Slater
October 19, 2003, 10:26 AM
Everyone is familiar with the famous rifles of the 20th century (M1 Garand, AK-47, M16, etc.). Is there any one firearm that would deserve the title "worst military rifle of the 20th century"?
Worst military rifle?
If you enjoyed reading about "Worst military rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
telewinz
October 19, 2003, 10:42 AM
The Japanese Type 38th Year Arisaka Rifle, proof that no matter how cheaply they made them the Mauser design was a good one.:barf:
But the L85 sure seems to be a contender....
The early rifles had many problems; I have heard many horror stories such as that the plastic would melt when cam cream and insect repellant was applied, that the rear upper receiver and trigger mechanism housing were made of such poor strength that you could squeeze the walls together and prevent the bolt carrier from travelling down the recoil rod assembly. I have heard that the top cover was made so flimsily that it was common practice to tape it down to prevent it opening randomly during firing, even that the lack of a magazine release catch guard meant that the magazine would often release itself when making contact with your webbing! The list goes on.... What has to be remembered is that the rifle is not a bad idea as such but more a good idea gone bad, for it is essentially an American (British Sterling made) AR18 'widowmaker' (as called by the IRA) switched into bullpup configuration.
But the L85 sure seems to be a contender....
The early rifles had many problems; I have heard many horror stories such as that the plastic would melt when cam cream and insect repellant was applied, that the rear upper receiver and trigger mechanism housing were made of such poor strength that you could squeeze the walls together and prevent the bolt carrier from travelling down the recoil rod assembly. I have heard that the top cover was made so flimsily that it was common practice to tape it down to prevent it opening randomly during firing, even that the lack of a magazine release catch guard meant that the magazine would often release itself when making contact with your webbing! The list goes on.... What has to be remembered is that the rifle is not a bad idea as such but more a good idea gone bad, for it is essentially an American (British Sterling made) AR18 'widowmaker' (as called by the IRA) switched into bullpup configuration.
Marko Kloos
October 19, 2003, 10:42 AM
I'd say it's a tie between the Enfield L85 and the Italian Carcano.
Black Snowman
October 19, 2003, 10:43 AM
Most of what the Japanese were saddled with late in WWII. Just saw a documentery on the History channel about it not long ago.
I can't remember the name of the rifles but "cheap" doesn't even begin to describe these guns.
I can't remember the name of the rifles but "cheap" doesn't even begin to describe these guns.
Art Eatman
October 19, 2003, 10:58 AM
The old French 8mm Lebel carbine has to be leading the charge toward "Yuck!" One of the few things I ever inherited that I couldn't even keep around because of nostalgia.
Art
Art
Daedalus
October 19, 2003, 11:28 AM
The Chauchat, of course.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Chauchat
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Chauchat
4v50 Gary
October 19, 2003, 11:35 AM
The early war Japanese rifles were quite good and very strong. Easily the worse were the Italian Carcanos.
Navy joe
October 19, 2003, 12:14 PM
The Japanese Type 38th Year Arisaka Rifle, proof that no matter how cheaply they made them the Mauser design was a good one
Ok, the type 38s debuted in 1905 I think and were quite the adequate rifle. The later Ty 99 rifles made in the latter days of the war are the blow yer face off variant.
Carcano is a safe bet I'd say.
Ok, the type 38s debuted in 1905 I think and were quite the adequate rifle. The later Ty 99 rifles made in the latter days of the war are the blow yer face off variant.
Carcano is a safe bet I'd say.
T.Stahl
October 19, 2003, 12:17 PM
Uh, is there any rifle that could come close to an SA80?
Keith
October 19, 2003, 01:08 PM
The M16 has to take the cake! It's never been reliable in the field.
Keith
Keith
Mike Irwin
October 19, 2003, 01:36 PM
Type 38s were excellent rifles. Unbelievably strong and almost no recoil with the 6.5mm round.
The Type 99s were OK in early production. Essentially a Type 38 rechambered.
Late in the war, though, you had seriously crappy guns being made.
Carcanos are certainly no great shakes.
But, I have to give the crown for worst military rifle to the French Chauterault Betherier rifles and carbines.
A complex bolt that was difficult to operate, terrible trigger, terrible sights, and, in many of them, a THREE-ROUND magazine capacity! The original 1886 Lebel had, I believe, a 7-round capacity in its tubular magazine.
Not far behind, and as an honorable mention as a BATTLE RIFLE, is the M1 carbine. It was reliable, it was light, it was handy, and it was greatly underpowered. Of course it was never intended to be a front-line military rifle, so that's why it only gets an honorable mention.
My Great-Uncle Ralph was in the 82nd Airborn in World War II, made all the major drops that his unit made, and was issued an M1 Carbine. After his first engagement he found a ground pounder and traded him the Carbine for an M1 rifle, and carried the rifle for the rest of the war, despite the extra burden.
The Type 99s were OK in early production. Essentially a Type 38 rechambered.
Late in the war, though, you had seriously crappy guns being made.
Carcanos are certainly no great shakes.
But, I have to give the crown for worst military rifle to the French Chauterault Betherier rifles and carbines.
A complex bolt that was difficult to operate, terrible trigger, terrible sights, and, in many of them, a THREE-ROUND magazine capacity! The original 1886 Lebel had, I believe, a 7-round capacity in its tubular magazine.
Not far behind, and as an honorable mention as a BATTLE RIFLE, is the M1 carbine. It was reliable, it was light, it was handy, and it was greatly underpowered. Of course it was never intended to be a front-line military rifle, so that's why it only gets an honorable mention.
My Great-Uncle Ralph was in the 82nd Airborn in World War II, made all the major drops that his unit made, and was issued an M1 Carbine. After his first engagement he found a ground pounder and traded him the Carbine for an M1 rifle, and carried the rifle for the rest of the war, despite the extra burden.
keederdag
October 19, 2003, 02:09 PM
L-85= improved SA-80; I think they acctually have worked most the bugs out now, and you gotta remember, the Brits have even more trouble teaching gun stuff (maintenence, ect.) to theyre troops than we do. The L-85/SA-80 has several good points often overlooked; the SUSAT sight is superb, and it's exeptionally accurate for a combat rifle.:D
Telperion
October 19, 2003, 02:14 PM
Another vote for the SA80/L85.
Chipperman
October 19, 2003, 02:15 PM
Reising
Too complicated for war. Even when meticulously cleaned and only fired indoors, they will still jam sometimes.
Too complicated for war. Even when meticulously cleaned and only fired indoors, they will still jam sometimes.
Ian
October 19, 2003, 02:27 PM
Having played around with most all of the Japanese WWII rifles (my father is one of the guys interviewed on the Tales of the Gun episode on Japanese WWII weapons), I wouldn't be too unhappy having one in combat.
How about the Candian Ross rifle? Nothing like having your bolt blow back through your head because you put it together the wrong way...
How about the Candian Ross rifle? Nothing like having your bolt blow back through your head because you put it together the wrong way...
MP-44
October 19, 2003, 02:34 PM
Canadian Ross rifle. Is this the rifle that a part could be put in wrong, still fire and could cause serious injury to the shooter?
Sylvilagus Aquaticus
October 19, 2003, 02:52 PM
Ditto the Chauchat. How could something so awful be so meticulously designed, engineered, and brought to full production and yet be so hideously unworkable as to only be of use as a still?
The 'last-ditch' weapons, Mausers, Carcanos, etc, started off fine but it was the shortcuts in manufacturing that made them awful. The Chauchat was flawed before it even got to the rough draft proposal stage.
Regards,
Rabbit.
The 'last-ditch' weapons, Mausers, Carcanos, etc, started off fine but it was the shortcuts in manufacturing that made them awful. The Chauchat was flawed before it even got to the rough draft proposal stage.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Black Snowman
October 19, 2003, 02:53 PM
Ian How about the Candian Ross rifle? Nothing like having your bolt blow back through your head because you put it together the wrong way...
I think we have a winner.
I think we have a winner.
Ian
October 19, 2003, 02:56 PM
MP-44 - Yup. It was a straight-pull bolt rifle. Unless I'm very much mistaken, you could put one of the bolt pieces in backwards and it would chamber rounds and fire but not engage the locking lugs. Result: bolt goes out the rear of the gun at high velocity. Bummer. It also had serious reliability issues in the field when assembled correctly.
Marko Kloos
October 19, 2003, 02:58 PM
The Chauchat is certainly the worst small arms abortion ever fielded by any army, but it wasn't a rifle. It was a light machine gun, an early forerunner of the GPMG/SAW concept.
Badger Arms
October 19, 2003, 03:44 PM
Chauchat in 30-06 definitely. In it's French caliber, it was said to operate much better, but much better than terrible is still just bad.
TechBrute
October 19, 2003, 04:35 PM
The M16 has to take the cake! It's never been reliable in the field. Never?:rolleyes: You obviously have no experience with them and buy into what you hear everytime some rear eschelon troop that never cleans their rifles says when they actually see some battle. I'm not saying that they're perfect, or even that they are one of the best, but they certainly aren't even in the running for the worst.
Pumpkinheaver
October 19, 2003, 04:47 PM
That french piece of junk the chauchat.
Keith
October 19, 2003, 04:49 PM
You obviously have no experience with them and buy into what you hear everytime some rear eschelon troop that never cleans their rifles says when they actually see some battle.
