User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 1:57:16 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Since the thread is about worst ever that seemed to be your point. That said, you're still wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 1:58:49 PM EST
[#2]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 2:01:53 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chau-chat automatic rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 2:02:38 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Chauchat was pretty decent when it wasn't in .30-06. The -06 versions were screwed up by the factory. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Chau-chat automatic rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 2:13:03 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Accurate, robust, and reliable. Quality clones are too expensive for many though, hence the criticism. A short development program, and can use the Garand production tooling and parts, and is smoother shooting on top of that. The M14 development program was an insane level of effort for a warmed over Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 2:15:42 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At the time of the adoption of the Krag. Stripper Clips were not common place. The Lee Metford of the era was not Stripper Clip loaded. Also the Krag was a mature design prior to the Mauser Charger Feed System coming out. We adopted the Krag in 1892. Spain adopted the Mauser in 1893. Also the Krag is not single load. It is dump load. Meaning you can dump a handful of rounds into the magazine. The French Lebel was the most advanced when adopted but was passed up in the '90s and behind the times in WW1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 2:20:39 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would say the G3 is easily the worst when compared to the FAL and M14 It loses with respect to ergos, I prefer the FAL, but it is hard to call the more reliable and accurate rifle "worst". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 2:39:14 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The British M1888 Lee-Metford was upgraded to be rapidly reloaded with 5-shot chargers before being replaced in 1895 by the Lee Enfield Quote HistoryQuoted:
The British M1888 Lee-Metford was upgraded to be rapidly reloaded with 5-shot chargers before being replaced in 1895 by the Lee Enfield Quoted:
The .30 US Gov cartridge was never improved to any real degree. When it was replaced by the .30-'06 M1906 load, this load proved to have issues of its own such as over 1,000 yards less useful range when fired from MGs then the 8mm Lebel, which was the standard issue to US troops in World War I. The M1906 load was subsequently replaced after the war. The fix for the max range problem for the US was M1 ball, which is basically the basis more M72 match from what I can tell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 2:44:14 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That rifle has a lot of WTF going on with it. I've seen it a number of times when I've been in India. It looks like the designers copied a lot of random parts of a lot of rifles and made something that didn't look to do anything any better than any of the rifles they copied. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MSBvE372A3I/maxresdefault.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 2:47:22 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A lot of the inputs here are highly flawed because they measure the efficacy of the design against current (or more recent) standards. To be accurately assessing many of the aforementioned small arms, one must compare them against the peers, and/or what they replaced. Persons here making statements like "the xxx rifle would have been fine 30 to 50 years earlier" are completely applying inappropriate standards of comparison. As it was there were Garand modifications during the war that featured detachable mags, so they were thinking about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 2:51:02 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: MLE didn't have charger guides, except a few that were modified. SMLE was first to have it as standard in the LE line in 1907. MLE and MLM rifles were ultimately upgraded to take chargers (CLLE/CLLM) but that was later on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 2:51:37 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: IMHO, there were 4 main things going against lever actions at that time. First is what I already mentioned, which was "keeping up with the Jones". The British were mainly using a trapdoor design (the Snider conversion), so we were on par if there was a foreign invasion or war. Second was what you said, the relatively weaker rounds of the lever actions. The Calvary wanted (perhaps even needed) a large enough round to reliably quickly stop a horse in combat. The .45-70 happened to work well for bison slaughters too. The third factor was a reluctance to change, and thinking accuracy was better than volume of fire (reality is that each has its place). The fourth factor was a valid concern of the time and that was ammunition supply. I can't remember where I read it but the potential ammo supply issue was discussed back then and it could've been a serious issue if they suddenly needed several times the amount of rounds they already used. Even though I say all that, the trapdoor was a very poor firearm choice for the tactics used in the Indian wars. It wasn't so much "snipe them from a hillside", as it was, "ride straight into their camp and kill 'em until the rest surrender". I can't imagine riding into an Indian encampment to attack experienced fighters, and having to use a trapdoor on top of it. As an interesting stat, only something like 25% of the native Americans at Little Bighorn had repeaters. The rest had muzzleloaders and bow and arrows. Much Indian fighting was actually long range. By that I mean, if you were a officer or scout, you might prefer an accurate long range rifle for the occasional long range sighting of a hostile Indian. Actual close combat was less common. Also, when pressed the Indians usually didn't fight it out in hard fights where they could expect casualties, so the limitations of the Trapdoor would not matter as much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 3:38:21 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M14 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:00:18 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dat locking block doe.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The M9 is objectively superior to the M1911 by just about every metric that matters. It was also superior to almost every military sidearm I can think of that was in use at its time of adoption. It's dated by today's standards, and that's why it's being replaced, but it was awesome for the time. It's also wrong to blame the M9 for the military's decision to purchase shit magazines, the military's inability to perform basic maintenance like replacing recoil springs, and the military's inability to train service members how to use a handgun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:01:44 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was wrong with the Johnson? