Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
The Worst personal weapon ever
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
So we have done the best rifle, but has has to be the worst weapon of modern times (1900 onwards) ever issued to troops. If we included the 19th century then it would be the Springfield Carbine issued instead of the Henry or Winchester. But to my mind, it has to be the Webly .445 revolver. A man stopper yes, but could not hit the barn if you where standing inside of it. We tested one once. Started at the target using the fixed sights. By the time we had moved less than six feet still using the issue sights the bullet was going over the target.
-
Message 2
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
Pepper pots issued to the home guard
-
Message 3
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
The early version of the M16. It was touted to be maintenance free and issued to combat troops in Vietnam. The chamber had not been chromed and would jam after a couple of shots. It then had to be broken down into major components, cleaned and reassembled. This in a combat zone where initial contact was usually less than 40 yds.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 4
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
Sticking with the USA the early mod. M-60 was apparently a bit of a pig in 'Nam - constantly jammed, didn't have a proper feed and was way too heavy for what it was designed for.
The Chinese Type-64 silenced-SMG is derided as beiong truly awful - the weapon was designed for covert ops. against high-value targets but it's crappy.
the P08 Luger was truly overrated and the Walther P-38 is a superior weapon all-round. -
Message 5
Posted by FormerlyOldHermit (U3291242) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
M1 Carbine? .45 round was the same round for the Colt pistol so there was a rifle firing pistol bullets. There were reports that at medium-long distance (medium-distance being that of the day, not modern standards) that the round couldn't penetrate winter uniforms.
-
Message 6
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
original version of the SA80 ??
-
Message 7
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
M1 Carbine? .45 round was the same round for the Colt pistol so there was a rifle firing pistol bullets. There were reports that at medium-long distance (medium-distance being that of the day, not modern standards) that the round couldn't penetrate winter uniforms.Ìý
Hermit,
Where in the heck did you find that information. The M1 is a 30 calibre rifle that is semi automatic. When your Daddy was working his bolt action the M1 was firing with a finger squeeze. The M1 ammo is first class. The Japanese thought every Marine was issued a machine gun. Would not penetrate winter uniforms? I never heard such nonsense.
Matt. -
Message 8
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
Wasn't there two M1's though? the M1 Garand and the M-1 carbine?
-
Message 9
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
A carbine is simply a shorter weapon for say tank crews and such.
-
Message 10
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
Hi Matt,
I defer to you on that one - just checked Wikipeda and it looks like it was pretty OK weapon. -
Message 11
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
Hi Matt,
I defer to you on that one - just checked Wikipeda and it looks like it was pretty OK weapon.
Ìý
Hang with me kid, I'll bump up your IQ 20 points just listening to me talk(John Wayne accent)
-
Message 12
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
Cheers Matt - not really a Wayne fan though.
-
Message 13
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
Me either. What a phoney he was.
-
Message 14
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
I wouldn't describe this as a bad weapon, but it is for sure unusual.
Sarcastically referred to as the "Woolworth Gun", the Liberator Pistol's actual name was the "Flare Projector" Caliber .45 (FP-45). A single-shot pistol, the Liberator was designed to be scattered about occupied Europe to be used by Resistance groups as disposable assassination weapons or to enable resisters to kill a German soldier and then take his weapon.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 15
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
The German MG-34 was over-manufactured compared to the supurb MG-42 and same can be said for the MG's 18 and 38. Both SMG's.
Winchester shotguns were totally overrated as the slightest dint in the tubular mag and you'd be struggling to reload.
The Sten Mk.II - piece of junk - even if it was a piece of junk that was needed at the time. -
Message 16
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
Fired the Luger thought it was back heavy. Now the Mouser Broom Handle.
-
Message 17
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
The German MG-34 was over-manufactured compared to the supurb MG-42 and same can be said for the MG's 18 and 38. Both SMG's.
Winchester shotguns were totally overrated as the slightest dint in the tubular mag and you'd be struggling to reload.
