USMC Johnny
Active member
What is the worst weapon(Rifle or Pistol)that is currently issued by any military in the world?
And.... What is the best weapon issued?
And.... What is the best weapon issued?
Worst Current Issue Weapon(Rifle or Pistol)
USMC Johnny
Active member
Worst Rifle
In my opionion(being a Marine, which we pride ourselfs on long distance shooting)
The M-16A2(.223 Cal Rifle) is the worst gun issued to the military, and the M4 is a close second(.223 sucks!)
M-16
M-4
In my opionion(being a Marine, which we pride ourselfs on long distance shooting)
The M-16A2(.223 Cal Rifle) is the worst gun issued to the military, and the M4 is a close second(.223 sucks!)
M-16
M-4
Kozzy Mozzy
Active member
The M-16A2 is not the best gun on the market today, but it is far from the worst. It is accurate out to 350 meters, works if you clean it, and does what it is supposed to do, win close firefights. If you're shooting long, use an M-14.
Also, if you want long range shooting, the M4 would be worse then the M-16.
Also, if you want long range shooting, the M4 would be worse then the M-16.
soilder79936
Active member
well i think i have a worst maybe you guys do but if i ever goto war that weapon saves my life
Kozzy Mozzy
Active member
The worst current issued assault rifle is probably the L85. It comes apart when you fire it, the safety breaks off, the magazine falls out. It may be accurate, but accurate don't mean shit if your gun is in peices.
L85
The SA80 A1 family of weapons, of whish the L85 is one variant (there's also a Light Support Weapon variant and a new carbine version), was a quite bad rifle. I say quite bad because it was blown out of proportion by the press wanting to take a dig at our government. It is an accurate rifle, especially with the SUSAT optical sight. I've never heard of one falling apart when fired, but the problem with the magazine falling off was rectified very early on. However, it was very unreliable. This was mainly because it required a high level of maintenance, which was just unpractical on exercise never mind operations.
There was also a problem with the feed of blank ammunition, due to the fact that the blanks we use have a crimped tip. This coupled with the fact that the rifle required even more maintenance when firing blanks (they throw out a lot more carbon than ball), lead to the troops having little faith in it. And rightly so.
The SA80 A2 is the new version which has undergone extensive modification. It is now an extremely reliable weapon. The initial tests in Oman, Norway, Belize and UK put it among the best assault rifles as far as reliability goes. Once the stats of how it performed in Iraq filter through the army and eventually to the public, I believe it will become a very highly regarded weapon. The problem with the feed of blank ammunition has also been rectified with a new magazine specifically for blank rounds, which will give British soldiers confidence in the weapon.
The SA80 A1 family of weapons, of whish the L85 is one variant (there's also a Light Support Weapon variant and a new carbine version), was a quite bad rifle. I say quite bad because it was blown out of proportion by the press wanting to take a dig at our government. It is an accurate rifle, especially with the SUSAT optical sight. I've never heard of one falling apart when fired, but the problem with the magazine falling off was rectified very early on. However, it was very unreliable. This was mainly because it required a high level of maintenance, which was just unpractical on exercise never mind operations.
There was also a problem with the feed of blank ammunition, due to the fact that the blanks we use have a crimped tip. This coupled with the fact that the rifle required even more maintenance when firing blanks (they throw out a lot more carbon than ball), lead to the troops having little faith in it. And rightly so.
The SA80 A2 is the new version which has undergone extensive modification. It is now an extremely reliable weapon. The initial tests in Oman, Norway, Belize and UK put it among the best assault rifles as far as reliability goes. Once the stats of how it performed in Iraq filter through the army and eventually to the public, I believe it will become a very highly regarded weapon. The problem with the feed of blank ammunition has also been rectified with a new magazine specifically for blank rounds, which will give British soldiers confidence in the weapon.
USMC Johnny
Active member
Another Bad Weapon
Another bad weapon, even though it pains me to say it.
