What's the worst gun?

[Eren Murtaugh]

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

Uh....
What? Slugs don't HAVE spread, they're single projectiles. And, a standard 12-gauge buckshot shell will have an 8-inch spread at 100 feet. EIGHT INCHES.

Slug, pellet I don't really care. I don't like them. End of story. They're situational weapons! Give me anything against a shotgun, and I WIN UNLESS I'M A TOTAL DUMB ASS AND GET RIGHT IN YOUR FACE. THEY'RE TOO SITUATIONAL TO BE DEEMED AN OVER ALL EFFECTIVE COMBAT WEAPON.

Based on your ignorance of shotguns, I would bet you don't even know how to use a gun, in which case I would most definitely win.

Yes sir, Mr. JTC.
You believe that.
I don't care anymore. They're too damned situational. A decent shot with a pistol could take you out before you could get a good enough shot. Try firing one ya dumb asses.

 

[Eren Murtaugh]

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.

Please go to the tech manual for me. I'm Air Force, so all I really have to go on here is my personal experience, but I still say the shotgun it too situational.
P.S> I'm not all into the names of the ammo. I fly a friggin plane for Pete's sake.

For one, a slug is a shotgun round that is completely solid, in one piece.

For two... you are completely wrong. Combat shotguns are loaded with pretty much the same ammunition you hunt with: 7-9 pellets.

I don't even know where you got this crazy idea of a 'room clearing' shot gun. You'd need a 3x5 inch wide slug to even get close to such a thing.

*facepalm* It's just a name. It doesn't actually mean the thing hits every corner of a room.
Combat shotguns are used to provide suppressive fire because they lay out a wide horizontal spread of pellets. They're called room cleaners because you can point it into a room and expect to hit just about everyone in there.
P.S. Combat shotguns have 15-20 pellets. Not 7-9, thus the wider spread.

Double checked, actually. 9 to 12 pellet 00 buckshot cartridges. And they do not have increased spread.

Perhaps your thinking of riot ammo, which indeed has a wider spread, mostly because your outside and not REALLY trying to kill people.

By the way... 5 year veteran here. I've used combat shotguns. Keep arguing if you must, I'll go find the Technical Manual if you really want to drag this out.

 

[gabe12301]

Spoiler: This thing

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

It's the perfect weapon for a zombie apocalypse.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I forgot to put in my vote for worst weapon... hm.

I'd have the say the worst I know of is the M9. I've seen four with cracked slide, and two of those had less than 3000 rounds fired out of them. Average accuracy, poor striking power... just a miserable piece of garbage.

 

[gabe12301]

This is actually real:NUKE RIFLE

Spoiler

Its a nuke rifle it was never used because it couldn't fire far enough and that probably wouldn't end well for the soldiers operating it.

 

[critic22]

i would have to say that the french world war I machine gun the Chauchat or show show was the worst, it have a very high frequency of jamming and was made out of non interchangeable parts its metal wore out very quickly and due to poorly made ammo bullets would even explode in and outside of the chamber.
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:HfdLonXLCZwrAM:http://www.gunsworld.com/french/graphs/chauchat.jpg&t=1

 

[Major_Tom]

Romanian AK.
When you want to fire - it jams, when you don't want to fire - it empties it's magazine. Also if you gently tap the stock it will break. How did they manage to fuck up an AK clone?

 

[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

I was reading The Zombie Survival Guide by Max Brooks yesterday and that is damn near word for word his opinion on it...

Edit: Ninja'd XD

he probably used the same sources that i read

 

[Canid117]

The Klobb, obviously. Did you ever use that thing?


What do you mean it's not a real gun?! I seen it in goldeneye!

You mean this?

It is actually a Czech made submachine gun called the ?korpion.

 

[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

I see you read the zombie survival guide, because thats an exact qoute from it.

OT: Alot of people have already said the desert eagle and im going to have to agree with them on this one.

pretty much. i also dont like the heavy machine gun the japanese used in WW2

 

[CpnBeef]

The cream pie gun from Bugsy Malone, for anyone not familar with this bizare film kids get killed by CREAM TO THE FACE

 

[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

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.

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.

i was referencing the original m16, but currently it is probably far from an exemplary military rifle, else why are they replacing it with the ACR? as for the m14, the semi auto battle rifle is what it was designed for, punch big holes in your targets. the auto setting was just for suppressing fire on the occaision that you didnt have an LMG available

 

[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

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.

 

[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

 

[Canid117]

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

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.

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.

i was referencing the original m16, but currently it is probably far from an exemplary military rifle, else why are they replacing it with the ACR? as for the m14, the semi auto battle rifle is what it was designed for, punch big holes in your targets. the auto setting was just for suppressing fire on the occaision that you didnt have an LMG available

There are no official plans to replace the M-16 and M-4 series of rifles. Competitions have been held but no replacement has ever been chosen and the United States military hasn't even placed any orders for the ACR as far as I am aware (someone has been playing too much MW2 it seems). The M-16 does its job very well and the M-4 does its job pretty well(There have been reports of reduced stopping power on the M-4 but it still kills people). They are considered very good weapons by the people who are actually familiar with them. The M-14 was designed as you said to deliver accurate shots with full auto being used for suppressing actions but the problem with that is that almost All fire in a combat scenario is suppressing fire. The ammunition is too heavy for what it would be used for and so a new weapon was designed using a round that was better suited for the majority of small arms use in a warzone. The M-14 just doesn't work as well for that purpose as the M-16 because the recoil is awful so it is very difficult to keep the volume of fire going where it is supposed to go and you will run out of bullets faster because you just can't carry enough to maintain the fire that you need to maintain.


EDIT: Also in response to some of your earlier comments the M-14 does not come standard with a pistol grip. A Pistol grip is a grip that is separate from the stock and the M-14 only accepts one with heavy modification. The Ammunition for the M-14 may not sound much larger but there is a large difference.

Thats the 5.56 on the left with the 7.62 on the right and a 30-30 Winchester in the center. As you can see there is in fact a significant difference in size. The weight is also very different with the 7.62 weighing between 9 and 12 Grams and the 5.56 weighing about 4 grams. That may not seem like much but you are carrying hundreds of these things around and you can carry twice as many 5.56's as 7.62's. Are you starting to understand now?

 

[DefunctTheory]

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.

 

[SimuLord]

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.

Of course, if you're playing Fallout 3 a 5.56 round is weightless.

 

[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.