It's great that those front line troops are able to stop and clean their weapons every few hours...
Look, the gas system vents debris back into the action/chamber. That is a BAD idea and a bad design! Yeah, you can overcome that by sticking weird stuff on the side of the rifle (the forward assist) and badgering your troops to clean their weapons every time the pollen count or relative humidity is too high, or low, or whatever. But if it wasn't poorly designed in the first place you wouldn't have to keep re-engineering it and blaming the troops for the fact that it doesn't work!
It's an 8 pound rifle that fires a .22 and jams up when you shoot it too much or it gets dirty. The ONE unpardonable sin in battle rifle design is when a gun doesn't go "bang" every time you pull the trigger. Accuracy, ergonomics, range, recoil - all of that is secondary. A battle rifle needs to go bang every time; dirty, clean, wet or frozen, before you consider anything else.
Keith
It's great that those front line troops are able to stop and clean their weapons every few hours...
Look, the gas system vents debris back into the action/chamber. That is a BAD idea and a bad design! Yeah, you can overcome that by sticking weird stuff on the side of the rifle (the forward assist) and badgering your troops to clean their weapons every time the pollen count or relative humidity is too high, or low, or whatever. But if it wasn't poorly designed in the first place you wouldn't have to keep re-engineering it and blaming the troops for the fact that it doesn't work!
It's an 8 pound rifle that fires a .22 and jams up when you shoot it too much or it gets dirty. The ONE unpardonable sin in battle rifle design is when a gun doesn't go "bang" every time you pull the trigger. Accuracy, ergonomics, range, recoil - all of that is secondary. A battle rifle needs to go bang every time; dirty, clean, wet or frozen, before you consider anything else.
Keith
TechBrute
October 19, 2003, 05:01 PM
I never said they were perfect, but they certainly aren't one of the worst military rifles. It just sounds to me like you've read too many things parroted by teenagers on the internet that haven't even shot one, or one of those reporters that hangs out with the people in the rear and doesn't realize that that story has been done before. Again, I wouldn't nominate them for one of the best, but considering some of the junk that has gone to war, I'm not sure where you're coming from. If you wanted to specify the Vietnam era first issue M-16s with no cleaning kits, I'd leave you alone, but the modern issue rifle with routine maintenance is relatively reliable.
Ian
October 19, 2003, 05:04 PM
Well, Kieth, if you were going into a fight and had the choice of taking a Ross, Chauchat, or M16, which would you choose?
Keith
October 19, 2003, 05:39 PM
I'd dress up like a girl and hide!
Keith
Keith
TechBrute
October 19, 2003, 05:46 PM
I'd dress up like a girl and hide! LMAO!!!:D
LeonCarr
October 19, 2003, 08:57 PM
At least the Ross Rifle was accurate. It may have sucked in combat, but it won many matches. It is claimed that it was the most accurate rifle of the WWI period, and used by canadian snipers in WWI. I believe McBride had one. I also bet that the seasoned Ross Rifle shooters saw one of their buddies die when he blew himself up and remembered after that how to put in the parts correctly.
My vote: the chauchat (used lower case letters on purpose). The best tomato stake ever created by man.
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
My vote: the chauchat (used lower case letters on purpose). The best tomato stake ever created by man.
Just my .02,
LeonCarr
Mike Irwin
October 19, 2003, 09:49 PM
The Reising was a submachine gun. Interestingly, I saw some film of Nazi sailors from a surrendered U-boat at the end of the war off-loading in I believe New London, Connecticut. The dock guards, who were sailors, were definitely carrying Reisings! I was kind of surprised, as I didn't think any were used by the Navy.
The French called the Chauchat a machine rifle, I believe. I've talked about it any number of times here. In design, at least, it was a pretty decent gun. In execution, however, it was largely a disaster. The French used cottage industry to make many of them, and had lots of problems with making the parts fit.
The ones that Doughboys originally got were well used and abused original issues in 8mm Lebel. It's no wonder that they didn't work. They were worn out.
Later ones, manufactured new in .30-06, were actually decent guns, but the higher-pressure round stressed the living hell out of the guns and they wore out fairly quickly.
The Ross rifle had a number of problems. The bolt assembly problem was fixed in later versions, but apparently many early versions still made it into the hands of green troops.
There's a semi-famous, and very graphic, photograph of a Canadian soldier dead on the battlefield with what is identified to be a Ross bolt stuck in his right eye.
Correctly assembled, the Ross is a dream to shoot, and is crazy accurate, with a light straight pull action.
As it gets dirty or heats up, though, the action gets harder and harder and harder, to the point where it can be almost impossible to get the bolt open without jumping on it.
During some battles Canadian troops fought in relays so they would have the opportunty to let their guns cool and clean the actions.
As for the M-16, it's still struggling under the bad press that they early ones got in Vietnam. It has since matured into a reliable and effective combat weapon.
No gun is infalliable in all conditions. For all of the reverence in which it is held, the M1 Garand was known to fail in various climactic and geographic conditions.
My uncle, the paratrooper, said African sand could be particularly tough on them.
The French called the Chauchat a machine rifle, I believe. I've talked about it any number of times here. In design, at least, it was a pretty decent gun. In execution, however, it was largely a disaster. The French used cottage industry to make many of them, and had lots of problems with making the parts fit.
The ones that Doughboys originally got were well used and abused original issues in 8mm Lebel. It's no wonder that they didn't work. They were worn out.
Later ones, manufactured new in .30-06, were actually decent guns, but the higher-pressure round stressed the living hell out of the guns and they wore out fairly quickly.
The Ross rifle had a number of problems. The bolt assembly problem was fixed in later versions, but apparently many early versions still made it into the hands of green troops.
There's a semi-famous, and very graphic, photograph of a Canadian soldier dead on the battlefield with what is identified to be a Ross bolt stuck in his right eye.
Correctly assembled, the Ross is a dream to shoot, and is crazy accurate, with a light straight pull action.
As it gets dirty or heats up, though, the action gets harder and harder and harder, to the point where it can be almost impossible to get the bolt open without jumping on it.
During some battles Canadian troops fought in relays so they would have the opportunty to let their guns cool and clean the actions.
As for the M-16, it's still struggling under the bad press that they early ones got in Vietnam. It has since matured into a reliable and effective combat weapon.
No gun is infalliable in all conditions. For all of the reverence in which it is held, the M1 Garand was known to fail in various climactic and geographic conditions.
My uncle, the paratrooper, said African sand could be particularly tough on them.
Cosmoline
October 19, 2003, 10:45 PM
Arisaka? Postwar tests revealed they were the strongest of all WWII rifles. And my own experience with them has been VERY positive. Just stay away from the last ditch cast iron jobs, as others have indicated.
The MAS's rechambered for 7.62 NATO are pretty awful.
The MAS's rechambered for 7.62 NATO are pretty awful.
C.R.Sam
October 19, 2003, 11:15 PM
M-16 seemed to work pretty well when used by small groups that were trained gunners. If you don't get a cleaning kit with your new toy, bout 15 minutes later one has been made and the gun stripped, checked, cleaned and lubed. Ready to learn how to use it.
We got four of em in late 66 and they served well for 6 months. Not even magazine problems and we loaded em 20 up. VERY careful to not load 21 in a mag tho. It would go but the gun often wouldn't. That operater, not gun.
A hoot....wasn't till back home that I learned it was called a rifle.
M-1 Rifle and M-14 were Rifles.:D
Sam
We got four of em in late 66 and they served well for 6 months. Not even magazine problems and we loaded em 20 up. VERY careful to not load 21 in a mag tho. It would go but the gun often wouldn't. That operater, not gun.
A hoot....wasn't till back home that I learned it was called a rifle.
M-1 Rifle and M-14 were Rifles.:D
Sam
SodaPop
October 20, 2003, 12:27 AM
Ian How about the Candian Ross rifle? Nothing like having your bolt blow back through your head because you put it together the wrong way...
I was just about to ask about that rifle tonight and read that on this thread. I wasn't sure if that was an urban legend or not.
I hope they shot the person that designed it.:uhoh:
I was just about to ask about that rifle tonight and read that on this thread. I wasn't sure if that was an urban legend or not.
I hope they shot the person that designed it.:uhoh:
MaterDei
October 20, 2003, 12:52 AM
Easily the worse were the Italian Carcanos
I must disagree.
Lee Harvey proved that this weapon was not only amazingly accurate but that it also could be fired very quickly.:eek:
I must disagree.
Lee Harvey proved that this weapon was not only amazingly accurate but that it also could be fired very quickly.:eek:
Mike Irwin
October 20, 2003, 12:56 AM
"I hope they shot the person that designed it."
Nope, they Knighted him.
He became Sir Charles Ross. Don't know if that happened before or after, though.
His rifle factory used to be located in Quebec on the Plains of Abraham, apparently in what is now the big park there.
It's not really difficult to tell if you've reassembled the Ross bolt incorrectly -- the action will be a lot harder than normal to close, and if you watch the bolt when it's uncocked the positioning is incorrect.
This is in Smith's Small Arms of the World --
"The Ross rifles are well made of good materiaks. but they had several serious design defects that caused their abandonment as an infantry weapon by Canada in 1916. The action is suitable for sporting rifles but was found eminently unsuited for the mud of Flanders.