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:26:15 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For the close range emergencies, they did have an outstanding revolver in the 1873 Colt, but how many soldiers were issued them? Infantry were armed with Trapdoor rifles with bayonets, and the Indians didn't like fighting them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:29:35 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Come on, nothing about that design was quite good. It just fed and ejected more reliably (read as “sucked less”) when it wasn’t in 30-06. But there’s a lot of ground to cover once you leave “worst ever” territory before you ever arrive at “quite good”. Kinda like the BAR, just because it feeds and fires more reliably than something else doesn’t actually make it “good” at what it was intended for. What it was intended for is a big part of the problem. The BAR faced the same problem, not really being a proper LMG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:33:50 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Funny you say that about the revolvers. The books and documentaries say the 7th were all issued Colt SAA's (except a few like Custer carrying something else). I don't recall any SAA's in the display case of recovered firearms at the battlefield's visitors center. I remember it being a mix of everything. Either there wasn't that many SAA's carried by the 7th or they were too valuable to the natives and others that recovered them to ever give them back. I suspect there wasn't as many SAA's in the battle as the books imply. There is evidence of Indians using captured 45-70 ammo in their 50-70 rifles, which was one of the more common calibers they had. The guys with the 50-70s may have considered the 45-70 an upgrade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:35:40 PM EST
[#19]
M-14
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:36:36 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Springfield Trapdoor-just ask Custard Perhaps they managed to clear their rifles, but how many cases were cleared with a knife. Better designs were in it there, From the perspective of going from a 7 shot repeater to a single shot, the Trapdoor does stand out as particularly crappy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:39:10 PM EST
[#21]
For us - the M1 Carbine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:45:33 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For us - the M1 Carbine. The .30 Caliber Carbine We never saw this nice little weapon on Guadalcanal, though we had been hearing of it for more than a year. Later on it became the standard arm for all infantry officers of company grade -- and a lot more on the front lines. Most of the battalion and regimental commanders, and many generals, carried carbines in place of pistols. The carbine turned out to be an ace weapon of this war, as far as I am concerned. It was light and handy, powerful, and reasonably accurate. If I had to make my own in hostile jungle, travelling with the lightest possible kit where I should be likely to encounter enemy at any time, the carbine is the weapon I should choose..... The development of the carbine had the effect of putting a good offensive-defensive weapon in the hands of the leader and gun crew member, thereby making him the near-equal of an MI rifleman. The cartridge was powerful enough to penetrate several thicknesses of helmet, and to perforate the plates of the Japanese bullet proof vests, which would only be dented by .45 auto slugs. It was flat shooting enough to have practical accuracy at more than two hundred yards. It would be interesting to know how many casualties it created during the war. Certainly more than all the pistols and revolvers our military has ever used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:49:18 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More lol... None of mine (with used USGI take-off barrels manufactured by Saco Lowell) shoot worse than 1.5 MOA from the bench with ball ammunition, and they do even better with 168 gr American Eagle match ammo designed specifically for the "M1A". The only modification is a SADLAK Ind. op-rod spring guide installed in lieu of the standard USGI part. Two are in USGI synthetic stocks, two are in USGI birch stocks. No bedding. No unitized gas cylinders. No shimming. Claude from RA parts once told me that a garden variety M14-type rifle that's been properly built will generally shoot 1-1.5 MOA. Besides that, this thread isn't about "what was the worst match-conditioned rifle ever issued". Most standard issue infantry rifles shoot better than the humans using them. Shoot three ten shot consecutive groups that are 1.5 MOA or less. I don't believe many match M1As can do that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 7:52:04 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think Claude has been drinking. The rifle was never spec'ed for that kind of accuracy. I know a man that from the 1960s until the early 2000s competed with the M14 at Perry. He had to have 3 M1As to seriously compete, one of which was always rotated in the shop getting rebedded to keep enough accuracy to be competitive. If stock rifles were capable of 1-1.5 MOA then he wouldn't have needed the constant work on them. M1 Garand accuracy requirement for service rifles was: three 10 shot groups @ 100 yards, average group size no larger than 5.2" and largest no larger than 8". |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 8:02:17 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People that talk about how bad the M14 was and praise the Garand blow my mind. The M14 was a poor choice to replace the M1 only because weapons development had changed directions. I'd wager that a great many soldiers in WWII would have loved FA capability with another 12 rounds in the magazine. The M14 took way too much time and effort to develop. The Italian BM59 was a much more sensible effort, and it is more what the US should have done as an interim solution while working on something more advanced. The BM59 was basically just an improved M1. And could be made on the same production facilities, and use Garand parts with some modification. And Garands could be updated to the new configuration (aka BM59E). The M14 was an attempt to perfect the Garand. It was a fool's errand. So even ignoring the new intermediate cartridge concept, M14 was a poor approach. This isn't so much that it was inferior to the G3 and FAL, so much as it reflected too much development effort for the minor improvements. Its development process was longer than its service life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 8:18:28 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Chau-chat automatic rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 8:37:01 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's ok to love an obsolete/obsolescent rifle.  
