Absolute worst automatic pistol design in history

Status
Not open for further replies.
JCooperfan1911 said:
The Makarov pistols.

Heavy, low power, junk triggers. Made by peasants for peasants. Snappy things with no sights. Awful communist machining on the examples I've handled and just crude junk compared to a proper military sidearm like the M1911A1.
Click to expand...
Exactly the review the man in your avatar would give them. And yet, they go bang in conditions many other guns won't (thankfully we agree the 1911 did the same), and are actually fairly accurate for a small auto with a crappy trigger.
 
Tirod said:
Unfortunately the progression of mechanical efficiency made the 1911 obsolete. And Browning was the one to do most of the damage. He sold the patents to Colt, and then when commissioned later in life to design a new combat pistol, he had to engineer around them. We got the Browning Hipower, which was the basis for most modern 9mm's.

When contracts were let to build more 1911's during WWII, the process of making them was so poor that Ordnance commissioned Singer to come up with a better production and fabrication flow. And, they did, well proved by Remington Rand and Ithaca. However, Singer, itself, was incapable of making them, and scrapped all but the few accepted. I nominate the Singer 1911A1 as the worst made gun ever issued.

We may cringe at the idea of some of the guns nominated, yet it's the ones that were literally bleeding red ink with laborious hand fitting and no possibility of interchangeable parts which are the real stinkers. The 1911 is an early auto pistol design with no Ordnance blueprint. That was also one of Singers early corrections - they had to backwards design a proof drawing to set standards of reproduction. Colt only had their own bits and pieces, some literally a "proof part" they copied for the next production run.
Click to expand...

As pointed out by @lysanderxiii your history on the of the Singer 1911s I would also point out you are wrong on the history of JMBs development of the 1911 and the Browning High Power.

JMB had an agreement with Colt and FN to market and sell his designs. Part of that agreement was Colt and FN protected each others rights and patents in their respective territories. JMB was paid a royalty for the guns produced under this licensing agreement with Colt and FN respectively. This was a result of the issues JMB had with Winchester over the Browning Automatic Shotgun. He did not sell his patent rights to Colt.

He also did not develop the Browning High Power around the the 1911 design and patents. The BHP was a project brought to JMB who was an independent contractor at FN Herstal who they referred to as "Le Maitre ." The French were looking for a new service pistol which was capable of carrying at least 10 rounds. JMB turned it down because he did not believe that 10 rounds were necessary for a service pistol. FN then gave the task to Dieudonné Joseph Saive who developed a protoype of 15 round magazine which was brought to the US by JMBs brother for inspection. JMB then returned to Herstal where he designed the 2 protoypes. One was a lock breeched handgun the other was a straight blow back fired handgun. The lock breech was chosen and further development on the striker fired gun as initiated. Neither one are the gun we know today as the Browning High Power. This was JMBs last patent.

1620140304.jpg

JMB died before the project was ever completed. The French eventually scrapped the designs developed by FN and when another direction. They chose the Modèle 1935 pistol. The Grande Rendement was shelved at one point and then brought back to life by FN in 1928 with Saive doing the reworking of the design. The myth about the 1911 patents comes from the fact by the time that FN revisited the pistol the 1911 patents had expired and Saive incorporated some of the 1911s design elements into the pistol but it is a mistake to say that the original design was born from the need to avoid the 1911 patents.

Sorry for the thread drift. My vote is for the Nambu 94. Any military side arm that developed the nickname the "suicide gun" has to be the winner right? https://www.historynet.com/japans-suicide-gun.htm

 
Last edited:
I knew the type 94 would be mentioned often. But perhaps it isn't the evil deathtrap it is accused of being. Before I go any further, let me make it clear that I believe the type 94 is an utter failure as a workable automatic pistol. It really is a piece of crap. It is one of the worst pistols ever made, for many reasons other than the sear bar issue. Low powered ammunition, a magazine that only holds six rounds and probably the worst sights ever put on any pistol are just three reasons why it just plain sucked, for lack of a better word.

Production on the pistol began in 1935. Early examples were beautifully polished and blued. An early production gun is next to a late war gun in the picture. It isn't hard to tell the difference. The commercial gun rivals any Luger or C-96 I have ever seen when it comes to fit and finish. The type 94 was actually quite popular with pilots due to its light weight and compactness. The Japanese were aware of the sear bar issue and the pistol was normally carried with the mag full and the chamber empty.