"The most serious problem wtih the Ross for the modern shooter is the fact that on most models the bolt can be reassembled wrong and yet be put in the weapon, it may then fire a cartridge in an unlocked condition with resulting serious injury, if not death, to the shooter. The bolt is assembled wrong if the distance between the bolt head and the bolt sleeve is less than one inch when the bolt is withdrawn from the rifle (bolt in unlocked posture). The bolt is exceedingly difficult to disassemble and reassembel, and it is best to take it to a gunsmith if in doubt."
That bolded section is in the book...
Nope, they Knighted him.
He became Sir Charles Ross. Don't know if that happened before or after, though.
His rifle factory used to be located in Quebec on the Plains of Abraham, apparently in what is now the big park there.
It's not really difficult to tell if you've reassembled the Ross bolt incorrectly -- the action will be a lot harder than normal to close, and if you watch the bolt when it's uncocked the positioning is incorrect.
This is in Smith's Small Arms of the World --
"The Ross rifles are well made of good materiaks. but they had several serious design defects that caused their abandonment as an infantry weapon by Canada in 1916. The action is suitable for sporting rifles but was found eminently unsuited for the mud of Flanders.
"The most serious problem wtih the Ross for the modern shooter is the fact that on most models the bolt can be reassembled wrong and yet be put in the weapon, it may then fire a cartridge in an unlocked condition with resulting serious injury, if not death, to the shooter. The bolt is assembled wrong if the distance between the bolt head and the bolt sleeve is less than one inch when the bolt is withdrawn from the rifle (bolt in unlocked posture). The bolt is exceedingly difficult to disassemble and reassembel, and it is best to take it to a gunsmith if in doubt."
That bolded section is in the book...
Feanaro
October 20, 2003, 02:25 AM
"I hope they shot the person that designed it."
Nope, they Knighted him.
Gotta love the English. ;)
Nope, they Knighted him.
Gotta love the English. ;)
Dionysusigma
October 20, 2003, 06:04 AM
Worst military rifle?
A broken one. ;)
edit: Seriously, the Winchester 1911SL (I'm not too keen on shooting mine :uhoh: :banghead: :rolleyes:
A broken one. ;)
edit: Seriously, the Winchester 1911SL (I'm not too keen on shooting mine :uhoh: :banghead: :rolleyes:
jrhead75
October 20, 2003, 09:59 AM
IMO, it's no contest. The chauchat was the worst military weapon, or for that matter, piece of machinery ever produced by man. That may be a bit over the top, but those things were horrendous! You couldn't even swap parts between two of them, for cryin' out loud!
The truly sad thing is that the BAR was available, but the government didn't want them falling into German hands, and so refused to issue them. A lot of good men died because they had a good farm implement/tomato stake/still/baseball bat in combat, when what they needed was an effective automatic weapon.
The truly sad thing is that the BAR was available, but the government didn't want them falling into German hands, and so refused to issue them. A lot of good men died because they had a good farm implement/tomato stake/still/baseball bat in combat, when what they needed was an effective automatic weapon.
CZ-100
October 20, 2003, 09:59 AM
I also vote for the french Chauchat!
Mike Irwin
October 20, 2003, 11:54 AM
OK, raise your hands, folks...
Who here has actually FIRED a Chauchat?
I have, fairly extensively.
They're not quite as bad as the legends would have you believe.
They're no great shakes, that's true, but the design was actually fairly solid, except for the witness slots in the magazine.
Who here has actually FIRED a Chauchat?
I have, fairly extensively.
They're not quite as bad as the legends would have you believe.
They're no great shakes, that's true, but the design was actually fairly solid, except for the witness slots in the magazine.
Nightcrawler
October 20, 2003, 12:29 PM
You couldn't even swap parts between two of them,
Ever since I've been in the Army, they've been telling us that under no circumstances should you ever swap parts of two M16s, swap barrels for two different SAWs, etc.
I assumed at first that this was for dicipline's sake; I mean, it's poor soldiering to lose parts of your weapon.
But they always insist that swapping parts will damage or render the weapons inoperable. For example, you can't swap bolts on an M16, etc.
*shrug*
Ever since I've been in the Army, they've been telling us that under no circumstances should you ever swap parts of two M16s, swap barrels for two different SAWs, etc.
I assumed at first that this was for dicipline's sake; I mean, it's poor soldiering to lose parts of your weapon.
But they always insist that swapping parts will damage or render the weapons inoperable. For example, you can't swap bolts on an M16, etc.
*shrug*
Mike Irwin
October 20, 2003, 12:37 PM
Swapping bolts is never a good idea with ANY rifle.
It can cause headspacing problems, and is best done by an armorer.
It can cause headspacing problems, and is best done by an armorer.
MaterDei
October 20, 2003, 12:45 PM
I will confirm what Nightcrawler just said, but I'm not sure how true it is.
The first time I was ever told that the parts are not interchangeable is a funny story. While still in college in ROTC, after a field excercise, my girlfriend at the time, and I were sitting in the armory cleaning our M-16s (how romantic, no?) and came up with a bright idea. We took all of our small parts (bolt, bolt carrier, charging hangle, etc.) and put them into a plastic MRE bag, poured break free in on top and did the shake and bake routine. :eek:
At any rate, it was just about then that our Sergeant Major came along. I don't need to tell you how bad we got chewed out, I'm sure you can imagine.
Anywho, we obviously had no idea whos what belonged to whom. We reassembled the weapons and they both seemed to function fine. The SGM made us each fire 3 30 round blank mags on full auto through the reassembled weapons. He did this supposedly to ensure that we didn't ruin the weapons. I think he just wanted to penalize us and make us dirty up the weapons again real good. If you've ever had to clean M16s after a bunch of blanks have been fired, you know what I mean.
ROTC was a blast, btw. We literally would load M60s and M16s into the trunks of our cars and head to the range to shoot. I remember one time I had 6 M60s and 10 M16s in the trunk of my Datsun B210. WooHooooo. It's a pity I didn't appreciate it more at the time, I just took it for granted.
The first time I was ever told that the parts are not interchangeable is a funny story. While still in college in ROTC, after a field excercise, my girlfriend at the time, and I were sitting in the armory cleaning our M-16s (how romantic, no?) and came up with a bright idea. We took all of our small parts (bolt, bolt carrier, charging hangle, etc.) and put them into a plastic MRE bag, poured break free in on top and did the shake and bake routine. :eek:
At any rate, it was just about then that our Sergeant Major came along. I don't need to tell you how bad we got chewed out, I'm sure you can imagine.
Anywho, we obviously had no idea whos what belonged to whom. We reassembled the weapons and they both seemed to function fine. The SGM made us each fire 3 30 round blank mags on full auto through the reassembled weapons. He did this supposedly to ensure that we didn't ruin the weapons. I think he just wanted to penalize us and make us dirty up the weapons again real good. If you've ever had to clean M16s after a bunch of blanks have been fired, you know what I mean.
ROTC was a blast, btw. We literally would load M60s and M16s into the trunks of our cars and head to the range to shoot. I remember one time I had 6 M60s and 10 M16s in the trunk of my Datsun B210. WooHooooo. It's a pity I didn't appreciate it more at the time, I just took it for granted.
jrhead75
October 20, 2003, 02:55 PM
Okay, I wasn't very clear there...I was referring to the shoddy manufacturing and workmanship requiring that ANY part be basically handfitted, a concept that supposedly went out of favor with the advent of mass production.
I'll admit, it's been awhile since I've operated a machine gun, and the SAW is well after my time, but is it true that a SAW barrel can't be changed and headspaced in the field? :scrutiny:
Not being critical, just honestly curious.
I'll admit, it's been awhile since I've operated a machine gun, and the SAW is well after my time, but is it true that a SAW barrel can't be changed and headspaced in the field? :scrutiny:
Not being critical, just honestly curious.
Oleg Volk
October 20, 2003, 04:34 PM
1941 Johnson? People won't let me fire theirs out of fear that something would break...
Nightcrawler
October 20, 2003, 06:13 PM
but is it true that a SAW barrel can't be changed and headspaced in the field?
I'm a SAW gunner in the Michigan National Guard. We're issued the weapon and a spare barrel. You can swap barrels out quickly and easily, though we're told to never swap barrels with those from other weapons.
I'm a SAW gunner in the Michigan National Guard. We're issued the weapon and a spare barrel. You can swap barrels out quickly and easily, though we're told to never swap barrels with those from other weapons.
Andrew Wyatt
October 20, 2003, 06:28 PM
that's odd. does the gun use a barrel extention to lock into or the reciever?
what happens if you need another barrel? how do you adjust headspace?
what happens if you need another barrel? how do you adjust headspace?
Nightcrawler
October 20, 2003, 06:37 PM
Let me think....I'm not really up on the technical specifications of the quick change barrel, but the whole barrel removes at once, including the chamber area. It mounts pretty solidly into the receiver, and is released by means of a small flipper paddle. The bolt has to be back to remove the barrel, and the folding carry handle and upper handguard go with it when you take it off. (Good for pulling a hot barrel.) Unlike the M60, however, the bipod is wisely attached to the gas tube/handguard area, not the barrel, so the weight of the spare barrels are reduced.
If you need more than the barrel on the gun and the barrel in your bag? I dunno. You'd have to fire a LOT of rounds, I mean, more than you could carry, really quickly for this to happen. Otherwise I'd just assume you let one barrel cool while using the other.
Anyway, there is no manual adjusting of the headspace involved.
