G' Morning!

I'm Looking for any nice deluge of info on some military guns that have been co mplete total failures on both the battlefield and the market.

A Pistol,
Rifle,
Submachine gun,
machine gun,
ect. that has stood out like a sore thumb.

1900 to WWII would suffice. :)

The liberator :D

http://usgi1911.tripod.com/liberator/libleft.jpg

Bad and terrible small arm designs are actually pretty rare. If the gun won't work then people and armies will not use it when their lives depend on it. But still some guns that have seen service seem to defy all logic and common sense.

Pistol: The Chezh vz/38 was pretty much worst design coming out of Europe just before WWII. It fired a 9mm from a short case making it unbelievably underpowered.
It had no thumb hammer, and since it was double-action, its accuracy was equally terrible.

The Japanese Type 14th and 94th year pistols were also complete wastes of metal by any standards

Submachine Gun: The American Reising M50 was pretty bad compared to WWII submachine guns. Probably because most of them used the tried and true blowback system. For example, the British stengun was incredibly crude and looked like a peice of **** but it was cheap to make and worked pretty well. The M50 was unreliable, compicated and expensive to make. These were issued to Marines who gladly threw it away in favor of the Thompson. Some were sent to Russia were they probably did the same with local weapons.

Rifle: The German Grewhr 41 comes to mind although there probably are worse examples. This is the only one I can think of at the moment. It was heavy and unbalanced, slow to reload and too complicated. Only 8,000 were made and they were quickly replaced by the much better Grewhr 43 rifles.

Machine Gun: The French Chauchat of 1915 was probably the worst gun ever. Most certainly the worst ever used by US forces. And what it is so confusing is why it was still being used all the way until the 60s. It was crappy in every single way a gun can be crappy.

The British SA-80 assault rifle. It's a national scandal.

The British SA-80 assault rifle. It's a national scandal.

I'd be enraged if I saw any backup to your statement that took you 3 seconds to write.

I'll instead provide a link to what I consider to be a decent article about the SA-80, its problems such as cost and many early teething problems (resulting in high cost) and its strengths such as being very accurate as a weapon for soldiers that are well trained (British soldiers).

Whilst the SA-80 isn't the weapon I'd equip British soldiers with, it is by no means the worst weapon ever, or even near that title.

The Chauchat from world war one has to be one of the worst.

The liberator :D

Indeed. The only gun ever made that took less time to produce than to reload.

The correct name for the Liberator Pistol is the "Flare Projector" Caliber .45 (FP-45). During 1942 over a six month period one million pistols were produced. Actual production of the pistol was about 11 weeks. Using that figure, 300 people produced a pistol with 23 parts every 6.6 seconds, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for 11 weeks. This is probably the only pistol that could be made faster than it could be loaded. Loading takes about 10 seconds.

It was a single-shot pistol, meaning, reload time was important. One shot every 10/11 seconds is pretty bad.

The pistols were mainly used in the Philippines and China. Their effective range was about 8 feet since they were without spiral-bore (the inside of the barrel was completely smooth, thus, the projectile had no spin, making it travel widely). Their only use was to sneak up behind a Japanese solider, shoot him in the back of the head, and take his gun.

I thought the primary purpose of that pistol was assassinations? At least, I believe that's what it says in my small arms book. I'll take a second look.

http://images.google.dk/imgres?imgurl=http://64.62.198.16/dr/images/uploads/Liberator_FP-45.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.kimdutoit.com/dr/archives.php%3Fid%3DA2003041&h=310&w=360&sz=22&tbnid=bZ_fmB8yddkJ:&tbnh=100&tbnw=116&start=4&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthe%2Bliberator%2Bgun%26hl%3Dda%26lr% 3D%26sa%3DG

Landmines.

The Chauchat from world war oen has to be oen of the worst.

This guy took the words right outta my mouth. Whoever fought with onna these was bound to make his wife a widow.

Why all the negative against the Liberator?

From what I know it was very effective for what it was intended. ;)

Sort of like a disposable lighter.

Bad and terrible small arm designs are actually pretty rare. If the gun won't work then people and armies will not use it when their lives depend on it. But still some guns that have seen service seem to defy all logic and common sense.

I never even heard of those weapons you mentioned. Except the Chauchat. :lol:

Landmines.


It small arms, I think think of landmines as small arms. But I do agree they are nasty weapons, but they are far from being failures.

I would have to say the French Chauchat, I only heard bad things about that gun

Well I tried to stay away from the ussual over-hyped targets such as the M16 and SA80 neither of which fall into the category of total failures and the former being quite succesful to any standards.

The Chauchat:
http://www.sbhac.net/Republica/Fuerzas/Armas/Infanteria/FAmetralla/Chauchat.jpg

The cz/38.
http://www.secondeguerre.net/Armes/cz38.jpg

The M50
http://www.guns.connect.fi/gow/kyreisin.gif

the m16 isn't that bad, it's not that good either though

Landmines.

:( Not that I wouldn't agree completely, Marla, but the other folks posting here have a totally different view...they actually like weapons. :wallbash:

Sorta like asking "Worst disease of the 20th century?", and not aiming at AIDS, Spanish Flue, Tuberculosis, but Common Cold, "...'cause it fails to kill those affected."