Is the Springfield 1903 Rifle(for standard issue) In World War I, when the primary battles were long range trench fights(aka long shots) it excelled.
But during WWII, the need for the "double tap"(two shots) was vital to survival. So the 1903 lost it's useful potential.
But by no mean is it a bad gun, just not good for the changing times.
Another bad weapon, even though it pains me to say it.
Is the Springfield 1903 Rifle(for standard issue) In World War I, when the primary battles were long range trench fights(aka long shots) it excelled.
But during WWII, the need for the "double tap"(two shots) was vital to survival. So the 1903 lost it's useful potential.
But by no mean is it a bad gun, just not good for the changing times.
Kozzy Mozzy
Active member
Yes...thats the reason the M1 Garand replaced the 1903 as the standard infantry rifle. But you didn't double tap with it, the .30-06 cartridge blows giant holes in people, killing them rather quickly.
USMC Johnny
Active member
My Choice
As for me... I prefer the M-14, due to the fact that it is .308cal.
But the gun is far to heavy, it is powerful, but heavy
If they could make a M-16A3(in .308cal) that would be like amazing, because the engineering of the M-16 is amazing, it's just that the .223 lacks power.
This site shows a early 1960's Armalite AR-10 in .308CAL
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as16-e.htm
This would be nice gun, if they would put it into service
As for me... I prefer the M-14, due to the fact that it is .308cal.
But the gun is far to heavy, it is powerful, but heavy
If they could make a M-16A3(in .308cal) that would be like amazing, because the engineering of the M-16 is amazing, it's just that the .223 lacks power.
This site shows a early 1960's Armalite AR-10 in .308CAL
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as16-e.htm
This would be nice gun, if they would put it into service
USMC Johnny
Active member
Actually it wasn't untill late 1943 when the 1903 was not the standard weapon of the Marines.
My Grandfather was at Midway, and that is what he used. They didn't get the M-1 till much later(probally because the majority of them were going to the European Campaign)
My Grandfather was at Midway, and that is what he used. They didn't get the M-1 till much later(probally because the majority of them were going to the European Campaign)
silent driller
Active member
M-9 blows chunks. M1911 will knock someone down quick, fas and in a hurry(and they won't get up)! :2guns:
JaegerWolf08
Active member
The M16A3 was never fielded by the army, instead they skipped it and went straight to the M16A4. If you treated it right it would treat you right. Keep it clean and it will do alright. M4 is not a bad weapon either. The AK is much more reliable than the M16 family of weapons but, the M16 series is so much more accurate. While I would rather have a round with more knockdown power, the 5.56 ain't too bad. People have to remember that the round was not designed to be a long range round. It is supposed to be small and lightweight so that soldiers can carry a lot fo them. But all of this boils down to is, a questionable weapon in the hands of a well trained soldier is just as effective, if not more so than a great weapon in the hands of an untrained soldier.
rpgincoming
Active member
ak 47s have a reliability that can't be compared, but unfortunately due to the firing mechanism is pretty innacurate. i love the m14 but its kickback is fierce (i almost broke my eyesocket to pieces) mp5s good for close range urban stuff. i like m4s cus they are small and relatively lightweight. the steyr aug looks like an alien gun so i think its cool.
USMC Johnny
Active member
"The M16A3 was never fielded by the army, instead they skipped it and went straight to the M16A4. If you treated it right it would treat you right. Keep it clean and it will do alright. M4 is not a bad weapon either. The AK is much more reliable than the M16 family of weapons but, the M16 series is so much more accurate. While I would rather have a round with more knockdown power, the 5.56 ain't too bad. People have to remember that the round was not designed to be a long range round. It is supposed to be small and lightweight so that soldiers can carry a lot fo them. But all of this boils down to is, a questionable weapon in the hands of a well trained soldier is just as effective, if not more so than a great weapon in the hands of an untrained soldier."