And now...for the part that always seems to be left out when discussing the sear bar issue. Pressing the sear bar will fire the gun...unless the safety is "on." Applying the safety blocks the sear bar from moving. This can be seen in the second picture. The early gun has the safety "on" and as can be seen, it is blocking any movement of the sear bar. That little tidbit always seems to be left out when discussing the gun. I have to think that the average Japanese soldier, knowing the gun's major weakness, would apply the safety after chambering a round. Ian did a video on the type 94 and he mentioned this. Bad design? No doubt about that! But perhaps not the worst... I have never fired a type 94 and I know of no one who has. But I have examined the two the Arsenal Museum had, before the Army gutted the place. The trigger on the commercial gun wasn't too bad and the safety was easily manipulated. The grip was oddly comfortable and would have been more so had I had a mag to insert in the gun.

In closing, I want to thank everyone who posted. I have learned quite a bit. And I would like to add some regurgitation to the pile as pertains to the Colt 2000. What were they thinking??
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5839[1].JPG
    IMG_5839[1].JPG
    124 KB · Views: 62
  • IMG_5840[1].JPG
    IMG_5840[1].JPG
    114.9 KB · Views: 62
Last edited:
While not properly an auto, let us not forget the Dardick.
We probably can point towards the 1904 Browning Colts, with two barrel links as less-than stunning designs.

entropy said:
The Mars Pistol.
Click to expand...
This may not be entirely fair. As pointed out above, the thing was meant to E&E existing patents, and mostly demonstrates why making a 2# gun weigh 3# does not improve the thing.

lysanderxiii said:
was a mechanical computer,
Click to expand...
Gears, especially intersecting cams can actually solve complex geometry problems to a greater degree of accuracy than digital machines. Part of that is that you are building the geometry right into the calculator. Mechanical computers were established technology when Singer got in the game. What Singer brought was a knowledge of making fine gearing into robust machines.

Robust matters. Ask Bond Arms. Hmm, we'll yank the rounds backwards out of magazines--that can't have any problems, can it?
 
JCooperfan1911 said:
The Makarov pistols.

Heavy, low power, junk triggers. Made by peasants for peasants. Snappy things with no sights. Awful communist machining on the examples I've handled and just crude junk compared to a proper military sidearm like the M1911A1.
Click to expand...
What’s your take on the Tok?
 
Tirod said:
I nominate the Singer 1911A1 as the worst made gun ever issued.
Click to expand...
You're trolling...right? Worst made gun ever issued? You have obviously never held one, because they are the highest quality of all government contracted 1911s. They were made to commercial levels of fit and finish. And since they are so rare they go for way up into five figures at auction. I was able to look at (but not touch ) one at a Rock Island Auction Co. preview. It was very impressive.
 
Last edited:
The Gen 1 Remington R51. Massive problems because of poor design and awful quality control. Over 3,000 pistols recalled. Pistol was redesigned and Gen 2 seemingly was better, butnGen 1 was a disaster.
 
1942bull said:
The Gen 1 Remington R51. Massive problems because of poor design and awful quality control. Over 3,000 pistols recalled. Pistol was redesigned and Gen 2 seemingly was better, butnGen 1 was a disaster.
Click to expand...
I dont think there was any actual redesign of the gun itself involved. Remington blamed the problem with the Gen.1 on tolerance stacking during the assembly process. IIRC, their answer was more hand fitting combined with better training, as well as improved magazine followers and springs.

I was so disappointed in the R51, one of the very few new pistols I was actually excited about buying. :fire:

BTW, I have an original Model 51 which has never once jammed on me. Its one of my favorite guns.
 
I would love to put an earlier Type 94 through its paces with good, full-power ammo. The ones I have fondled seemed to handle OK, and I have a thing for underappreciated guns.

The funny thing is that I rate the Makarov as top-shelf for the blend of form, function and cost. I would never trade mine for any of the current polystriker sub-compacts.
 
.455_Hunter said:
I would love to put an earlier Type 94 through its paces with good, full-power ammo. The ones I have fondled seemed to handle OK, and I have a thing for underappreciated guns.

