What's the worst gun?

[ssgt splatter]

Spoiler: This thing

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

You win.

 

[ssgt splatter]

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.

 

[brodie21]

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

very wrong in so many ways.
the fiber glass impregnated resin that consisted of the orginal M-16s as well as the polyimer/glass stocks of more modern m-16s don't shatter. acctually it is physically impossible to shatter these stocks under normal conditions short of running over the weapon with a tank.

further more, jamming only occured with the orginal system which lacked a chromed reciever and barrel as well as used a nitrate/nitroglicerine mixture which leaved a larger amount of residue in the barrel. when using the proper ammunition and a chromed reciever and barrel (M-16a2 and on) the weapon jams quiet infrequently. although it still notiably jams more often then other weapons (400-600 stoppages on the average test of 60,000 rounds) this is hardly of a level of concern (still less then 1%)

the only reason it became a standard american infantry Rifle is because it perfectly filled the position of a highly accurate full automatic rifle that could have a very tight spread and shot pattern on full automatic with low recoil, light ammo(to be carried in bulk), and the capability to provide supressive, volume, and point fire at the need of a squad.

the M-16 is a Professional rifle.

i am getting quite tired of repeating this, i was talking about the ORIGINAL m-16. you know, the one that had the reputation of jamming in the wet, muddy environments of Vietnam? also, the gas-operated system worked directly on the innards of the firing mechanism, thus creating a buildup of residue which caused the jamming as well. this buildup occurred between 100-200 rounds easily noticible on the practice range or when returning fire in a firefight. also, this was compounded by the decision not to chrome-plate the firing chamber of the production model.

 

[brodie21]

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

who the hell MELEES with a rifle? real life isn't halo dude, you stay far away from your enemy because chances are they have an MG nearby that will fill the air with more lead than a chinese factory.

ok, lets put it this way, you are a soldier in a building. there are bad guys trying to get you. one jumps out of a corner and tries to stab you with a bayonet. the original m-16 had a thin barrel and a light stock, so if you tried to whack his bayonet away chances are it would shatter. there have been known instances of he original m-16 bending when the soldier tightened the STRAP. im not twelve, i know what life is like, im just saying that chances are someone somewhere will have to beat someone with a rifle, and while lightness makes it easier to use, robustness is a great quality to have, just look at how well the m-1 did in world war two, from the cold of europe in the winter to the heat, mud and humidity of the south pacific.

 

[JWAN]

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.'

Well now I know what I can use to get into my dorm. I keep locking myself out.

 

[Pyro Paul]

the worst weapon would probably have to be the AK-47.
it is a peasent weapon in every sense.

it has great reliability, low maintence requirements, and is relitively cheap.
however it is also highly inaccurate, kicks like a mule, flexes with each shot, and fires a crap round that just fall out of the air and have a very hard time acctually killing anything it is lucky enough to hit.

 

[brodie21]

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

Fair enough.

And I suppose the M14 is pretty big, heavy, fairly useless when fired on automatic. Plus the 7.62mm rounds take up a lot of room compared to 5.56mm so you can carry less ammo. Also I think that the wooden stocks tended to warp in the jungle which a bad effect on the gun's acuracy.

Far be it from me to say, being neither an expert or a soldier, but the M14 is probably better off in it's current role...

as i have stated before, ( not in this or the quoted post) the m- 14 was based off the m-1, which was designed for accurate shooting when that was the name of the game in ww2, if wooden stocks did not warp in the jungles of the south pacific then why would they in vietnam? and as for ammo-i guess you have a point, but 7.62 rounds are not all that much bigger than 5.56, and the difference might be made up with the increased stopping power. all i was saying was that why did they switch over to something completely new and not stick to what worked? especially in the middle of the war

7.62 NATO rounds are much larger than 5.56. Weight wise, the 7.62 weighs twice as much as the 5.56 (9.7 grams to 4 grams) and is almost 40% longer (71.1 mm to 57.4 mm). To have a 210 round load out (Standard on person round count), 7.62 would weigh 4.49 pounds (Magazineless), and a 5.56 load out would weigh 1.85 rounds.

When you start thinking about how much ammo you'd have to take on extended scouting, roaming foot patrols, wandering the jungle, etc, you start to wonder: Do I want bigger, heavier ammo, or a shit load of ammo?

7.62 looks even worse when you start talking about light machine guns, too.

fair enough, i would want more ammo.

 

[JWAN]

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.*

Man ive tried that and always ended up screwing it up. But thanks for the reminder.