If you need more than the barrel on the gun and the barrel in your bag? I dunno. You'd have to fire a LOT of rounds, I mean, more than you could carry, really quickly for this to happen. Otherwise I'd just assume you let one barrel cool while using the other.
Anyway, there is no manual adjusting of the headspace involved.
kentucky bucky
October 20, 2003, 10:13 PM
If you have to work that hard to keep your weapon running, something is wrong. Maybe not the worst, but maybe the worst so widely distributed. Give me a big old clunky M14 any day.
TaurusGL
October 20, 2003, 10:25 PM
Doesn't Isreal use M16s, and don't they live in the desert. I see news stories with plenty of people dead on both sides and I would assume that the M16 has claimed qutie a few.
Don't knock it 'till you tried it
CTH
Don't knock it 'till you tried it
CTH
Kaylee
October 20, 2003, 11:03 PM
it is interesting how stories propogate across the net about how "X sucks"and "Y Rules"
In Boise, there's a museum made up ENTIRELY of one man's gun collection. I mean, he had more than Tam. Heck, he had a Mig.
Anyhow, right next to Stoner's very own personal Stoner rifle, there's a Chauchau. And above it is a story of the guy who carried it into battle, fought off Gosh knows how many Germans, and got -- I believe -- a Medal of Honor. No mention of jams, but it sure is a homely beast. Can't say as I'd trust anything with holes that big in the magazine, but even it evidently worked sometimes.
Having only gotten to play with one of the three candidates, can't offer much there. Other than to request if y'all want to start another HeManARHatersClub thread, you start a new one. George? :)
-K
In Boise, there's a museum made up ENTIRELY of one man's gun collection. I mean, he had more than Tam. Heck, he had a Mig.
Anyhow, right next to Stoner's very own personal Stoner rifle, there's a Chauchau. And above it is a story of the guy who carried it into battle, fought off Gosh knows how many Germans, and got -- I believe -- a Medal of Honor. No mention of jams, but it sure is a homely beast. Can't say as I'd trust anything with holes that big in the magazine, but even it evidently worked sometimes.
Having only gotten to play with one of the three candidates, can't offer much there. Other than to request if y'all want to start another HeManARHatersClub thread, you start a new one. George? :)
-K
MuzzleBlast
October 21, 2003, 10:05 AM
Doesn't Isreal use M16s, and don't they live in the desert.My understanding of this is that US military aid has to be spent on US hardware.
Byron
October 21, 2003, 10:16 AM
The 16 is again being bashed on heresay. The problem with it was The Army. They changed gunpowders and no cleaning kits. I was an infantryman in 68-69 in nam and I kept mine clean. It never jammed. We cleaned them which seems like a good idea for any combat rifle. The only failure I recall was a safety that would not work. One does not have to stop and clean it every minute. Byron
jrhead75
October 21, 2003, 11:17 AM
Re the Chauchat...There's no doubt that some of them were used to good effect, and I have no doubt that the few examples still remaining are very well cared for and will run all day at the range.
The fact is that they were highly unreliable in the nasty conditions that were present on the western front of WWI. Since I don't own one, and have never fired one, I can only go by the experiences and writings of those who were there, or are more expert than myself (which certainly covers a lot of ground). One such example would be my grandfather, who was always quick to mention the contempt he had for them whenever the subject came up. He was a sergeant of infantry with the 5th Marines at Belleau Wood and everywhere else the 5th Marines fought in WWI. The first stories I ever heard of their suitability only for such mundane tasks as holding up tents came from him, and I'm inclined to take his word for it.
They had a slow rate of fire and low low ammo capacity for the task they were supposed to perform, the long stroke action was rough on shooter and weapon, the mag was open to the elements, they had lots of extraction problems, parts that should have been interchangeable very often weren't(read: poor QC), and so on and so on...
That said, I believe that like children, all guns should have someone to love them. :D I'd love to own one, and shoot the bejeezus out of it, just for the novelty. Wouldn't want to have my life depending on one though.
All in all, my answer to the original question stands...Worst military rifle? Chauchat.
The fact is that they were highly unreliable in the nasty conditions that were present on the western front of WWI. Since I don't own one, and have never fired one, I can only go by the experiences and writings of those who were there, or are more expert than myself (which certainly covers a lot of ground). One such example would be my grandfather, who was always quick to mention the contempt he had for them whenever the subject came up. He was a sergeant of infantry with the 5th Marines at Belleau Wood and everywhere else the 5th Marines fought in WWI. The first stories I ever heard of their suitability only for such mundane tasks as holding up tents came from him, and I'm inclined to take his word for it.
They had a slow rate of fire and low low ammo capacity for the task they were supposed to perform, the long stroke action was rough on shooter and weapon, the mag was open to the elements, they had lots of extraction problems, parts that should have been interchangeable very often weren't(read: poor QC), and so on and so on...
That said, I believe that like children, all guns should have someone to love them. :D I'd love to own one, and shoot the bejeezus out of it, just for the novelty. Wouldn't want to have my life depending on one though.
All in all, my answer to the original question stands...Worst military rifle? Chauchat.
Black Snowman
October 21, 2003, 11:44 AM
Of course if we want to get really broad, what about all the stuff that never even made it out of testing? Or even INTO testing? How many millitary rifles have been abandoned on the drawing board?
Mike Irwin
October 21, 2003, 12:47 PM
Jrhead,
Once again, it's a question of timing as to when your Grandfather received his Chauchat.
If he received one of the ones in 8mm Lebel from the French after the withdrawal of the Lewis guns, then it's no surprise that it wasn't reliable. They were beaten to death in the previous two years of war and then given to American troops.
The open-sided magazine and the rimmed round with a large taper also didn't contribute to the overall effectiveness of the gun.
New guns, however, were quite reliable for something that was, essentially, ground breaking technology, not just from the fact that it was a light machine gun, but also from the fact that the gun was one of the first made largely using stamped metal instead of machined components.
It was after they got some wear in them that reliability started to go south. It also didn't help that the later guns, in .30-06, had incorrectly cut chambers. Apparently the French manufacturer converted the chamber specifications to metric (as would be expected), and goofed in the conversion (Mars Lander, anyone?).
The rate of fire (about 300 rmp) and the ammo capacity aren't, however, out of line with the capacity or the task that was asked of it.
The interchangability of parts has been dealt with in previous messages, but given the critical urgency of the war combined with the new technologies being used, it's not surprising that interchanability was a problem.
As an example... Eli Whitney's vaunted interchangable musket parts? They largely didn't.
The recoil? Oh yeah, it's pretty wearing, but quite frankly, so is the recoil from a standard Springfield or Enfield rifle...
And finally...
The Chauchat was a machine gun. Not a rifle. :)
Once again, it's a question of timing as to when your Grandfather received his Chauchat.
If he received one of the ones in 8mm Lebel from the French after the withdrawal of the Lewis guns, then it's no surprise that it wasn't reliable. They were beaten to death in the previous two years of war and then given to American troops.
The open-sided magazine and the rimmed round with a large taper also didn't contribute to the overall effectiveness of the gun.
New guns, however, were quite reliable for something that was, essentially, ground breaking technology, not just from the fact that it was a light machine gun, but also from the fact that the gun was one of the first made largely using stamped metal instead of machined components.
It was after they got some wear in them that reliability started to go south. It also didn't help that the later guns, in .30-06, had incorrectly cut chambers. Apparently the French manufacturer converted the chamber specifications to metric (as would be expected), and goofed in the conversion (Mars Lander, anyone?).
The rate of fire (about 300 rmp) and the ammo capacity aren't, however, out of line with the capacity or the task that was asked of it.
The interchangability of parts has been dealt with in previous messages, but given the critical urgency of the war combined with the new technologies being used, it's not surprising that interchanability was a problem.
As an example... Eli Whitney's vaunted interchangable musket parts? They largely didn't.
The recoil? Oh yeah, it's pretty wearing, but quite frankly, so is the recoil from a standard Springfield or Enfield rifle...
And finally...
The Chauchat was a machine gun. Not a rifle. :)
Joe Demko
October 21, 2003, 01:33 PM
I think the Carcano is getting an unfair rap here. I owned one for a while, and it wasn't remarkably different from or inferior to contemporary bolt-guns. The rounds they used were no great shakes, but I wouldn't volunteer to be shot with one.
MrAcheson
October 21, 2003, 01:42 PM
Eli Whitney's interchangable muskets weren't. Whitney flat out lied to the government about interchangable parts because he was so far behind schedule with the muskets that he had to give them some reason. He then staged a demonstration of how "interchangeable" the muskets were using specially chosen muskets that would actually interchange. Presto! A fallacy which is being taught to our children to this very day.
TechBrute
October 21, 2003, 01:42 PM
but I wouldn't volunteer to be shot with one. Just for the record, would anyone here volunteer to be shot with ANYTHING?
RustyHammer
October 21, 2003, 02:01 PM
French guns are getting an unfair wrap. In fact, I hear they were hardly even fired before they surrendered. (You pick the war.) ooooo 0000000 oooooo
MaterDei
October 21, 2003, 02:28 PM
French guns are getting an unfair wrap. In fact, I hear they were hardly even fired before they surrendered. (You pick the war.)
LOL!
For Sale - One slightly used Chauchat. Never fired. Dropped once.
LOL!
For Sale - One slightly used Chauchat. Never fired. Dropped once.
