Worst Current Issue Weapon(Rifle or Pistol)

RnderSafe said:
Good eye, Redneck.

The first Galils were made with Finnish parts and Valmet designs/machinery. Eventually, the basic design of the Valmet receiver was retained with the left side lightening cut modified into a scope mount base.

Sako/Valmet are first class.

yep you are right.

Well, again, the Galil is not really a bad weapon at all. A bit on the heavy side compared with the M16, but not a bad weapon. They don't use it for much in Israel anymore(We got so many M16s....), just for armour and arty troops. The reason is that they get the short barraled version with folding stock, and we can keep the M4s for the people who really need em. Oh, and they dont mind the weight because they have a tank carrying it for them.... ;)
Another Firearm I'm not too fond of:

Remington 870
20 Gauge Shotgun

The scatter is to little, and the charge is far too weak.

My opionion on that, is that a shotgun should never be smaller than a 12 gauge.

Has anyone used military shotguns before??? I haven't, that is a civilian gun.
the m3 "grease gun" the worst peice of junk i ever carried

and the m2 .50 cal mg hb the best for area supression and fire power
bad rifle

the steyr aug (.223 cal) is a useless peice of machinery, which is what u get for wantin to make guns outta plastic i guess, would b good if it didn't overheat on fully auto to as it can at times
Well I do know that the best rifle in the world would happen to be the AN-94 Abakan Russian Assault Rifle.

:m16shoot: :biggun:
Hey, Spetz, welcome to the forum. I need you to PM Redleg with a new name (read the forum rules if you have any questions about why). How about heading over to the Welcoming Center and giving us an introduction?
H&K G3

7.62, HK engineering, and comes with a foldable stock. I was assigned one when working in europe during a reforger exercise, my favorite.

M16A1 - Absolute Worst, A2 at least had some accuracy and senible sites. The M4 is horrible, unless clearing a room, but then I would prefer the MP5, more control.

M9, worst pistol, I can remember when we had to requal when they were issued to the Corps, felt like a cap gun compared to the M1911.

My 2 cents....
Why don't you like the M4, if you don't mind me asking? I have extremely limited experience with the M4A1 (a grand total of 4 days using one :lol: ), but I really liked it, the only drawbacks are the weight of the stock (which makes the weapon pretty akward and unbalanced when you slap a 203 and one or two other goo-gahs on it) and perhaps the length of the barrel, which at 14.5 inches is somewhat on the short side for my tastes. But I would say it is far from being a bad weapon, it seemed to be very reliable (although I was constantly cleaning it in the field just to be safe) and highly accurate, and the collapsing stock made it much more manageable in certain situations (didn't do any urban, but I was climbing through some pretty friendly brush :lol: ).

Could be me, but I had become very used to the 16 with a 203 strapped to it, so my first issue was a 4 with the 203 which made it very front heavy and unbalanced. And firing the 203 from it was not as accurate as from the 16, this could have just been the amount of practice that I had with the 203 on the 16, but I really felt that it was a disadvantage. The weapon wasn't as accurate on the KD range, but like I said before, in the UC range it was worthwhile. The barrel seemed to have a tendency to climb and the flash is enormous, not the best if you are trying to shoot and scoot. I had no problem with the reliability and the collapsable stock was nice when you are trying to negotiate through heavy bush or doorways, but it didn't give me a good sight picture. It seemed to be too short all the time no matter what position I hd it in. The new ones I am told have more adjustability, plus if you remove the 203 and add the handle, it makes a difference in controllability in a heavy fire fight at close qurters. Might not be good reasons, but they are reasons.

Semper Fi....
Thanks for the feedback, I ran into a lot of the same problems, although I never actually got to fire the 203 on the M4, just lugged it all over Ft. Hunter-Liggett, but I wouldn't call it a horrible weapon, or even close to being that bad. But then, I'd only had a couple years of pretty sparse experience with the M16A2 so I never got as attached to it as you did.
I like the A2, but it's lack of a full automatic setting would be a little galling if you have to take down someone (and empty a magazine) quickly. :D
Emptying a full mag.....Yikes

LCDR_SurfWar said:
I like the A2, but it's lack of a full automatic setting would be a little galling if you have to take down someone (and empty a magazine) quickly. :D


A little extreme and a huge waste of ammo, the 5.56 round might be a little anemic, but 2 or 3 should create the effect that you need. 8)

The A3 is the most useful variant now witht he removable handle and a rail for optics and such, probably the next common issue for the Corps or probably the A4. BTW: LCDR_SurfWar the A3/A4 has a full auto option for you convience. :rambo:
I like the A2, but it's lack of a full automatic setting would be a little galling if you have to take down someone (and empty a magazine) quickly.


Man, you cant hit jack in full auto, and it wastes ammo. a 3 round burst is just fine.
5.56 is fine, as long as its military issue ammo...cant hit jack with cheap civilian ammunition. The burst doesnt give you the opportunity to aim the second two shots, with full auto you can aim as you fire. Yes, it wastes ammo, but as long as I don't have to pay for it... :rambo: :D :rambo: