Worst gun ever made

I don't know about it being the "worst" in terms of being an implement.

The accuracy is no worse than a derringer or other small vestpocket pistol. Great for use at poker games as a "fifth ace." (beats all other hands!)

They don't jam as bad as many very small pistols do. On the other hand, I've shot one and seen it bounce off of a plastic paint bucket at the dump!

They are certainly "worst" in terms of facilitating petty crime. In Albuquerque, off of Central Avenue east of campus, you could rent one for $30 a night ($50 on a weekend!) I think you could rent loads for a buck a piece, and get a rebate on the returned unspent rounds (!).

.

The reason I would vote for the Raven is because I have seen two in action. One would only fire on every second or third try (nope, it wasn't that dirty, just that poorly made), the other literally came apart in my friend's hands when he fired a shot!

From hearing others discuss these 'el-cheapo's', it seems that what I witnessed is pretty routine.

Although the worst arleady has been named by Shadow, this one ranks high in my book in the worst list...

MKS

it uses the magazine as pistol grip! that can NOT be comfortable...ick...

The makarov is a nice pistol, it ranks up there with the M1911 in reliabilty, the round is a bit poor though, 9x18mm.

There were also .380 versions of the Makarov.

Makarov PM/PMM

Yeah, the Japanese did make some poor weapons during WW2.

Type-14

Check this ugly thing...ick! and I thought the Luger was ugly!

but it can be deadly to the wielder:



It's the Beretta 9/92.

-the slide can break from the locking block and fly back into the user's face. A number of special combat navy team members were injured in the late 80's by flying slides. Hence the aphroism "You're not a SEAL until you've eaten Italian steel"

- The slide can be removed by pushing the little button just forward and to the left above the trigger. There was an incident in a Texas jail where an officer pointed a gun at a rioting prisoner, at which point said prisoner stole the officer's slide from off of the gun.

-The frame develops cracks at the back of the grip. (similar problems occured with the first glocks.) This problem showed up only after being fired several hundred times.

AHHHH!!! When I saw that pic when I entered the thread, it scared me horribly. such a horrible gun!!!







[edit on 12-10-2005 by SEAL Trident]

Originally posted by dr_strangecraftIt's the Beretta 9/92.

-the slide can break from the locking block and fly back into the user's face. A number of special combat navy team members were injured in the late 80's by flying slides. Hence the aphroism "You're not a SEAL until you've eaten Italian steel"

The SEALs being the tough dudes people tell them they are insisted on running subgun loads (which are over-pressure for pistols) through their Berettas and of course they broke a few after thousands and thousands of rounds. Although this problem was unheard of in civilian circles Beretta dutifully added a safeguard to the design that would "catch" the errant slide thus preserving the SEALs teeth, thus was born the 92FS variant of the Model 92 which has now been around for a long long time.

As for the slide removal trick, try it and see how long it takes you, it's far from easy.

I would have to agree with Shadow on the French made Chauchat AKA, mainly because the French made it.

Originally posted by craig732
I would have to agree with Shadow on the French made Chauchat AKA, mainly because the French made it.

The Statue of Liberty just shed a Gallic tear.

Another favorite was the Canadian Ross rifle of WWI and later of British use in WWII because they ran out of guns early in the war. This gun had the habit of developing a bur on the bolts locking lugs resulting in a rifle with a seized bolt. Many troops were killed while trying desperately to kick the bolt open with the rifle lying on the ground - less than ideal with the Kaiser's finest storming your trench.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by Winchester Ranger T]

Hey Guy!

The Luger might be ugly but it was a damn fine weapon, in its day. It was also the first 9 milly pistol I ever owned (illegally) and I shot it almost every day. It was a WWII original and not one of those crappy Star look-a-likes.

As one who has actually fired both a Lewis 'gun' and a Sten, I had no problems sweeping a simulated trench with the original 'Trench Broom' and it was easily controlled as long as you fired small bursts - much the same with any automatic weapon!

The Sten on the other hand was by today's standard, a very fine massed produced machine pistol. It cost roughly 10/- each, 50p in today's money, which in wartime Britain was amazing. It was easily manufactured, easy to maintain and more importantly, very easy to use. It was also one of the first machine pistols to operate on the blowback principle - i.e the round was fired before it was fully seated in the chamber.

You guys have it all wrong, THIS is the worst gun aver made:

Originally posted by fritzIt was also one of the first machine pistols to operate on the blowback principle - i.e the round was fired before it was fully seated in the chamber.

I don't even want to start correcting this statement, it's just so wrong in so many ways that I love it.

Originally posted by fritzIt was also one of the first machine pistols to operate on the blowback principle - i.e the round was fired before it was fully seated in the chamber.

Wait a second... Something isn't right...

The blow back principle? You mean the same blowback principal where the chamber of the gun slides back and lets another round up into the chamber after releasing the first round?

That same Blowback priniciple? Look at Artillary pieces, the ones with blowback(the ones that kickback). Now, I believe the shell needs to be IN the chamber at all times, if not, well then you have a problem.

So, if the bullet is not seated in the chamber, and you fire, nothing will come out, instead, your gun will jam and will chamber lock.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 18-10-2005 by ShatteredSkies]

for accuracy, the m-16 is great. For reliability in the field, it was a real pain in the ass.

The worst handgun I ever fired was the horrendous VP-70. While a proto-Glock, the trigger pull was unrepairably difficult. It was also one of the ugliest guns I've ever seen. And it was way too expensive.

A little off-topic, I still love the 1911 Colt. What a gun!

I never said the Luger was a bad gun, I just don't like how it looks lol.

