What's the worst gun?

[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.

 

[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.