:( Not that I wouldn't agree completely, Marla, but the other folks posting here have a totally different view...they actually like weapons. :wallbash:

Sorta like asking "Worst disease of the 20th century?", and not aiming at AIDS, Spanish Flue, Tuberculosis, but Common Cold, "...'cause it fails to kill those affected."Oh sorry, that's another thread for gun freaks we can find across the Ocean.

Sometimes I wonder why they don't do a little war between each other since they seem to find it so funny. :rolleyes:

Dont remember the names or designations for the weapons, but a history channel special on the arms of the Japanese Empire was particularly scathing. The basic argument of the show was the the Japanese inability to develop small arms was a major factor in their eventual defeat.

The one weapon I remember best was a grenade launcher which, if used properly, would break the users leg. Ingenious.

@Marla and Doc Tsiolkovski: If you don't like the subject of the thread then don't post in it. Others might find this a reasonable discussion worth a deal of thought so don't spam or TJ it.

I beg to differ: It's the title of the thread that's misleading. I wouldn't bother if you'd called it "Least effective small arms..." or something in that direction.

Nevertheless, I'll be quiet now.

I'd be enraged if I saw any backup to your statement that took you 3 seconds to write.


http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/SA80.html
http://www.kimdutoit.com/drarchive/DR200207/DR20020724.htm
http://strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/1-2636.asp
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=9;t=000419;go=olde r
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/656786.stm
http://www.magnagunclub.co.uk/news_articles/articles/art2.php
http://strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/1-2464.asp

Interesting how on one of those sites they suggest equiping British in Afghanistan with American M-16s instead of the SA-80.

I know the SAS uses and prefers it over the SA-80.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as22-e.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/SA80.html
http://www.kimdutoit.com/drarchive/DR200207/DR20020724.htm
http://strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/1-2636.asp
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=next_topic;f=9;t=000419;go=olde r
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/656786.stm
http://www.magnagunclub.co.uk/news_articles/articles/art2.php
http://strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/1-2464.asp

Thats more like it my googling friend.

Oh sorry, that's another thread for gun freaks we can find across the Ocean.

Sometimes I wonder why they don't do a little war between each other since they seem to find it so funny. :rolleyes:

Not that I wouldn't agree completely, Marla, but the other folks posting here have a totally different view...they actually like weapons.

Guns are as just as much a componet of war history as say a tank or a fighter. I don't see you bashing the many 'tank freaks' (if there even is such a thing) on this forum. I reserve the right to discuss any topic which interests me about war wether it happens to be Grewehr 41s, WWI fighters or post-war Soviet armor.

So please just give your "gun's are bad, don't talk about them!"-phobia a rest.

Interesting how on one of those sites they suggest equiping British in Afghanistan with American M-16s instead of the SA-80.

I know the SAS uses and prefers it over the SA-80.

I thought the SAS adopted the C7 from canada over the M 16?

I thought the SAS adopted the C7 from canada over the M 16?

Canadian C7
http://world.guns.ru/assault/c7ft.jpg
Thats a very original weapon you have there Canada. :lol: :p

SA-80!
Simply because shooting it left-handed means the cartridge goes "zup!" into your ear!
*mumble*

The Chauchat from world war one has to be one of the worst.

goddamnmit, i knew someone would beat me to it

well at least i can post a pic
http://www.1stnmvi.com/Chauchat1.JPG

ugly sumvitch, innit?

this gun is so famous for being crap, you can get a good price for it, from collectors :lol:

The only thing that can be said in defense of the Chauchat is, that it was designed to give the French WWI troops something they had sorely missed - a weapon providing reltively protable automatic fire. A sad situation in itself.
Of course it was such a crappy design the solution turned out to be almost as bad as the problem.

The Chauchat is also famous for being the most widely produced machine guns of WWI.

Dont remember the names or designations for the weapons, but a history channel special on the arms of the Japanese Empire was particularly scathing. The basic argument of the show was the the Japanese inability to develop small arms was a major factor in their eventual defeat.

I saw that. It was pretty good sence very little is widely known about Japanese weapons.

The pistols were Type 14 and the Type 94.

The Type 14 fired a tiny 7mm bullet intended for people of Asian stature and not for the taller and larger British and American soldiers. The American M1911 Colt and the British Webely Mk.6 fired a massive 11.4mm bullet. Huge difference in stopping power.

The Arisaka was copy of the German mauser so it was not too bad except that in many cases the rifle was so long that it stood taller than the soldier using it!

Landmines.
umm landmines are the greates invention from a military standpoint... I can leave something there that will either kill or maime my enemys, deny them territory and protect large and vast areas with minimal manpower.... hmmmm sounds pretty good tactically to me.

I can leave something there that will either kill or maime my enemys,
Wrong. Those things will kill/harm a few enemies, and lots of innocents. Definitely one of the worst weapons ever used in larger numbers.
Why not using Anthrax? The result is the same - uninhabitable areas. Congrats to winning the war, unfortunately, you can't enter your lands any more. That's not "tactically good", that's insanely stupid.

umm yes they are tactiaclly good. Its tactical if u deny the enemy an approach, and landmines do that. Unfortuenately innocent ppl get hurt i agree but still a great passively tactical weapon. least thats what they taught me in the army.

Ross rifles were terrible when it came to field conditions.
the ross rifle was a stright pulll action rifle made and used by Candians for most of WWI.
The rifle was prone to mis-chanber and explode injuring or even killing the soldier using it.
http://www.ellisonsmilitaryrifles.com/archives/ross.jpg