(for myself, it's the Swiss Arms rifles) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
These threads always devolve into ignorant M14 hatery.  I do not know why we bother having them.
(for myself, it's the Swiss Arms rifles) 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 8:49:12 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd rather have a Type 94 than a M1895 revolver. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
While most rifles I was gonna mention already have been several times, I'm going "classic" and saying the Trapdoor Springfield was the biggest POS, hopelessly obsolete the day it was issued/converted, unreliable (ripped rims off cartridges). Mosin, M14, Bullpups, all are equally overrated though. Pre-HK unfucking L85 does have an edge in modern weapons for both being an ergonomic nightmare, abusing lefties, and just plain not working. The Worst Pistol isn't arguable, it begins and ends with Nambu type 94. At least your not going to shoot yourself with the M1895 (or anything else really due to the trigger pull that requires two mules and a strong boy to operate). Type 94 and the exposed sear... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 10:29:45 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, now we are just being silly. The MAS 36 is likely one of the BEST bolt guns ever fielded....... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
French MAS 1936..... The bolt is a little weird, but it's not necessarily a detriment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 10:42:32 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. My only complaint is that the front sight is a little too broad for the accuracy it's capable of. The bolt is a little weird, but it's not necessarily a detriment. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
French MAS 1936..... The bolt is a little weird, but it's not necessarily a detriment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 10:43:15 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For a short time the M44 carbine was issued to the Soviet Army and that actually gets my vote as the worst one, mostly for the enormous flash, bang, and recoil that are generated. It was literally insane to issue that rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 10:59:44 PM EST
[#32]
Doesn't the FAMAS actually prefer steel-cased ammo as well? No Pierre, put away that Hornady and pass me the Tula.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2017 11:14:19 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't the FAMAS actually prefer steel-cased ammo as well? No Pierre, put away that Hornady and pass me the Tula. The F2 is supposedly updated to be able to run Brass 855, but the French Army still mostly issues the F1, and is preparing to dump the platform for something else. Thats just memory and hearsay though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 1:45:44 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In his previous campaign against Indians, Custer's troops were armed with the Spencer repeater. I don't know what he thought of the Trapdoor, but I wouldn't doubt he wasn't happy with the "improvement". From the perspective of going from a 7 shot repeater to a single shot, the Trapdoor does stand out as particularly crappy. The best solution would've been to have troops with repeaters for the full-on attacks and troops with rolling blocks for when precision mattered. However, that's with our modern day knowledge and being able to use hindsight. Custer carried quality English revolvers, which leds me to think he was a gun guy and wanted something better than trapdoors, but he was lucky just to be back in the army so there's a chance he didn't care about not having other other rifles. He probably would've still hunted down Indians if he was issued flintlocks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 3:32:59 PM EST
[#35]
Wasnt the very first M16 fielded jamming so much it was getting people killed on the regular?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 3:35:31 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasnt the very first M16 fielded jamming so much it was getting people killed on the regular? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 3:48:16 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I thought the Spencer would've been better than single shots but I was corrected on that by the Cody Firearms Museum folks in another forum. Apparently, there were detailed studies performed during the civil war about sustained rates of fire, and it found the Spencers were about the same as the single shots due to the steps needed to reload the Spencer. The best solution would've been to have troops with repeaters for the full-on attacks and troops with rolling blocks for when precision mattered. However, that's with our modern day knowledge and being able to use hindsight. Custer carried quality English revolvers, which leds me to think he was a gun guy and wanted something better than trapdoors, but he was lucky just to be back in the army so there's a chance he didn't care about not having other other rifles. He probably would've still hunted down Indians if he was issued flintlocks. I don't think sustained rate of fire is the right metric. You want the ability to lay down considerable fire for a short period. Spencer would have been better for that. The more advanced Winchesters could be topped off as you go, and carried twice as much ammo as a Spencer. In the 1870s they had no ammunition budget, but I suspect most of the troopers of the time would have been more accurate with a .44-40 carbine than a .45-70 carbine even for long range shooting. In the army of the 1870s, the troopers were mostly Irish or German immigrants, had poor pay and poor marksmanship training, and Western settlers tended to despise them. They were not the men