I think he means bad guns.Tankichi said:
OT: I also have no experience exept video games, but the ATH-4s laucher (correct if wrong) from cod6 was quite a bad gun
What's the worst gun?
- Thread starter II2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
OT: I also have no experience exept video games, but the ATH-4s laucher (correct if wrong) from cod6 was quite a bad gun
What show?Terminate421 said:I agree, seriously, that show was so inhuman its not even funny. Which it wasn't funny at all.Zap Rowsdower said:[sub]That show was so awful.[/sub]Terminate421 said:I beg to differFrequen-Z said:
I mean, nobody's ever shot it twice, must be terrible.
It doesn't even shoot bullets
(I was in fourth grade when I first saw it)
Ot: I don't know, I'm not much into guns.
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.)
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.)
The Nambu Pistol [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambu_pistol].
It had an exceedingly short effective range, and utilised an 8mm Round (Yes, 8mm, not 9mm). The safety didn't work on it, and the Magazine springs were pathetic, and often caused jams.
It had an exceedingly short effective range, and utilised an 8mm Round (Yes, 8mm, not 9mm). The safety didn't work on it, and the Magazine springs were pathetic, and often caused jams.
OT: I also have no experience exept video games, but the ATH-4s laucher (correct if wrong) from cod6 was quite a bad gun[/quote]
The AT-4 is an anti-tank ROCKET launcher, not a firearm. And the US Army seems to love it.
The AT-4 is an anti-tank ROCKET launcher, not a firearm. And the US Army seems to love it.
I use a .308 for deer hunting and my uncle uses it for bear hunting so I know that recoil can just plain kick your ass. I cant imagine trying to use an m60 without a bi/tripod. But your also correct in saying that it had problems, the unfortunate side effect of taking an idea from the Germans and just making it out of aluminum and plastic without accounting for the fundamental materiel changes.NightShadeNes said:That depends on the model the oldest ones have some problems the recoil was bad in the first designs unless you where holding the ammo clip also the bullets sometimes get jammed and the bullet range i was wrong i found that the bullets go 1,200 yd (1,100 m)JWAN said:Im going to have to disagree with you.NightShadeNes said:The M60 has terrible recoil,is hard to aim,it's to heavy,it has a short bullet range and it gets jamed pretty easy but it's awesome
It shoots a .308 so I have no idea where you got the short range from, but the recoil of any other rifle of that caliber would also have intense recoil being that its a machine gun. Its heavy compared to today's standards but it was one of the lightest at the time, hell it was designed in 1957.
Don't tell that to the Chinese or the Cubans. Sure the parades are fancy with the AK 47's but in reality they guard their borders with Ruger .22's. It was the only way they could afford to arm all of their troops during the cold war and I still think the .22 is a mainstay in their arsenal.Deviltongue said:
Those problems have all been fixed. Now it is an exemplary military rifle. As for what was wrong with the M-14 well... too expensive... too heavy and the recoil is just fucking awful on that fat bastard. Though it supposedly works beautifully as a sniper and semi-automatic battle rifle.brodie21 said:
Worst gun? Desert Eagle, that thing is horrifically impracticable. Too heavy, nasty recoil, the bullets are too big and it has a horribly limited magazine capacity.
KND FTW!!!! ^_^Terminate421 said:I beg to differFrequen-Z said:
I mean, nobody's ever shot it twice, must be terrible.
It doesn't even shoot bullets
(I was in fourth grade when I first saw it)
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.Ironman126 said:
Though it's far from the worst, it's the only one I know a lot about. The Ross Rifle (used by Canadians in WW1 for like half a year) was entirely made in Canada. It had very good accuracy and had a high fire rate compared to other rifles. However the slightest amount of dirt in the chamber would jam it (and it was practically impossible to keep free of dirt, with trench warfare and all). There were also incidents of some bolts blasting back into the shooters face (luckily, no reported deaths). The rifle was then replaced with Lee Enfields. Only Snipers carried the rifle afterwards, for its accuracy. Again, not the worst gun, but the only bad gun I know a lot about.
I remember reading somewhere that the allied forces were given that gun instead of a more practical and reliable one, whos name escapes me at the moment, because they were afraid that the axis forces would recover and reverse engineer it and make it an affective weapon for their forces...JWAN said:
I love the M-14 if you cant handle the recoil get it with a recoil assist stock. I shoot .300's and .308's all day long and I just wear 2 of those tank top undershirts under my t shirt. It takes awhile to get used to it. They had a bunch of them made fully automatic so basically it was a deadlier version of the BAR that shot superior rounds and had amazing accuracy. They turned it into 2 sniper rifles and used it up until the 90's. You could actually qualify with it (in the USMC) until the mid 90's but Clinton ordered them to be melted down so very few survived, that's truly unfortunate because I think we need to go back and relearn why light machine guns shooting fast bullets isn't always the answer. For my last viewpoint I think they should have turned it into a carbine and put 3 shock absorbers in the stock.Canid117 said:
Three candidates are:the Hi-Point, it's a pistol with a zinc slide, if you just load it with +P, the slide will burst in two. It's also superfluously large. I've listened to an experienced firearms dealer employee who said that you're mentally ill if you possess one. I've fired plenty of real guns, and it's the only one I'm kinda afraid of.
The Chauchat: It was a light machine gun built by the French for the American Expeditionary Force (A.E.F) in WWI. It has a large open magazine that quickly fills with dirt and the gun usually fails after the second round.
The Type 92: A WWII Japanese equivalent to the venerable Browning M1919. Where the M1919 gets it right the Type 92 gets it wrong. Instead of simply utilizing a belt for feeding ammunition, it use twenty-round stripper clips that have to be lubed. The greatest downfall of the Type 92 is the fact that it weighs MORE THAN A HUNDRED POUNDS UNLOADED. The idea behind a weapon of this calibre is that after you mow down the enemy in one position, you pick it up and carry it to the next position that needs rapid fire downrange. You can forget about schlepping the Type 92 in a warzone wear infantrymen must survive artillery and sharpshooters.
The Chauchat: It was a light machine gun built by the French for the American Expeditionary Force (A.E.F) in WWI. It has a large open magazine that quickly fills with dirt and the gun usually fails after the second round.
The Type 92: A WWII Japanese equivalent to the venerable Browning M1919. Where the M1919 gets it right the Type 92 gets it wrong. Instead of simply utilizing a belt for feeding ammunition, it use twenty-round stripper clips that have to be lubed. The greatest downfall of the Type 92 is the fact that it weighs MORE THAN A HUNDRED POUNDS UNLOADED. The idea behind a weapon of this calibre is that after you mow down the enemy in one position, you pick it up and carry it to the next position that needs rapid fire downrange. You can forget about schlepping the Type 92 in a warzone wear infantrymen must survive artillery and sharpshooters.