitting anything, because once they lost stability the bullet could got ANYWHERE. It's also one of the few guns that was actually (mostly) non-lethal at point blank, but would kill you at far greater ranges.

 

[JWAN]

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.

How many midrange ammunition types are they using??? Id be pissed if I had to fill out those acquisition forms.
My dad and uncle had a fairly high success rate with the M14 especially after they found out that the M16 was shit they went back to the supply Sergent and put in a request to get the M14's back. Its not going to give you walking fire but as far as being proned out with the bi pod you can still get suppressing fire.

Ive been shooting .308 round rifles for YEARS mind you. And there's no reason to get pissy.

By the way if were going to talk about the BAR and its original caliber the 30.06 and how its weight held it down, this is true but the M14 with a bipod is just a couple pounds lighter. The catch is the 7.62x51 has 20% LESS recoil meaning that the recoil will balance out the weight issue.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050925-israel-bullets.htm

They have to carry a lot of bullets and the M-14 is horribly suited for that task.

And you would think that the recoil wouldn't be that big a deal but the BAR weighed about 20 pounds and the M-14 weighs about 12 pounds. It is too light too fire full auto with anything resembling accuracy. The M-14 wasn't even based on the BAR it is essentially a highly modified M-1 Garand. Your dad and uncle were probably using the M-14 back when A) the M-16 was full auto instead of burst and they didn't have to pick up as much slack and B) When the M-16 actually had substantial jamming problems which were not the fault of the weapons design but something that the accountants were responsible for which were all fixed during the Vietnam war. The original M-16 was shit, the M-16A1 introduced a few years later fixed all the major problems and it has received continuous updates since then. It fills its role better than the M-14 would.

depending on the version of the BAR your looking at, the 1918 model weighed in at 15 pounds. I was never claiming it was based on the BAR, I said it could fill the role of the BAR, although it was intended to fill the role of the M1 and bridge over into the BAR's territory, at the time it was conceived and then chosen its only other competitor was the AR-10. Well yea the M16 nowadays does because the rifle has been constantly updated it over the 40 years its been in service,you can still only pump through 6,000 - 6500 rounds of ammunition before it needs to go in for an overhaul. If you want to go that route I would suggest looking at the M-14 EBR that came out in 2004 as a special request by Navy seals wanting a larger punch. (Wikipedia shows the sniper version with an 18 inch barrel but you can modify it with a 10 in for close in or a 22in if you really want to go the distance) Besides you dont need to keep the enemys head down behind a wall when you can shoot through their cover or kill them with concrete shrapnel. Ive seen them punch through 2 cinder blocks and with armor piercing rounds go through 8 inches of solid concrete or 7mm of high strength steel (under 300 yards). The 5.56 at longer ranges was very effective because the round would pitch and yaw when it got inside a person but at shorter ranges it would sometimes just go right, straight through and it wouldn't necessarily kill the target with 1 or 3 shots (its the same reason why I dislike the 9mm)

 

[II2]

You would think that the recoil wouldn't be that big a deal but the BAR weighed about 20 pounds and the M-14 weighs about 12 pounds. It is too light too fire full auto with anything resembling accuracy. The M-14 wasn't even based on the BAR it is essentially a highly modified M-1 Garand. Your dad and uncle were probably using the M-14 back when A) the M-16 was full auto instead of burst and they didn't have to pick up as much slack and B) When the M-16 actually had substantial jamming problems which were not the fault of the weapons design but something that the accountants were responsible for which were all fixed during the Vietnam war. The original M-16 was shit, the M-16A1 introduced a few years later fixed all the major problems and it has received continuous updates since then. It fills its role better than the M-14 would.

Christ alive: 20 pounds? I've held and fired my friends .75 cal ball Brown Bess musket at 15 pounds and it's a very unwieldy gun. I suppose though that under the WW2 circumstances, the BAR would have been seen as a highly portable bridge between the M1 and Thompson versus the Browning M2 (or other mainstay BMGs?)

 

[JWAN]

You would think that the recoil wouldn't be that big a deal but the BAR weighed about 20 pounds and the M-14 weighs about 12 pounds. It is too light too fire full auto with anything resembling accuracy. The M-14 wasn't even based on the BAR it is essentially a highly modified M-1 Garand. Your dad and uncle were probably using the M-14 back when A) the M-16 was full auto instead of burst and they didn't have to pick up as much slack and B) When the M-16 actually had substantial jamming problems which were not the fault of the weapons design but something that the accountants were responsible for which were all fixed during the Vietnam war. The original M-16 was shit, the M-16A1 introduced a few years later fixed all the major problems and it has received continuous updates since then. It fills its role better than the M-14 would.

Christ alive: 20 pounds? I've held and fired my friends .75 cal ball Brown Bess musket at 15 pounds and it's a very unwieldy gun. I suppose though that under the WW2 circumstances, the BAR would have been seen as a highly portable bridge between the M1 and Thompson versus the Browning M2 (or other mainstay BMGs?)

Depends on the type the 1918 version that was given to the marines weighed in around 15 pounds. Its all about the accessories
lets not forget that it shot a 30.06 round, I love the BAR and the M1 but those can kick. I restore M1's for Veterans funerals and for war memorials. The bar I got to test fire because I did that work for them for free. I like it a lot because I ts literally history you can hold in your hands without some grumpy curator yelling at you. And they usually wouldnt drag an M2 it was usually a M1919 30.06 belt fed machenegun http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1919_Browning_machine_gun weighing in at a hair over 30 pounds. The 50 was used as a defensive weapon or mounted on something with a big damn engine lol