Custer led in the Civil War. Edited to add: I have read that Indian fighters often preferred long range rifles like Sharps or Rollingblock due to the nature of engagements. Often your only chance at a wild Indian was in the distance. I would expect the major exception would be fighting in villages, but that was a major part of Indian warfare. For Indians there were no noncombatants and women and children were fare game, if not the preferred target. The nature of Indian warfare made the village the natural place for most bloodshed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 3:50:37 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F1 does, originally designed to run 55 grain Steel Case out of a 1:12 barrel, at a lower pressure (IIRC) than 193, because of the locking system. The F2 is supposedly updated to be able to run Brass 855, but the French Army still mostly issues the F1, and is preparing to dump the platform for something else. Thats just memory and hearsay though. Pile of cramp either way IMO. Between the G36, FAMAS, and L85 . . . what a bunch of crap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 3:54:09 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wasnt the very first M16 fielded jamming so much it was getting people killed on the regular? Army would TEST with the proper long grain powder then ISSUE out of spec ball powder to the guys in Vietnam. The result was higher port pressure and a rifle cycling beyond its designed rate, about 1,000 rpm instead of 750 rpm. I believe it was intentially done to destroy the program and go back to a more traditional rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 3:55:05 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought I was one of the few people on here who liked the MAS 36 (and the 49), the gun gets a bad wrap due to the French animosity, but is really a pretty good bolt gun (probably one of the best for general issue), the 49 was one of the first, reliable, DIGAS general issue rifles, the 49 was great in 7.5, but Century bubba-fucked it into .308 with varying results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 4:08:47 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mach grade M1As shoot 1 moa (maybe) and then only for a short while. Shoot three ten shot consecutive groups that are 1.5 MOA or less. I don't believe many match M1As can do that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: More lol... None of mine (with used USGI take-off barrels manufactured by Saco Lowell) shoot worse than 1.5 MOA from the bench with ball ammunition, and they do even better with 168 gr American Eagle match ammo designed specifically for the "M1A". The only modification is a SADLAK Ind. op-rod spring guide installed in lieu of the standard USGI part. Two are in USGI synthetic stocks, two are in USGI birch stocks. No bedding. No unitized gas cylinders. No shimming. Claude from RA parts once told me that a garden variety M14-type rifle that's been properly built will generally shoot 1-1.5 MOA. Besides that, this thread isn't about "what was the worst match-conditioned rifle ever issued". Most standard issue infantry rifles shoot better than the humans using them. Shoot three ten shot consecutive groups that are 1.5 MOA or less. I don't believe many match M1As can do that. My point was that a standard issue M14 without modifications is still accurate because of the design. If someone wants to eek out an extra half MOA for competitive use they can do that, but it won't make any difference in the field for a rifleman firing at living targets that walk or run (and without concentric scoring rings) at typical engagement distances. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 4:14:11 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The issue ammo used ball powder, that was out of spec for the design. Army would TEST with the proper long grain powder then ISSUE out of spec ball powder to the guys in Vietnam. The result was higher port pressure and a rifle cycling beyond its designed rate, about 1,000 rpm instead of 750 rpm. I believe it was intentially done to destroy the program and go back to a more traditional rifle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wasnt the very first M16 fielded jamming so much it was getting people killed on the regular? Army would TEST with the proper long grain powder then ISSUE out of spec ball powder to the guys in Vietnam. The result was higher port pressure and a rifle cycling beyond its designed rate, about 1,000 rpm instead of 750 rpm. I believe it was intentially done to destroy the program and go back to a more traditional rifle. I would think Stoner would have taken that into account. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 4:49:06 PM EST
[#43]
Quote History Quoted:
I wouldn't. At least your not going to shoot yourself with the M1895 (or anything else really due to the trigger pull that requires two mules and a strong boy to operate). Type 94 and the exposed sear... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While most rifles I was gonna mention already have been several times, I'm going "classic" and saying the Trapdoor Springfield was the biggest POS, hopelessly obsolete the day it was issued/converted, unreliable (ripped rims off cartridges). Mosin, M14, Bullpups, all are equally overrated though. Pre-HK unfucking L85 does have an edge in modern weapons for both being an ergonomic nightmare, abusing lefties, and just plain not working. The Worst Pistol isn't arguable, it begins and ends with Nambu type 94. At least your not going to shoot yourself with the M1895 (or anything else really due to the trigger pull that requires two mules and a strong boy to operate). Type 94 and the exposed sear... It really isn't near as big a deal as people make it out to be. You have to press HARD on it to get it to fire. I bet it never happened