Bart Noir
October 21, 2003, 02:31 PM
Kaylee, please tell of this museum and whether you know of a website. I may be able to see it next year. I mean, going from Seattle to the Custer Battlefield and back by way of Cody (and the Buff Bill Museum) does sorta lead through Boise.
Bart Noir
Shotguns are for winning handgun fights.
Bart Noir
Shotguns are for winning handgun fights.
Keith
October 21, 2003, 02:39 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure why the Carcano gets such a bad rap either!
Work the bolt, pull the trigger and it shoots - and fairly accurately. And it's a bit more compact than many other rifles of the era.
I think that whole Carcano "piece of junk" myth started because of the Kennedy assassination. The tin-foil hat crowd began bleating that Oswald couldn't have made the shot and began dogging the Carcano as "evidence". Everyone else piled on.
I'd rather have a Mauser or an Enfield, but the Carcano is "OK". I've played around with one and it's fully functional and reliable.
Keith
Work the bolt, pull the trigger and it shoots - and fairly accurately. And it's a bit more compact than many other rifles of the era.
I think that whole Carcano "piece of junk" myth started because of the Kennedy assassination. The tin-foil hat crowd began bleating that Oswald couldn't have made the shot and began dogging the Carcano as "evidence". Everyone else piled on.
I'd rather have a Mauser or an Enfield, but the Carcano is "OK". I've played around with one and it's fully functional and reliable.
Keith
Mike Irwin
October 21, 2003, 03:17 PM
The Carcano largely fails in comparison to its contemporaries.
While it was a functional rifle, it wasn't a Mauser, a Sprinfield, or a Lee-Enfield.
A functional design change that the Italians could have made that would have increased it's servicability a lot is to do what the French did, and switch from the Mannlicher packet-fed magazine to a Mauser stripper-fed magazine.
The design of the action also didn't promote the smoothest feeling or fastest working action, either, but again, not a critical flaw.
In reality, the biggest complaint against the Carcano really has always seemed to be, well, that it's Italian.
While it was a functional rifle, it wasn't a Mauser, a Sprinfield, or a Lee-Enfield.
A functional design change that the Italians could have made that would have increased it's servicability a lot is to do what the French did, and switch from the Mannlicher packet-fed magazine to a Mauser stripper-fed magazine.
The design of the action also didn't promote the smoothest feeling or fastest working action, either, but again, not a critical flaw.
In reality, the biggest complaint against the Carcano really has always seemed to be, well, that it's Italian.
Keith
October 21, 2003, 03:24 PM
Agreed. The Carcano is not as good as most of its contemporaries, yet it hardly qualifies as a member of the "Worst Military Rifle" list.
I'd actually prefer a Carcano to an Arisaka. The Arisaka is "OK" too, but that 30" barrel (or whatever) is a handfull! Not what I'd call user friendly or ergonomic...
Keith
I'd actually prefer a Carcano to an Arisaka. The Arisaka is "OK" too, but that 30" barrel (or whatever) is a handfull! Not what I'd call user friendly or ergonomic...
Keith
Mike Irwin
October 21, 2003, 03:34 PM
When you get right down to it, the "worst" rifle is a matter of degrees, really, and can only be determined by an examination of features in relatively inconclusive comparison to other contemporaries.
All of the rifles of the late 19th and 20th century were functional military weapons. No nation that's interested in its functional existence is going to arm its military with a rifle that's dangerous or mechanically non-functional.
If you tick off a list of features and compare them to other rifles of the time, the Carcano, in my opinion, really DOES come out near the bottom of the pack as a military rifle, in my list coming ahead of only the French rifles that I mentioned earlier.
Of the two, I'd rather have the Arisaka. Longer sight radius, MARGINALLY better sights (but still no great shakes), a Mauser-style action that's easy to operate in comparison to the Carcano, a Mauser magazine system with the bolt hold open (I don't think the Carcano action holds the bolt open on an empty magazine).
In that list of features, I hold the Arisaka to be a better rifle than the Moisin-Nagant.
All of the rifles of the late 19th and 20th century were functional military weapons. No nation that's interested in its functional existence is going to arm its military with a rifle that's dangerous or mechanically non-functional.
If you tick off a list of features and compare them to other rifles of the time, the Carcano, in my opinion, really DOES come out near the bottom of the pack as a military rifle, in my list coming ahead of only the French rifles that I mentioned earlier.
Of the two, I'd rather have the Arisaka. Longer sight radius, MARGINALLY better sights (but still no great shakes), a Mauser-style action that's easy to operate in comparison to the Carcano, a Mauser magazine system with the bolt hold open (I don't think the Carcano action holds the bolt open on an empty magazine).
In that list of features, I hold the Arisaka to be a better rifle than the Moisin-Nagant.
jrhead75
October 21, 2003, 03:40 PM
Once again, it's a question of timing as to when your Grandfather received his Chauchat. He was there from 1917 until the end of the war and beyond(the occupation of Germany), and was in combat at Belleau Wood, Soissons, Blanc Mont, and St Mihiel(all that come to mind at the moment), so basically he was there from start to finish. As for when they got Chauchats...I have no idea.
If he received one of the ones in 8mm Lebel from the French after the withdrawal of the Lewis guns, then it's no surprise that it wasn't reliable. They were beaten to death in the previous two years of war and then given to American troops.
The open-sided magazine and the rimmed round with a large taper also didn't contribute to the overall effectiveness of the gun. New guns, however, were quite reliable for something that was, essentially, ground breaking technology, not just from the fact that it was a light machine gun, but also from the fact that the gun was one of the first made largely using stamped metal instead of machined components.
It was after they got some wear in them that reliability started to go south. It also didn't help that the later guns, in .30-06, had incorrectly cut chambers. Apparently the French manufacturer converted the chamber specifications to metric (as would be expected), and goofed in the conversion (Mars Lander, anyone?).Hmmmmm...all very good explainations of why they weren't real reliable
The Chauchat was a machine gun. Not a rifle. Holding it up beside the other machine guns of the time doesn't help it's cause any. ;) :neener:
If he received one of the ones in 8mm Lebel from the French after the withdrawal of the Lewis guns, then it's no surprise that it wasn't reliable. They were beaten to death in the previous two years of war and then given to American troops.
The open-sided magazine and the rimmed round with a large taper also didn't contribute to the overall effectiveness of the gun. New guns, however, were quite reliable for something that was, essentially, ground breaking technology, not just from the fact that it was a light machine gun, but also from the fact that the gun was one of the first made largely using stamped metal instead of machined components.
It was after they got some wear in them that reliability started to go south. It also didn't help that the later guns, in .30-06, had incorrectly cut chambers. Apparently the French manufacturer converted the chamber specifications to metric (as would be expected), and goofed in the conversion (Mars Lander, anyone?).Hmmmmm...all very good explainations of why they weren't real reliable
The Chauchat was a machine gun. Not a rifle. Holding it up beside the other machine guns of the time doesn't help it's cause any. ;) :neener:
Keith
October 21, 2003, 03:49 PM
I always think of rifles in terms of ergonomics first. That's probably the hunter in me...
Picturing myself carrying five and a half feet of Arisaka in the middle of a confused fire fight is not a pretty thought! I'd happily trade off one MOA for every foot of barrel removed (shorter sight radius) and still count myself lucky to have the Carcano.
That's just me though, I can certainly see why someone else would choose accuracy, rate of fire, etc, over general ergonomics.
Keith
Picturing myself carrying five and a half feet of Arisaka in the middle of a confused fire fight is not a pretty thought! I'd happily trade off one MOA for every foot of barrel removed (shorter sight radius) and still count myself lucky to have the Carcano.
That's just me though, I can certainly see why someone else would choose accuracy, rate of fire, etc, over general ergonomics.
Keith
Hutch
October 21, 2003, 05:19 PM
Another tangent...
The 6.5 Carcano carbine was the first centerfire rifle I ever shot (at 11 or 12, IIRC). The recoil was brutal, and the stock was designed to inflict pain. Seems like the bullet stuck out of the case a good inch-and-a-half. Who needs that?
The 6.5 Carcano carbine was the first centerfire rifle I ever shot (at 11 or 12, IIRC). The recoil was brutal, and the stock was designed to inflict pain. Seems like the bullet stuck out of the case a good inch-and-a-half. Who needs that?
Mike Irwin
October 21, 2003, 05:36 PM
Hutch,
I never found any of the military 6.5s to be particularly bad at all. The Arisaka is downright pleasant to shoot, given the rifle's relatively high weight.
Another indication that recoil is all in body-type and perception, I guess...
I never found any of the military 6.5s to be particularly bad at all. The Arisaka is downright pleasant to shoot, given the rifle's relatively high weight.
Another indication that recoil is all in body-type and perception, I guess...
CMcDermott
October 21, 2003, 05:40 PM
Well, just to finish beating a dead horse - another problem with the 30-06 version of the Chauchat was the magazine shape. A curved magazine that works well with a rimmed, tapered cartridge like the 8m Lebel becomes a horror show with a very straight bodied cartridge like the 30-06.
Mike Irwin
October 21, 2003, 06:05 PM
McDermott,
The .30-06 version of the Chauchat didn't use the half-moon magazine of the 8mm version.
It used a straight box-type magazine, 16 or 20 rounds, IIRC.
Trying to find a picture of the two variations, but am not having much success finding a picture of a .30-06 version on the web.