I am more of a Colt 1911 person my self...I agree, what a gun, and I didn't even fire it yet...

Originally posted by enslaved83

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
What LMG did the British use during WW1 did they use the Lewis Gun instead of the Chauchat?

Yeah the lewis was used instead. It was a much beter weapon. Still the Chauchat served its duty much like the sten in the second world war. The Bren that replaced it was an even beter weapon. Absolutely superb. My Grandad used it when he was in the Army and loved it. He said you could swear by it. Never had a problem with it.

Are you saying the Bren replace the Chauchat or the Lewis?

The reason the Yanks chose the Chauchat was because the head of the procurement board had a personal grudge against Col Isaac Lewis and refused to buy his clearly superior gun. The BAR was developed in haste by John Browning to replace the Chauchat, until then the Yanks didn't have an LMG, just medium-heavy guns like the Browning/Colt "potato digger".

The Chauchat gets minus points not just for it's manufacture, but also it's design, it had a full-length, long-recoil system on it, no wonder it was uncomfortable to fire.

The Ross' main problem was that it was a "straight-pull" bolt, you didn't turn it, it had lugs and grooves to do that for you, that was what jammed in the trenches. It was, however, wonderfully accurate, which is why the RMs used it as a sniper rifle early in WW2.

The Sten was a wonderfully designed weapon, let down by poor manufacture. If you stripped and cleaned it, particularly the barrel, before firing it, it could be very reliable. If you didn't you ended up with barrel burrs as the least of your problems. It should have been the British Grease Gun.

I was so wrong and I am so sorry - for thinking that people like you would know what I was talking about.

After all, I am only a weapons instructor with 30 years experience of teaching all classes of weapons up to and including 81mm mortars and yet, I am poo-pooed.

Fine! But I suggest that you take a look at recoil as opposed to blowback.

I guess that the people who wrote the manuals for the Sten and the L23A1 Sterling machine pistols got it very wrong.

My mistake! You're right and I was wrong. Not a problem for armchair warriors to misunderstand the mechanisms of weapons they've never fired!

My apologies fritz, this armchair warrior is big enough to admit his mistakes.

The Sten uses a design methodology known as API, which does indeed involve cartridge ignition before seating - read on:

============================
The advanced ignition principle is quite simple. It requires no extra parts. An advanced ignition open bolt subgun’s chamber depth is made a few thousands of an inch shorter than the cartridge case’s length. This causes the forward moving bolt’s fixed firing pin to ignite the primer a moment before the bolt strikes the chamber face. As the recoiling cartridge case begins pushing rearward, it meets the resistance of the forward-moving bolt. The two forces oppose each other. The bolt’s motion is reversed and the cartridge’s felt recoil is reduced. The use of advanced ignition makes the firing cycle seem smoother to the operator.

Advanced ignition also enhances controllability by reducing the subgun’s muzzle ‘climb.’ The heavy telescoping bolt’s center of mass is moving forward of the subgun’s center of gravity (CG) at the point of cartridge ignition. The inertial action of the telescoping bolt, pushes the advanced ignition subgun’s muzzle forward and down, thereby reducing felt recoil and countering the recoiling cartridge’s attempt to make the muzzle ‘climb.’ If the subgun designer has done his job well, the two opposing forces cancel each other and the subgun is very easy to control in full auto.

Finally, the inertia of an advanced ignition subgun’s forward moving bolt must be overcome by the recoiling cartridge case. This allows the weight of the bolt to be reduced, decreasing the subgun’s weight.
=============================

Today was a good day, I learned something new.

Well, Mr Oh-So-Clever-Shattered Skies, Mr Windchester has the kudos to appologise, so Brownie Points to him.

Mr Shattered Skies. You have much to learn about firearms and guns, the two are worlds apart.

A Firearm is usually a 'Hand held, shoulder fired, magazine or belt fed, semi or automatic weapon!'

A gun is usually an 'Artillery piece, capable of 'throwing' an explosive device over a given distance!' Said 'device' may be conventional or a rocket assisted projectile (RAP)

Firearms, by their very nature are either belt fed - fully automatic, or mag fed - semi or fully automatic. They can be shoulder fired, bipod fired (The General or Minimi) and tripod fired (The General or the .50 Browning in SF Role)

Both work on the recoil system wehereby a small portion of the expanding gas is bled off to recock the weapon and feed another round into the chamber, as the breech block passes over the magazine face.

An artillery piece uses the same principle, BUT no round is fed into the chamber. All that happens is that the weapon is re-cocked, then the weapon is realigned and another round - usually a warhead and bag charge is manually fed into the breach. The guy with the very long lanyard then fires the weapon.

Machine pistols on the other hand, operate from either an open or closed bolt, as well as a 'fixed or rotating' bolt but most work on the 'blowback' principle, as I explained in my previous reply.

Technology has made tremendous leaps and bounds since WWII, but the fundamental principles remain the same.

I heard about a large german gun made or actualy half made around WWI or II that was another crazy scheme. It was built into the side of a mountain, there was no aiming, and one firing would have blown it to bits. Originaly it was going to be a giant telescope but the germany had different plans.
,HVF

Originally posted by HVF
I heard about a large german gun made or actualy half made around WWI or II that was another crazy scheme. It was built into the side of a mountain, there was no aiming, and one firing would have blown it to bits. Originaly it was going to be a giant telescope but the germany had different plans.
,HVF

That sounds like the Nazi V3 supergun weapon. It was going to be able to hit England across the channel I think. I never heard of it blowing up if use d in theory these super guns could work. In modern times a Canadian-born astro-physicist was planning to build one for Saddam that would have been able to put shells into orbit. But he was assassinated before he could make it.