The funny thing is that I rate the Makarov as top-shelf for the blend of form, function and cost. I would never trade mine for any of the current polystriker sub-compacts.
Click to expand...

I had a Nambu Type 94 for a while. I never fired it because A) ammunition was hard to get at the time, and B), the grips were damaged and would not stay on the gun. So my first hand knowledge is nil, except that the grip shape seemed poor to me, but firing is the proof of that too.

What I have read is that the early production guns were nicely made and reliable when clean. Quality dropped like a rock toward the end of the war.

What I did actually shoot is a Nambu Type 14, and I can say it was quite nice to shoot, with light recoil, a pleasant trigger, and good sights. Mine was a mid-production gun. I would pick a Type 14 over a Type 94 hands down, no question.

The Makarov makes a lot more sense than either of them, of course.
 
JCooperfan1911 said: ↑
The Makarov pistols.

Heavy, low power, junk triggers. Made by peasants for peasants. Snappy things with no sights. Awful communist machining on the examples I've handled and just crude junk compared to a proper military sidearm like the M1911A1.
entropy said:
Exactly the review the man in your avatar would give them. And yet, they go bang in conditions many other guns won't (thankfully we agree the 1911 did the same), and are actually fairly accurate for a small auto with a crappy trigger.
Click to expand...
entropy said:
Exactly the review the man in your avatar would give them. And yet, they go bang in conditions many other guns won't (thankfully we agree the 1911 did the same), and are actually fairly accurate for a small auto with a crappy trigger.
Click to expand...
Junk triggers!
Have any of you two ever fired a GI 1911. The trigger on mine that was purchased via the old DCM in 1963 for $17.50 had a trigger that likely over 8 lbs and was certainly no worse than thsy on MAK that I once fired. You could take the GI .45 and shake and hear the parts rattle. It was made to go bang under the worse conditions the same way that the MAK was made. The T33 is a better pistol than the MAK and for russian conditions due to its penetration better than the 1911.
 
barnetmill said:
Have any of you two ever fired a GI 1911.
Click to expand...
I was a US Army Unit Armorer. Of course I've fired issue 1911 triggers. However because my SMOS was 45B, Small Arms Repair, I knew how to take an 8# issue trigger and turn it into a 4.5# glass-smooth trigger, and did just that with the 7 1911's in my Arms Room, for our Battalion's Pistol Team.

Golfanaticshooter said:
I have no idea who the "Inventor" was, but if this isn't it I don't know what could be.....View attachment 1011019
Click to expand...
Ah; the Kervorkian 9mm. Has a low round count, each user only fires it once.
 
Jennings or Bryco .380 and 9mm. Could see daylight under the slide, barrel would crack the frame.

EDIT: Actually, the design wasn't really bad, but the mfg process and quality control really appeared to be nonexistant
 
Last edited:
^ The Zonda looks like a gun made just to see if the idea worked, the heck with sales. It certainly did not meet a realistic market demand since few people wanted or bought it.
 
entropy said:
I was a US Army Unit Armorer. Of course I've fired issue 1911 triggers. However because my SMOS was 45B, Small Arms Repair, I knew how to take an 8# issue trigger and turn it into a 4.5# glass-smooth trigger, and did just that with the 7 1911's in my Arms Room, for our Battalion's Pistol Team.


Ah; the Kervorkian 9mm. Has a low round count, each user only fires it once.
Click to expand...
The trigger pull was just the first thing that a gunsmith's services were needed for. Then next was fitting the slide to the gun. Then the barrel bushing was fitted. When everything was done you had a match quality pistol that only stayed that way if you stayed away from hard ball and fired lighter recoiling loads. It seems now days that the slides and frame must be of harder steel. The 1911 as issued was a clunker that worked and the military likely built it that way on purpose and it served well as issued.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Early autoloader history?
Replies
2
Views
512
default
D
D
  • Locked
Is it really safe to carry an automatic with one round loaded in the chamber?
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
3K
Stephen A. Camp
S
D
  • Locked
Another Ruger design flaw with the KP345
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Johnny Guest
J
tark
  • Locked
The worst bolt action rifle of all time?
2 3 4 5
Replies
114
Views
6K
Hokkmike
Hokkmike
B
  • Locked
Do you like double action semiautos?
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
bigmike45
bigmike45
Back
Top