In all due respect, the M-16 is a terrible gun. Take it from someone who has used it in combat. It is weak, accurate, but weak. But I come from a werid bunch of people(Marines) we prefer long distance knockdown power.
(That is why we are the best in the Military for long distance rifle shooting)
I'm sure the M-4 is along the same lines as the M-16, personally I have not shot the M-4, but have shot the M-14 and loved it(but it was way to heavy)
The need to make a .308cal rifle on the M-16 frame, that would be a great gun.
But the catridge needs to be at least 49mm long to get the long range power that is needed.
Well that is my opionion take it or leave it. *salutes* Sir
In all due respect, the M-16 is a terrible gun. Take it from someone who has used it in combat. It is weak, accurate, but weak. But I come from a werid bunch of people(Marines) we prefer long distance knockdown power.
(That is why we are the best in the Military for long distance rifle shooting)
I'm sure the M-4 is along the same lines as the M-16, personally I have not shot the M-4, but have shot the M-14 and loved it(but it was way to heavy)
The need to make a .308cal rifle on the M-16 frame, that would be a great gun.
But the catridge needs to be at least 49mm long to get the long range power that is needed.
Well that is my opionion take it or leave it. *salutes* Sir
JaegerWolf08
Active member
I agree that the M16 is a weak weapon, and has a bad design. And a 5.56 round in entirely too weak to do any substantial damage at extended ranges, and the small round over penetrates.
About combat though, I will have to take your word for it, as I have never been. The closest thing I got to it was live fires, but that is no where near close to combat.
The reason that the 5.56 round was fielded was because it was so much lighter and cheaper than the 7.62.
Soldier of Fortune magazine all though kinda fringe, has done a really good series of articles on the development of a 6.8 mm assault rifle round. All of the lightweight /high ammo capacity of the 5.56, and the stopping power of the 7.62.
There is also a new round that has been developed called a .50 Beowulf. It is essentially a .50 AE round that has been stretched lengthwise to get more of a punch. The weapon that was designed to fire it was based on a M16/M4 frame with a reinforced buffer spring.
Hopefully the new XM8 will solve all of our M16 woes. I think we need a new round more than we need a new rifle.
About combat though, I will have to take your word for it, as I have never been. The closest thing I got to it was live fires, but that is no where near close to combat.
The reason that the 5.56 round was fielded was because it was so much lighter and cheaper than the 7.62.
Soldier of Fortune magazine all though kinda fringe, has done a really good series of articles on the development of a 6.8 mm assault rifle round. All of the lightweight /high ammo capacity of the 5.56, and the stopping power of the 7.62.
There is also a new round that has been developed called a .50 Beowulf. It is essentially a .50 AE round that has been stretched lengthwise to get more of a punch. The weapon that was designed to fire it was based on a M16/M4 frame with a reinforced buffer spring.
Hopefully the new XM8 will solve all of our M16 woes. I think we need a new round more than we need a new rifle.
RnderSafe
Active member
USMC Johnny said:
I have to disagree about the M-16 being a "terrible" weapon. I too, have used it in combat, many times, and while not my first choice - it gets the job done and I have never had any major problems with it. I think there are improvements to be made in the M-16, particularly IRT the gas system. There are certainly better ammo choices than the M855/856, we could hardly do worse. Treating magazines as expendable items and maintaining a replacement cycle for weapons as they reach the end of their service life would be another.
Never had any major problems with the M-4, as well - and I find it completely different than the M-16, problems and benefits. The 77gr 5.56 does well with the M-4.
The version the Army intends to replace the 20" M-16 and 14.5" M-4 with is a by-product of the horrible OICW, and only has a 12" barrel, which further reduces the effective range of the weapon to less than 100 meters.
Think of it as a possibly more reliable 10.5" mini-carbine. Not exactly an infantryman's dream weapon for anything more than CQB, and maybe not even then.
I'll keep my M-4.