The .30-06 version of the Chauchat didn't use the half-moon magazine of the 8mm version.
It used a straight box-type magazine, 16 or 20 rounds, IIRC.
Trying to find a picture of the two variations, but am not having much success finding a picture of a .30-06 version on the web.
Mike Irwin
October 21, 2003, 10:37 PM
Found a picture of the .30-06 version of the Chauchat, but it's not of much use since I don't have a scanner.
Page 283, Small Arms of the World, C. 1977, Stackpole, edited by Edward Ezell.
Definitely shows the .30-06 Chauchat, aka. the Model 1918 Light Machine Gun.
Seems that the design was refined after the war, and serviced on in a number of nations until AFTER World War II!
Turns out that the French also give the Finns about 10,000 of these guns (I hope they were post WW I manufacture!) for use in the Winter War against the Soviet Union.
Page 283, Small Arms of the World, C. 1977, Stackpole, edited by Edward Ezell.
Definitely shows the .30-06 Chauchat, aka. the Model 1918 Light Machine Gun.
Seems that the design was refined after the war, and serviced on in a number of nations until AFTER World War II!
Turns out that the French also give the Finns about 10,000 of these guns (I hope they were post WW I manufacture!) for use in the Winter War against the Soviet Union.
Kaylee
October 21, 2003, 11:25 PM
Bart...
Kaylee, please tell of this museum and whether you know of a website. I may be able to see it next year.
hereyago (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45975)
Kaylee, please tell of this museum and whether you know of a website. I may be able to see it next year.
hereyago (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45975)
clint1911a1
October 22, 2003, 12:01 AM
I have to agree with so many others in saying the Chauchat :barf: :cuss: , and the Enfield L-85 :banghead: :confused:
swingset
October 22, 2003, 01:19 AM
Why not rename this thread "Discuss your negative opinions of rifles based on myths you've heard but have no personal experience with".
With that title, 90% of these posts make sense.
I've shot and owned many of the rifles in this thread said to be disasters and found them to be robust, accurate and reliable....but what does personal experience matter compared to what someone overheard or read in a gun rag?
Fact is, most designs are very capable in their intended use, but are fed bad ammo (chauchaut, M16, Ross), or used outside their intended design and meet an unsavory reputation. Sometimes just a political push to adopt something different fields horrible reputations based on pure BS (the wandering zero bunk about No5 enfields comes to mind).
With that title, 90% of these posts make sense.
I've shot and owned many of the rifles in this thread said to be disasters and found them to be robust, accurate and reliable....but what does personal experience matter compared to what someone overheard or read in a gun rag?
Fact is, most designs are very capable in their intended use, but are fed bad ammo (chauchaut, M16, Ross), or used outside their intended design and meet an unsavory reputation. Sometimes just a political push to adopt something different fields horrible reputations based on pure BS (the wandering zero bunk about No5 enfields comes to mind).
Bostonterrier97
October 22, 2003, 01:31 AM
For the United States, I nominate:
(1.) 1873 Trapdoor Springfield (Service Rifle)
(2.) M16 (Assault Rifle)
(3.) Chauchat Machine Gun
For the World:
(1.) Rasheed (Semi Automatic Service Rifle)
(2.) Mannlicher Carcano (Bolt Action Service Rifle)
(1.) 1873 Trapdoor Springfield (Service Rifle)
(2.) M16 (Assault Rifle)
(3.) Chauchat Machine Gun
For the World:
(1.) Rasheed (Semi Automatic Service Rifle)
(2.) Mannlicher Carcano (Bolt Action Service Rifle)
Mike Irwin
October 22, 2003, 12:08 PM
Swingset,
I'm still waiting for someone else to raise their hand to the question I asked...
Has anyone here OTHER than me actually had any firing time with the Chauchat? :)
The Chauchat was an expediency of war, a design that was technically sound, but whose execution just wasn't the greatest over the long term.
The Ross rifles's problems stemmed less from bad ammo than from simply being too well made to stand up to the kind of dirt that was found in the trenches.
I wish I still had my Ross. It was a neat rifle, but I sold it to a coworker who wanted it for re-enacting purposes.
I'm still waiting for someone else to raise their hand to the question I asked...
Has anyone here OTHER than me actually had any firing time with the Chauchat? :)
The Chauchat was an expediency of war, a design that was technically sound, but whose execution just wasn't the greatest over the long term.
The Ross rifles's problems stemmed less from bad ammo than from simply being too well made to stand up to the kind of dirt that was found in the trenches.
I wish I still had my Ross. It was a neat rifle, but I sold it to a coworker who wanted it for re-enacting purposes.
keederdag
October 22, 2003, 12:26 PM
Swingset; well said, my point exactly on the L-85; who here has personall experiance with one. The crap you here is mostly via the Guardian, the lefto Brit newsie.:barf:
Mike Irwin
October 22, 2003, 12:52 PM
Wasn't there at least one or two former British military people on The Firing Line who just HATED the L-85?
It's pretty telling, too, that the British government let that huge contract with H&K to modify the weapons after months of governmental investigations...
It's pretty telling, too, that the British government let that huge contract with H&K to modify the weapons after months of governmental investigations...
Black Snowman
October 22, 2003, 01:00 PM
Smooth bore hand cannon? Match ignited, extremely heavy, short range, slow firing, very inaccurate and tended to explode, but the 1st man portable firearms. Simultaniously the best available at the time, and the worst used in history.
jrhead75
October 22, 2003, 01:43 PM
Why not rename this thread "Discuss your negative opinions of rifles based on myths you've heard but have no personal experience with".
Has anyone here OTHER than me actually had any firing time with the Chauchat? Fair points both...I'd add a question: Who here served in combat with the AEF in 1918? That'd go a bit farther in any debate regarding the merits/shortcomings of the Chauchat as a combat weapon. They didn't get their reputation from gun mags, the internet, or on the range. My opinion as to their overall effectiveness comes largely from many a conversation with a decorated WWI combat infantryman. He and the men he fought alongside didn't like or trust the Chauchat, and within his admittedly limited sphere of personal knowlege, he held that many if not most of the American troops felt the same way.
Mike, as much as I'd love to, I've admittedly never fired a Chauchat. You have however, also posted a pretty dang good list of reasons why they weren't reliable under field conditions.
So I'll stick to my guns, so's to speak...
Take that, dead horse! ;)
Has anyone here OTHER than me actually had any firing time with the Chauchat? Fair points both...I'd add a question: Who here served in combat with the AEF in 1918? That'd go a bit farther in any debate regarding the merits/shortcomings of the Chauchat as a combat weapon. They didn't get their reputation from gun mags, the internet, or on the range. My opinion as to their overall effectiveness comes largely from many a conversation with a decorated WWI combat infantryman. He and the men he fought alongside didn't like or trust the Chauchat, and within his admittedly limited sphere of personal knowlege, he held that many if not most of the American troops felt the same way.
Mike, as much as I'd love to, I've admittedly never fired a Chauchat. You have however, also posted a pretty dang good list of reasons why they weren't reliable under field conditions.
So I'll stick to my guns, so's to speak...
Take that, dead horse! ;)
Keith
October 22, 2003, 02:04 PM
Who here served in combat with the AEF in 1918?
I missed that, but I was with Ronald Coleman at the Khyber Pass and that was a damned bad business, I can tell you! The bloody Pathans overran us when the Chauchat's jammed and we'd have escaped if Ronald hadn't insisted we go back for his hair oil.
We were captured and tortured and then executed with our own guns - luckily they were Chauchat's and misfired... so we jumped the wall and would have got clean away if Ronald hadn't insisted we go back for his hair oil, again.
Luckily, our water boy, Gunga Din, had enough sense to stab Ronald and then beat him to death with the butt of a Chauchat. We disguised ourselves as Gypsies and made our way back to New Delhi where we had Gunga Din executed for treason and retired to the club for Gin and Tonic.
Keith
I missed that, but I was with Ronald Coleman at the Khyber Pass and that was a damned bad business, I can tell you! The bloody Pathans overran us when the Chauchat's jammed and we'd have escaped if Ronald hadn't insisted we go back for his hair oil.
We were captured and tortured and then executed with our own guns - luckily they were Chauchat's and misfired... so we jumped the wall and would have got clean away if Ronald hadn't insisted we go back for his hair oil, again.
Luckily, our water boy, Gunga Din, had enough sense to stab Ronald and then beat him to death with the butt of a Chauchat. We disguised ourselves as Gypsies and made our way back to New Delhi where we had Gunga Din executed for treason and retired to the club for Gin and Tonic.
Keith
jrhead75
October 22, 2003, 02:09 PM
Well there ya go...someone who can speak with authority. :D
Mike Irwin
October 22, 2003, 03:14 PM
Phew...
Someone who can speak with authority because his meds are wearing off!
As for the wandering zero on the Jungle Carbine, I've never messed with one enough to have any experience with it other than its punishing recoil and muzzle blast, but a friend who has 4 says that yes, a wandering zero was a problem on some guns...
Anyone know?
Someone who can speak with authority because his meds are wearing off!
As for the wandering zero on the Jungle Carbine, I've never messed with one enough to have any experience with it other than its punishing recoil and muzzle blast, but a friend who has 4 says that yes, a wandering zero was a problem on some guns...
Anyone know?