The Sten Mk.II - piece of junk - even if it was a piece of junk that was needed at the time.Ìý
Winchester shotguns in combat I meant - also add to that the M-79 40mm grenade launcher - pretty hard to use as far as I know and single shot so didn't give good combat persistance. -
Message 18
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
WHY - when the winchester rifle was available - ie repeating rifle - did the GB army still stick to the Martini - henry single shot chamber rifle - ???
ST -
Message 19
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
For the same reason the U S army stuck to the Springfield Rifle and carbine. The paper pushers did not like the idea of faster firing guns as thet meant the troops would use up bullets faster, and the costs would go up. It was not as if the Springfield single shot was the best single shot available at the time. I think Remmington had a rolling block weapon which was easier to load than the springfield. Even the Spencer was better than the Springfield. Again, the U S Army had the Remmington New Model Army Pistol which was no where as good as Sam Colts stuff. Custer in fact carried two British made revolvers.
-
Message 20
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
WHY - when the winchester rifle was available - ie repeating rifle - did the GB army still stick to the Martini - henry single shot chamber rifle - ???
STÌý
Because in military terms, the Winchester was a carbine, effective out to a couple of hundred yards, and with a relatively small bullet. The British Army needed a rifle that could knock down a charging tribesman at 1000 yards. Hence the Martini-Henry. Winchesters at Isandhlwana would just have made the battle shorter. And to be fair to Horse Guards, the Martini-Henry was in service for a relatively short time (in military terms) before being superceded by the Lee-Metford, which did have a magazine. The troops then complained that the new weapon didn't have the stopping power of the MH. -
Message 21
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Sunday, 16th April 2006
AA,
You see that?. It wasn't just rebel backwoodsmen that shoot people down at 1000 yards!!!!! and charging tribesmen at that by gawd.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 22
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 17th April 2006
M1 Carbine? .45 round was the same round for the Colt pistol so there was a rifle firing pistol bullets. There were reports that at medium-long distance (medium-distance being that of the day, not modern standards) that the round couldn't penetrate winter uniforms.Ìý
Hermit,
Where in the heck did you find that information. The M1 is a 30 calibre rifle that is semi automatic. When your Daddy was working his bolt action the M1 was firing with a finger squeeze. The M1 ammo is first class. The Japanese thought every Marine was issued a machine gun. Would not penetrate winter uniforms? I never heard such nonsense.
Hi Bs. Sorry on this one the M1 garand a a rifle used the 30.06.
The m1 carbine from world war two used a completely different cartridge and that did have problems with ballestic efficency and penetration. in effect it was a glorified pistol round being asked to do way to much. and often required foutr our five rounds to do waht the m1 Garand could do with one.
Matt.Ìý -
Message 23
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 17th April 2006
completely cocked the las t post the gist was m1 garand fired a different cartridge from the m1 carbine and the carbine cartridge did have problems with penetration and basic killability.
-
Message 24
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 17th April 2006
I vote for the sa 80. to give some of its many and manifold faults.
under artic conditions the sights and the trigger become brittle and can break.
Under tropical conditions the army issue insect repellant melts the plastic of the stock.
It is overly sensitive to fouling and dust to the point of needing almost hourly cleaning.
It cant be aimed and fired left handed.
Its possible to reassemble incorrectly and render it dangerous to the firer.
In short is is the biggest bag of sh**e that the Governemnt could have laid its bleeding hands on! -
Message 25
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Monday, 17th April 2006
But to be fair to the MG34, it was very good gun (strangely you spot them a lot in photos of the early Israeli Army - were they from Czechoslovakia?).
My vote is for the Chauchat, whic was a WW1 French weapon. Badly designed, unusual (and not very good) mechanism, badly built and using a totally unsuitable cartridge. Apparently the French sold a load of these to the US in 1917, which meant that US troops had to give up Lewis guns for this rubbish, and the rechambering to .30 calibre actually made it worse. There's also the Ross, which was a clever way of doing something which didn't need to be done (and jammed a lot), and if you accidently put the bolt in the wrong way, it would shoot straight out backwards!
Of course there is still the SA-80 - after all, its only been in development for over 50 years.... -
Message 26
Posted by Nielsen (U3014399) on Monday, 17th April 2006
re
"Message posted by backtothedarkplace
I vote for the sa 80. to give some of its many and manifold faults.
under artic conditions the sights and the trigger become brittle and can break.