in the wild injuring somebody outside of people fucking with it on purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 4:54:35 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you ever shot one or even handled one? Have you pressed on it to make it snap? Mine is above. It really isn't near as big a deal as people make it out to be. You have to press HARD on it to get it to fire. I bet it never happened in the wild injuring somebody outside of people fucking with it on purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 11:15:27 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you ever shot one or even handled one? Have you pressed on it to make it snap? Mine is above. It really isn't near as big a deal as people make it out to be. You have to press HARD on it to get it to fire. I bet it never happened in the wild injuring somebody outside of people fucking with it on purpose. Quote HistoryQuoted:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/29486/IMG_1823_JPG-371543.jpgQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
While most rifles I was gonna mention already have been several times, I'm going "classic" and saying the Trapdoor Springfield was the biggest POS, hopelessly obsolete the day it was issued/converted, unreliable (ripped rims off cartridges). Mosin, M14, Bullpups, all are equally overrated though. Pre-HK unfucking L85 does have an edge in modern weapons for both being an ergonomic nightmare, abusing lefties, and just plain not working. The Worst Pistol isn't arguable, it begins and ends with Nambu type 94. At least your not going to shoot yourself with the M1895 (or anything else really due to the trigger pull that requires two mules and a strong boy to operate). Type 94 and the exposed sear... It really isn't near as big a deal as people make it out to be. You have to press HARD on it to get it to fire. I bet it never happened in the wild injuring somebody outside of people fucking with it on purpose. Shot? No, but only because I didn't have any 8mm Nambu. I have pressed on the sear, and the particular model I played with wasn't hard to engage the sear, but that can be easily explained by individual model to model differences, the grip was also tiny, and the entire gun felt as cheap as cheap could be. Like Hi-Point/Raven/Jimenez Cheap. I did have a couple M1895s once upon a time when they were like 80 bucks, they weren't a great gun by any stretch of the imagination but they weren't unsafe or didn't seem shoddily made. I abused mine by shooting in addition to 7.62 Nagant, .32 S&W and .32 H&R without incident other than a massive muzzle flash (not using the proper ammo) and the aforementioned off the scale trigger pull... I also had a .32 ACP cylinder for one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2017 11:46:33 PM EST
[#46]
How about a North Korean manufactured AK-74?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2017 12:30:53 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Reising submachine gun Italian Carcano |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2017 1:16:00 AM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Can't think of anything from North or South America that is worse for it's era. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Since the thread is about worst ever that seemed to be your point. That said, you're still wrong. Since everyone is indeed entitled to an opinion, why in your opinion is the M-14 the worst general issue combat rifle ever made? Or even for only its era. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2017 5:36:47 AM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F1 does, originally designed to run 55 grain Steel Case out of a 1:12 barrel, at a lower pressure (IIRC) than 193, because of the locking system. The F2 is supposedly updated to be able to run Brass 855, but the French Army still mostly issues the F1, and is preparing to dump the platform for something else. Thats just memory and hearsay though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Doesn't the FAMAS actually prefer steel-cased ammo as well? No Pierre, put away that Hornady and pass me the Tula. The F2 is supposedly updated to be able to run Brass 855, but the French Army still mostly issues the F1, and is preparing to dump the platform for something else. Thats just memory and hearsay though. The French Army selected the 416 as its next rifle. (IIRC, 14.5" as well as 11.5") Yet another military ditches the bullpup.
(yet another military follows its SOF in rejecting bullpups) The ammo issue started because they no longer had the capacity to manufacture their 5.56. 
ETA: I'm guessing the Brits' next rifle won't be a bullpup either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2017 6:03:53 AM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AUGs are fantastic rifles. The only people who dislike them,like most modern firearms,are those with bizarre emotional investments or who have never actually shot one. Most complaints about bullpups are rather ridiculous but if you are an elite operator engaging tangos at Walmart every day then perhaps you're best served with artillery and air rather than a rifle anyway. There are very,very,very few legitimately bad modern firearms. Even the INSAS would probably be perfectly serviceable if built in an American or European factory with some semblance of quality control. The whole gun is a fiasco from top to bottom but it's a microcosm of India's worst traits,down to the public defecation brown coloration of the furniture. Conceptually, the bullpup is flawed. It's less flawed in the context of a conscript Cold War era force crammed into APCs. All it does well is minimize OAL for a given barrel length/maximize barrel length for a given OAL. In the modern context 
 yeah...but at least it has a 20" barrel!
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