 

[Pyro Paul]

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

very wrong in so many ways.
the fiber glass impregnated resin that consisted of the orginal M-16s as well as the polyimer/glass stocks of more modern m-16s don't shatter. acctually it is physically impossible to shatter these stocks under normal conditions short of running over the weapon with a tank.

further more, jamming only occured with the orginal system which lacked a chromed reciever and barrel as well as used a nitrate/nitroglicerine mixture which leaved a larger amount of residue in the barrel. when using the proper ammunition and a chromed reciever and barrel (M-16a2 and on) the weapon jams quiet infrequently. although it still notiably jams more often then other weapons (400-600 stoppages on the average test of 60,000 rounds) this is hardly of a level of concern (still less then 1%)

the only reason it became a standard american infantry Rifle is because it perfectly filled the position of a highly accurate full automatic rifle that could have a very tight spread and shot pattern on full automatic with low recoil, light ammo(to be carried in bulk), and the capability to provide supressive, volume, and point fire at the need of a squad.

the M-16 is a Professional rifle.

i am getting quite tired of repeating this, i was talking about the ORIGINAL m-16. you know, the one that had the reputation of jamming in the wet, muddy environments of Vietnam? also, the gas-operated system worked directly on the innards of the firing mechanism, thus creating a buildup of residue which caused the jamming as well. this buildup occurred between 100-200 rounds easily noticible on the practice range or when returning fire in a firefight. also, this was compounded by the decision not to chrome-plate the firing chamber of the production model.

and i am telling you that impregnated fiberglass resin does not 'shatter'. with force applied it bends because it is still a relitively weak plastic resin (by plastic standards) however if you apply enough force to break it the fiberglass resin 'tears' more then shatters. and the only way really to achieve this is to home-run swing the rifle and hit a concrete wall.

butt strokes with even the orginal M-16 do not 'shatter' the butt stock.

and again, the orginal M-16 jammed because the army decided to cut corners and buy the cheap ammunition. you know the one that produced nearly 10 times the amount of carbon build up but was 2 times cheaper? most of the stopages of the orginal M-16 was linked primarly due to the ammunition that the average soldier was supplied with and not because of the gun at all.

 

[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.

 

[brodie21]

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

very wrong in so many ways.
the fiber glass impregnated resin that consisted of the orginal M-16s as well as the polyimer/glass stocks of more modern m-16s don't shatter. acctually it is physically impossible to shatter these stocks under normal conditions short of running over the weapon with a tank.

further more, jamming only occured with the orginal system which lacked a chromed reciever and barrel as well as used a nitrate/nitroglicerine mixture which leaved a larger amount of residue in the barrel. when using the proper ammunition and a chromed reciever and barrel (M-16a2 and on) the weapon jams quiet infrequently. although it still notiably jams more often then other weapons (400-600 stoppages on the average test of 60,000 rounds) this is hardly of a level of concern (still less then 1%)

the only reason it became a standard american infantry Rifle is because it perfectly filled the position of a highly accurate full automatic rifle that could have a very tight spread and shot pattern on full automatic with low recoil, light ammo(to be carried in bulk), and the capability to provide supressive, volume, and point fire at the need of a squad.

the M-16 is a Professional rifle.

i am getting quite tired of repeating this, i was talking about the ORIGINAL m-16. you know, the one that had the reputation of jamming in the wet, muddy environments of Vietnam? also, the gas-operated system worked directly on the innards of the firing mechanism, thus creating a buildup of residue which caused the jamming as well. this buildup occurred between 100-200 rounds easily noticible on the practice range or when returning fire in a firefight. also, this was compounded by the decision not to chrome-plate the firing chamber of the production model.

and i am telling you that impregnated fiberglass resin does not 'shatter'. with force applied it bends because it is still a relitively weak plastic resin (by plastic standards) however if you apply enough force to break it the fiberglass resin 'tears' more then shatters. and the only way really to achieve this is to home-run swing the rifle and hit a concrete wall.

butt strokes with even the orginal M-16 do not 'shatter' the butt stock.

and again, the orginal M-16 jammed because the army decided to cut corners and buy the cheap ammunition. you know the one that produced nearly 10 times the amount of carbon build up but was 2 times cheaper? most of the stopages of the orginal M-16 was linked primarly due to the ammunition that the average soldier was supplied with and not because of the gun at all.

i believe someone once said that "opinions are like assholes, everybody has one" that was my opinion, that we could have done better. so fuck off and leave me to my cereal.

 

[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.

 

[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.