Keith
October 22, 2003, 04:03 PM
Someone who can speak with authority because his meds are wearing off!
Don't be ridiculous! I always take a triple dose so that doesn't happen.
As for Jungle Carbines and wandering zero's - I was in Burma blowing up the bridge over the River Kwai when my three half-naked concubines were attacked by a tiger. It was a bad bloody business, I can tell you! The Chauchat's were jammed solid and my trusty Jungle Carbine's zero was off... Luckily, my trusty Ghurka batman helped me up into the tree so I could observe the situation with studied calm and detachment while enjoying a Gin & Tonic.
I forget what happened after that, but recall having to carry my own gear back to camp (bloody nuisance!).
Keith
Don't be ridiculous! I always take a triple dose so that doesn't happen.
As for Jungle Carbines and wandering zero's - I was in Burma blowing up the bridge over the River Kwai when my three half-naked concubines were attacked by a tiger. It was a bad bloody business, I can tell you! The Chauchat's were jammed solid and my trusty Jungle Carbine's zero was off... Luckily, my trusty Ghurka batman helped me up into the tree so I could observe the situation with studied calm and detachment while enjoying a Gin & Tonic.
I forget what happened after that, but recall having to carry my own gear back to camp (bloody nuisance!).
Keith
Turk
October 22, 2003, 04:15 PM
TechBrute
You won't win over the 16 haters.
Were there problems the M-16? yes but the mail problem was the powder. I personally like it and my M-16A1 never missed a beat. The most rounds I ever put through my M-16 in a fighterfight was 12-14 magazines south of Ankhe RVN in 1968 when I pulled the trigger it went bang. I've said this before on this board I was never aware of any 16 jamming in my Platoon. That is fact not fiction.
Turk
RVN 68-69
173rd Abn Bdge. (sep)
11 Bravo MOS
You won't win over the 16 haters.
Were there problems the M-16? yes but the mail problem was the powder. I personally like it and my M-16A1 never missed a beat. The most rounds I ever put through my M-16 in a fighterfight was 12-14 magazines south of Ankhe RVN in 1968 when I pulled the trigger it went bang. I've said this before on this board I was never aware of any 16 jamming in my Platoon. That is fact not fiction.
Turk
RVN 68-69
173rd Abn Bdge. (sep)
11 Bravo MOS
jrhead75
October 22, 2003, 04:23 PM
Three half-naked concubines and a Gin & Tonic or two would wander anybody's zero.
:what:
:what:
ojibweindian
October 22, 2003, 04:47 PM
The High Road, home to the world's finest collection of smart a$$e$
:D:D:D
:D:D:D
keederdag
October 22, 2003, 11:01 PM
very rare and very fine collection:D
Keith, yer my hero:p
Keith, yer my hero:p
swingset
October 22, 2003, 11:58 PM
but a friend who has 4 says that yes, a wandering zero was a problem on some guns...
The No5 "wandering zero" claim has been thrown around for years, but most Enfield experts doubt it seriously. Stratton, Skennerton, Brian Dick, Roger Payne, pretty much the whole peanut gallery of the world's leading guys on the SMLE action say it's bunk.
I own 3, all of which are accurate and reliably so. I've known 20 or so others with multiple rifles and they were either deadly accurate or not so but it wasn't a "wandering" problem.
People blame the lightening cuts, 2-piece stock, but it doesn't take much to look at the action and figure out how little that would play into it....and if it did, the problem would be epidemic not sporadic.
The real deal is that the Brits were desperately trying to fight adopting another bolt gun while the rest of the world went to the semi-auto & MBR and it was felt by alot of the field commanders that if they didn't invent some problems with the No5, they would be saddled with it for 10 years. Just look at the history of the No5 and the subsequent trials of the FN 280 (later to be the L1A1), it's very obvious the push was fast and hasty compared to other trials and rifle decisions. Many feel (and I'm one of them), that the Army wanted a new gun, that's the "wandering zero". Could there have been bad rifles? Sure, and they were probably used to exhibit a problem that most didn't have.
The No5 "wandering zero" claim has been thrown around for years, but most Enfield experts doubt it seriously. Stratton, Skennerton, Brian Dick, Roger Payne, pretty much the whole peanut gallery of the world's leading guys on the SMLE action say it's bunk.
I own 3, all of which are accurate and reliably so. I've known 20 or so others with multiple rifles and they were either deadly accurate or not so but it wasn't a "wandering" problem.
People blame the lightening cuts, 2-piece stock, but it doesn't take much to look at the action and figure out how little that would play into it....and if it did, the problem would be epidemic not sporadic.
The real deal is that the Brits were desperately trying to fight adopting another bolt gun while the rest of the world went to the semi-auto & MBR and it was felt by alot of the field commanders that if they didn't invent some problems with the No5, they would be saddled with it for 10 years. Just look at the history of the No5 and the subsequent trials of the FN 280 (later to be the L1A1), it's very obvious the push was fast and hasty compared to other trials and rifle decisions. Many feel (and I'm one of them), that the Army wanted a new gun, that's the "wandering zero". Could there have been bad rifles? Sure, and they were probably used to exhibit a problem that most didn't have.
Mike Irwin
October 23, 2003, 01:00 AM
I thought the history of the No 5 was that it was an expediency of war, pure and simple, and was never intended to replace, or become, a main battle rifle.
swingset
October 23, 2003, 03:30 AM
Mike,
You're exactly right - it was a rifle adapted from the No4 to fill a need, nothing more. Problem was that post war the Brit war department did not want to invest in another small arm, arguing that the No5 was "good enough" and they were literally awash in them. The Army, however, was keen to ditch the bolt actions. This transpired even in the waning days of WWII and there were many accounts of soldiers claiming that the No5 was "unfit for duty", but few were trading theirs in for a No4 or No1. Obviously, there was some concerted effort to make the war department believe that they were in need of a newer MBR.
The Brits weren't keen on blowing $$ on an expensive to build rifle to fight a war that was in essence, over.
You're exactly right - it was a rifle adapted from the No4 to fill a need, nothing more. Problem was that post war the Brit war department did not want to invest in another small arm, arguing that the No5 was "good enough" and they were literally awash in them. The Army, however, was keen to ditch the bolt actions. This transpired even in the waning days of WWII and there were many accounts of soldiers claiming that the No5 was "unfit for duty", but few were trading theirs in for a No4 or No1. Obviously, there was some concerted effort to make the war department believe that they were in need of a newer MBR.
The Brits weren't keen on blowing $$ on an expensive to build rifle to fight a war that was in essence, over.
Futo Inu
October 23, 2003, 11:00 AM
"As for Jungle Carbines and wandering zero's - I was in Burma blowing up the bridge over the River Kwai when my three half-naked concubines were attacked by a tiger. It was a bad bloody business, I can tell you! The Chauchat's were jammed solid and my trusty Jungle Carbine's zero was off... Luckily, my trusty Ghurka batman helped me up into the tree so I could observe the situation with studied calm and detachment while enjoying a Gin & Tonic."
Bwaaahahahahaha!
The discovery channel said the Chauchot (sp?) sucked testes, so it must be true. Just like they said the M16 is more accurate than the AK47 BECAUSE the bullet is going faster.
But it is a crying shame that the doughboys didn't have the BAR even though it was available. Lemme see if I have that reasoning straight: "We don't want to put these awesome rifles out there, because then the Germans will pick them up and reverse engineer and copy them. Then, we'd be in some serious doo-doo if an extreme exigency came up where we REALLY needed superior firepower over the enemy, such as, I dunno, say, a WAAAAAAAAAAAAR!" :scrutiny:
Bwaaahahahahaha!
The discovery channel said the Chauchot (sp?) sucked testes, so it must be true. Just like they said the M16 is more accurate than the AK47 BECAUSE the bullet is going faster.
But it is a crying shame that the doughboys didn't have the BAR even though it was available. Lemme see if I have that reasoning straight: "We don't want to put these awesome rifles out there, because then the Germans will pick them up and reverse engineer and copy them. Then, we'd be in some serious doo-doo if an extreme exigency came up where we REALLY needed superior firepower over the enemy, such as, I dunno, say, a WAAAAAAAAAAAAR!" :scrutiny:
Joe Demko
October 23, 2003, 11:40 AM
Weapons not being deployed out of fear of the enemy copying them are nothing new. The French did the same thing with the mitrailleuse. When they finally did deploy them, they misused them. That last is somewhat forgiveable, as nobody would really have known what to do with a machinegun in those days.
Keith
October 23, 2003, 12:21 PM
According to Ian Hogg, the biggest problem with the Chauchat was that because of its enclosed design, clearing any type of malfunction meant dismantling the gun!
He further states that the AEF bought the Chauchat because the BAR was slow to be brought into production, not because they were trying to keep the BAR secret.
I think somebody has confused the Pederson Device (which WAS a big secret) with the BAR, which wasn't. The Pederson Device was a little gimmick that replaced the bolt on a Springfield so it became a sort of submachine gun firing a light .30 caliber "pistol" round. They envisaged whole regiments equipped with Pedersons charging the enemy trench and overwhelming them. It never got into full production before the war ended.
Keith
He further states that the AEF bought the Chauchat because the BAR was slow to be brought into production, not because they were trying to keep the BAR secret.