Under tropical conditions the army issue insect repellant melts the plastic of the stock.
It is overly sensitive to fouling and dust to the point of needing almost hourly cleaning.
It cant be aimed and fired left handed.
Its possible to reassemble incorrectly and render it dangerous to the firer.
In short is is the biggest bag of sh**e that the Governemnt could have laid its bleeding hands on!"
Alas darkplace, without getting involved in the discussion, one have got to ask "So what else is new?" -
Message 27
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Monday, 17th April 2006
Perhaps the simpe answer to some of these present and future weapons is for the PBIs to suggest that the treaury test them out first under combat conditions. One of the best simple design which in jungle conditions beat the A K 47 hands down was the Owen.
-
Message 28
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Monday, 17th April 2006
When it comes to the Army picking Rifles I agree with you
Its a little known fact that the best rifle the british army have ever been issued with the SMLE Lee Enfield was due to be replaced prior to the first world war with a mauser knock off. The grounds given at the time were that everyone else in europe had a mauser??
sometimes common sense dosent seem to enter into the equation. -
Message 29
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 17th April 2006
A bad misconception is that M1 Carbines are weak and have no power behind them. This is a total myth. A standard .30 caliber ball round averages about 110 grains (7.1 g). The muzzle velocity of this round is 1,900 ft/s (580 m/s) and develops about 880 foot-pounds (1,190 joules) of energy. A .357 Magnum revolver fires the same weight of bullet at about 1,300 ft/s (396 m/s) for about 410 foot-pounds (560 J) of energy. (Reference: Winchester Ammunition)
-
Message 30
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 17th April 2006
AA,
You see that?. It wasn't just rebel backwoodsmen that shoot people down at 1000 yards!!!!! and charging tribesmen at that by gawd.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý
Buckskinz, there had been some slight improvements in technology, plus charging tribesmen provide a much bigger target (there tend to be more of them).
All the Best, AA. -
Message 31
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Monday, 17th April 2006
AA,
You see that?. It wasn't just rebel backwoodsmen that shoot people down at 1000 yards!!!!! and charging tribesmen at that by gawd.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý
Buckskinz, there had been some slight improvements in technology, plus charging tribesmen provide a much bigger target (there tend to be more of them).
All the Best, AA.Ìý
This seems to be a private argument, but I would add that at 1000yds, it was volley fire, not individual aimed fire i.e. if 200+ men all fire at once, some hits will be achieved. Particularly, as AA points out, against a mass target. -
Message 32
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Monday, 17th April 2006
AA,
You see that?. It wasn't just rebel backwoodsmen that shoot people down at 1000 yards!!!!! and charging tribesmen at that by gawd.
Cheers, Matt.Ìý
Buckskinz, there had been some slight improvements in technology, plus charging tribesmen provide a much bigger target (there tend to be more of them).
All the Best, AA.Ìý
Evidently. I mean, near twice the range, on foot, a moving target. You know a kill at 1000 yards today is a fair shot.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 33
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Monday, 17th April 2006
This seems to be a private argument, but I would add that at 1000yds, it was volley fire, not individual aimed fire i.e. if 200+ men all fire at once, some hits will be achieved. Particularly, as AA points out, against a mass target.Ìý
Not at all C3Square, anyone can join in. (Especially those on my side).
If I remember the original arguement, Buckskinz quoted a shot from the American War of Independence, I expressed some doubts that it could be considered as anything other than a "lucky" shot. Ignore us, we're a bit like Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon in the "Odd Couple". I actually have great respect for Buckskinz, yet can't seem to get along with him.
Cheers AA. -
Message 34
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
The Lee-Metford had other drawbacks, too.
Being still black powder, unburned powder build-up was a problem. When they switched to smokeless powder, the Metford rifling wore out very quickly, hence the adoption of Enfield-style rifling. The biggest problem was actually the propaganda victory it handed to the Boers. The British had resisted the ban on Dum-Dum ammunition for years, because of the lower stopping power of the early .303 bullet (later redesigns increased that markedly), and when the Boers captured ammunition boxes marked "Dum-Dum" they exploited the fact to the full. Actually, it was conventional ammunition manufactured at Dum-Dum Arsenal, Calcutta.
Just about everything issued to the Â鶹ԼÅÄ Guard was more dangerous to the user than the opponent, of course, from the Northover Projector to the Gas Pipe Pike to the Blacker Bombard to the Smith Gun - and many who did get rifles had WWI vintage Ross rifles, which were discarded in 1916 as wholly useless - heavy, cumbersome, prone to jamming, and tiring to use, although not a bad sniper rifle. -
Message 35
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
M1 Carbine? .45 round was the same round for the Colt pistol so there was a rifle firing pistol bullets. There were reports that at medium-long distance (medium-distance being that of the day, not modern standards) that the round couldn't penetrate winter uniforms.Ìý
The M-1 carbine did NOT use a .45 cartridge (you may be thinking of the grease gun). The M-1 carbine fired a really hot pistol cartridge. It was a .30 calibre cartridge that was for use at ranges a bit too distant for a reliable pistol shot. It was handier than the long-barreled Garand in thick underbrush and was perfect for use in such terrain. It was intended to fill a gap between the short-range .45 pistol cartridge and the long-range 30-06. The first ones issued were strictly semi-automatic but by 1952 a second model was available that could be fired on full auto if needed, and for that purpose a 35-shot magazine was made available. It was hardly ever used on full auto by anyone I knew. -
Message 36
Posted by LongWeekend (U3023428) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
M1 Carbine? .45 round was the same round for the Colt pistol so there was a rifle firing pistol bullets. There were reports that at medium-long distance (medium-distance being that of the day, not modern standards) that the round couldn't penetrate winter uniforms.Ìý
The M-1 carbine did NOT use a .45 cartridge (you may be thinking of the grease gun). The M-1 carbine fired a really hot pistol cartridge. It was a .30 calibre cartridge that was for use at ranges a bit too distant for a reliable pistol shot. It was handier than the long-barreled Garand in thick underbrush and was perfect for use in such terrain. It was intended to fill a gap between the short-range .45 pistol cartridge and the long-range 30-06. The first ones issued were strictly semi-automatic but by 1952 a second model was available that could be fired on full auto if needed, and for that purpose a 35-shot magazine was made available. It was hardly ever used on full auto by anyone I knew.Ìý
Eric, surely the A Team used chrome plated ones on full auto from the second season onwards? -
Message 37
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
The A team used a version of(If my memory seves me right) the M 14s. Although, how a crack unit could shoot so many rounds and not hit anybody is an insult to the men who served in the U S forces.
-
Message 38
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
They were Ruger Mini 14's, which was an M14 basically made smaller and re-chambered for the 5.56mm round. I could never figure why everyone in the series were such bad shots, but then again I could never suspend disbelief when villians used to just brush themselves off having just somersaulted through the air in a jeep, and don't even get started on how there was always duct tape around for them when they needed it...
-
Message 39
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Tuesday, 18th April 2006
The A team used a version of(If my memory seves me right) the M 14s. Although, how a crack unit could shoot so many rounds and not hit anybody is an insult to the men who served in the U S forces.Ìý
Hiya Grumpy.
An M14 is basicly an M1 with full auto capability. The problem with it was, on full auto it would climb like heck.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 40
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
I cant belive that no ones commented on the fact that when Hanibal cut loose with his M60 they grafted on the noise of a .50 caliber!
-
Message 41
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
Back to the original topic.
Standard Naval issue (late C18th) double-barrelled smoothbore flintlock pistols. Under normal conditions, officers were given two of these when taking part in cutting-out or boarding operations etc. They could expect at least 1 misfire (more likely 2), the range was pathetic, and the recoil was such that, if you fired 1 of the 2 barrels, you'd miss by miles.