I think somebody has confused the Pederson Device (which WAS a big secret) with the BAR, which wasn't. The Pederson Device was a little gimmick that replaced the bolt on a Springfield so it became a sort of submachine gun firing a light .30 caliber "pistol" round. They envisaged whole regiments equipped with Pedersons charging the enemy trench and overwhelming them. It never got into full production before the war ended.
Keith
MicroBalrog
October 23, 2003, 12:39 PM
. I'm not saying that they're perfect, or even that they are one of the best, but they certainly aren't even in the running for the worst.
Not what the Shayetet-13 armourer told me...
Not what the Shayetet-13 armourer told me...
TechBrute
October 23, 2003, 12:43 PM
I find it amusing that everyone that says the M16 sucks bases their opinion on what some reporter, buddy, armorer, or their mother said about them, but noone who has any extensive experience with them is that down on them.
MicroBalrog
October 23, 2003, 12:44 PM
but noone who has any extensive experience with them is that down on them
At least that's what everyone with "extensive experience" tells me.:)
At least that's what everyone with "extensive experience" tells me.:)
Keith
October 23, 2003, 01:12 PM
find it amusing that everyone that says the M16 sucks bases their opinion on what some reporter, buddy, armorer, or their mother said about them, but noone who has any extensive experience with them is that down on them.
Why do you assume that? I shot my first M16 in 1979 and have shot them in all the years since.
The problem is just the opposite - those who defend the M16 as a "great rifle" have ONLY shot the M16 extensively. Those of us who have shot many other types of rifles tend to see the weakness of the M16 design because we HAVE A BASIS OF COMPARISON!
The M16 vents gas and burned powder INTO THE CHAMBER. That's a major design flaw, a mistake, a bad idea, a weakness! Yes, you can overcome the FLAW if you keep your rifle in pristine condition, but that becomes difficult in battle conditions. People get tired, cleaning kits get lost - it's a war and $#!T happens. But it's something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place - the gas shouldn't get vented into the chamber on a well designed rifle, period.
Keith
Why do you assume that? I shot my first M16 in 1979 and have shot them in all the years since.
The problem is just the opposite - those who defend the M16 as a "great rifle" have ONLY shot the M16 extensively. Those of us who have shot many other types of rifles tend to see the weakness of the M16 design because we HAVE A BASIS OF COMPARISON!
The M16 vents gas and burned powder INTO THE CHAMBER. That's a major design flaw, a mistake, a bad idea, a weakness! Yes, you can overcome the FLAW if you keep your rifle in pristine condition, but that becomes difficult in battle conditions. People get tired, cleaning kits get lost - it's a war and $#!T happens. But it's something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place - the gas shouldn't get vented into the chamber on a well designed rifle, period.
Keith
Joe Demko
October 23, 2003, 01:44 PM
The M16 vents gas and burned powder INTO THE CHAMBER.
Really? Where did you get yours? Mine vented it into a little hickey called a key on a bigger widget called a bolt carrier. My Ar-15's have worked the same way.
Really? Where did you get yours? Mine vented it into a little hickey called a key on a bigger widget called a bolt carrier. My Ar-15's have worked the same way.
Balog
October 23, 2003, 01:47 PM
I find it amusing that everyone that says the M16 sucks bases their opinion on what some reporter, buddy, armorer, or their mother said about them, but noone who has any extensive experience with them is that down on them.
I know an ex-Navy Seal Vietnam vet who'll be happy to give a long, detailed account of why the M-16 is and always has been a POS. In fact, he's already stated this a number of times. Just goto www.BattleRifles.com and name search "JR". Try "M1911A1" while you're at it, 'tho I don't know what part of the Army he saw combat with in Vietnam.
Oh and here's a fairly detailed assessment of why the system sucks from someone with "first-hand experience" http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/Hate_the_AR15.htm .
Also check out both parts of the following article http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/
The books "Blood on the Risers" by John Leppelman, and "Thirteen Cent Killers" by John J. Culbertson also contain good accounts.
I'll end this with a statement and a quote. I have no experience with the M-16, that's true. But as a former history major, I don't believe in the necessity of experience to validate judgement. "You can't have an opinion unless you have first-hand experience." Bull. Testimony of numerous credible witnesses, official military histories, and the like are more valid than "I've never had any problems with 'em." According to your philosophy, unless you witness a crime, you are unable to serve on a jury to try that crime. It's ridiculous.
As for the quote, it comes from http://gunlover.8m.com/custom4.html
In May, 1967, one Marine wrote home about it:
"I just got your letter today aboard ship. We've been on an operation ever since the 21st of last month. I can just see the papers back home now - "Enemy casualties heavy, Marine casualties light". Let me give you some statistics and you decide if they were light. We left with close to 1400 men in our battalion and came back with half. We left with 250 men in our company and came back with 107. We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19. I knew I was pressing my luck. They finally got me. It wasn't bad though, I just caught a little shrapnel. I wish I could say the same for all my buddies.
...believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Before we left Okinawa, [we] were all issued this new rifle, the M16. Practically everyone of our dead was found with his rifle torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it. There was a newspaperwoman with us photographing all this and the Pentagon found out about it and won't let her publish the pictures. They say that they don't want to get the American people upset. Isn't that a laugh?"
I know an ex-Navy Seal Vietnam vet who'll be happy to give a long, detailed account of why the M-16 is and always has been a POS. In fact, he's already stated this a number of times. Just goto www.BattleRifles.com and name search "JR". Try "M1911A1" while you're at it, 'tho I don't know what part of the Army he saw combat with in Vietnam.
Oh and here's a fairly detailed assessment of why the system sucks from someone with "first-hand experience" http://www.madogre.com/Interviews/Hate_the_AR15.htm .
Also check out both parts of the following article http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/
The books "Blood on the Risers" by John Leppelman, and "Thirteen Cent Killers" by John J. Culbertson also contain good accounts.
I'll end this with a statement and a quote. I have no experience with the M-16, that's true. But as a former history major, I don't believe in the necessity of experience to validate judgement. "You can't have an opinion unless you have first-hand experience." Bull. Testimony of numerous credible witnesses, official military histories, and the like are more valid than "I've never had any problems with 'em." According to your philosophy, unless you witness a crime, you are unable to serve on a jury to try that crime. It's ridiculous.
As for the quote, it comes from http://gunlover.8m.com/custom4.html
In May, 1967, one Marine wrote home about it:
"I just got your letter today aboard ship. We've been on an operation ever since the 21st of last month. I can just see the papers back home now - "Enemy casualties heavy, Marine casualties light". Let me give you some statistics and you decide if they were light. We left with close to 1400 men in our battalion and came back with half. We left with 250 men in our company and came back with 107. We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19. I knew I was pressing my luck. They finally got me. It wasn't bad though, I just caught a little shrapnel. I wish I could say the same for all my buddies.
...believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Before we left Okinawa, [we] were all issued this new rifle, the M16. Practically everyone of our dead was found with his rifle torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it. There was a newspaperwoman with us photographing all this and the Pentagon found out about it and won't let her publish the pictures. They say that they don't want to get the American people upset. Isn't that a laugh?"
Keith
October 23, 2003, 02:10 PM
Mine vented it into a little hickey called a key on a bigger widget called a bolt carrier.
Uh huh, and you haven't noticed that this carries burned powder back into the chamber, not to mention all the other moving parts required to operate the mechanism?
Do you think that sounds like a good design? Would you design a gun that operates that way, or one that vents the gas into a less sensitive area?
Keith
Uh huh, and you haven't noticed that this carries burned powder back into the chamber, not to mention all the other moving parts required to operate the mechanism?
Do you think that sounds like a good design? Would you design a gun that operates that way, or one that vents the gas into a less sensitive area?
Keith
Kaylee
October 23, 2003, 02:29 PM
HEY!
I repeat.
If it's time for another round of "why the M16 does/does not suck" START A NEW THREAD.
Have fun.
Hey.. start here..
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16053
Bear in mind that I never said the AR is a "bad" rifle.
If it was simply "bad", I would have spanked it, sent it to bed without dinner, and hoped for improved performance the next day.
it gets better. :)
we now return you to your regularly scheduled Bad Rifles of the World bashing.
SA-80 anyone? I've never even seen one in real life, but I hear they're piles of scrap assembled by Monkeys fired from Hesse. :D
-K
(the overly tired of the topic Mod who at least got to play with a real live M4 this morning. :) )
I repeat.
If it's time for another round of "why the M16 does/does not suck" START A NEW THREAD.
Have fun.
Hey.. start here..
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16053
Bear in mind that I never said the AR is a "bad" rifle.
If it was simply "bad", I would have spanked it, sent it to bed without dinner, and hoped for improved performance the next day.
it gets better. :)
we now return you to your regularly scheduled Bad Rifles of the World bashing.
SA-80 anyone? I've never even seen one in real life, but I hear they're piles of scrap assembled by Monkeys fired from Hesse. :D
-K
(the overly tired of the topic Mod who at least got to play with a real live M4 this morning. :) )
Mike Irwin
October 23, 2003, 02:55 PM
Mentor...
You know, the M16...
Drastically edited by Art in order to maintain sanity. :D
Art
P.S. Didn't work.
A
And I think I hear the sound of a padlock...
You know, the M16...
Drastically edited by Art in order to maintain sanity. :D
Art
P.S. Didn't work.
A
And I think I hear the sound of a padlock...
Art Eatman
October 23, 2003, 03:14 PM
Click.
If you enjoyed reading about "Worst military rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.