If you had to contend with rain, wind, or spray on board a boat, you'd stand more chance of harming the enemy by throwing the pistols at them - or holding the barrel and using it as a bludgeon. -
Message 42
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
Most hand held weapons on full auto climbed away, one way or the other. The Thompson tried to stop this by means of deflecting some of the gas. (Never fired one of those)
-
Message 43
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
Most hand held weapons on full auto climbed away, one way or the other. The Thompson tried to stop this by means of deflecting some of the gas. (Never fired one of those)Ìý
Thats right, most were corrected with muzzle deflectors.
Matt. -
Message 44
Posted by TerribleTomas (U1765869) on Wednesday, 19th April 2006
M1 Carbine .30 modern metric equiv 7.62 x33mm
M1 (Garand) .30-06 calibre modern metric equiv 7.62 x 63mm
The .30 calibre round is classed as an intermediate between a pistol round and a rifle round. The second figure in the metric equiv is the length of the case minus the tip (bullet) Even the Germans were fond of the M1 and it has also been used by police forces inc the RUC in Northern Ireland -
Message 45
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
My vote is for the Chauchat, whic was a WW1 French weapon. Badly designed, unusual (and not very good) mechanism, badly built and using a totally unsuitable cartridge. Apparently the French sold a load of these to the US in 1917, which meant that US troops had to give up Lewis guns for this rubbish, and the rechambering to .30 calibre actually made it worse. Ìý
I was thinking of this when I first posted the thread and couldn't think of the name.
The German Volkgranate45 was a shocker - a lump of concreate wrapped about an explosive charge - more dangerous to user than target. -
Message 46
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
Because in military terms, the Winchester was a carbine, effective out to a couple of hundred yards, and with a relatively small bullet. The British Army needed a rifle that could knock down a charging tribesman at 1000 yards. Hence the Martini-Henry. Winchesters at Isandhlwana would just have made the battle shorter. And to be fair to Horse Guards, the Martini-Henry was in service for a relatively short time (in military terms) before being superceded by the Lee-Metford, which did have a magazine. The troops then complained that the new weapon didn't have the stopping power of the MH.Ìý
Isandhlwana would probably not have been shortened much - the problem there was that ammunition supplies to the troops broke down, the suggestion being that the wooden ammo boxes were too hard to open. If they had been using Winchesters with ammo easy to open boxes, the result could have been different - more like Rorke's Drift, perhaps?
Incidentally, what rifles were the British and Egyptian troops using at Omdurman? Lee-Metfords, or were the Egyptians still using Martini-Henries? Certainly, whatever they were, they had enough stopping power to deal with the Ansars! -
Message 47
Posted by Grumpyfred (U2228930) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
The story of the hard to open ammo box was a mith. hit it with the butt of a Henry, and the box opened. It was just the excuse (One of them) to explain how a modern army could be over run by natives with spears. the chances are, that if the British had listened to the Boars, and lagered, or the army had fought shoulder to shoulder instead of being spread out they would have held, but neither happened.
-
Message 48
Posted by Buckskinz (U3036516) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
Grumpy,
If boxes of ammunition can make it from Birmingham to Africa intact, its odd that they can be opened with a smack from a rifle butt.
Cheers, Matt. -
Message 49
Posted by Sabre-Wulf (U2142937) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
if the British had listened to the Boars, and lagered, they would have held, Ìý
I'm sure a couple of pints of Stella would have given the Brits more fighting spirit! -
Message 50
Posted by Stoaty (U3809437) on Thursday, 20th April 2006
My vote is for the Chauchat, whic was a WW1 French weapon. Badly designed, unusual (and not very good) mechanism, badly built and using a totally unsuitable cartridge. Apparently the French sold a load of these to the US in 1917, which meant that US troops had to give up Lewis guns for this rubbish, and the rechambering to .30 calibre actually made it worse. Ìý
I was thinking of this when I first posted the thread and couldn't think of the name.
The German Volkgranate45 was a shocker - a lump of concreate wrapped about an explosive charge - more dangerous to user than target.Ìý
Or how about the British Sticky bomb - a glass flask of nitroglycerine with an adhesive coating, to stick it to a tank.
Nitro is not the stablest of compounds and wouldn't have taken a lot of bouncing around in the field, plus the sticky coating was great at sticking to the the bomber, as much as it was to the tank.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.