Absolute worst automatic pistol design in history

[Tallball]

I doubt it was the worst, but the Italian Glisenti Model 1910 seems to be universally criticized whenever it's mentioned.

According to Wikipedia:

"The Model 1910 fires from a locked breech. When fired, the barrel and bolt recoil together. The barrel will stop in a rearward position. The bolt, unlocking itself, will then continue forward, stripping the chamber and driving the barrel forward again. After this action, a wedge will rise from the frame and lock the entire frame back into position. This firing system was not strong and had to fire cartridges weaker than the comparable 9mm parabellum. The screw at the front of the frame, when undone will allow the removal of a plate on the left side of the pistol granting access to the moving parts within the pistol. This design was not stiff enough to sufficiently support the left side of the barrel extension and after prolonged firing, the left plate was prone to loosening. The only safety on the pistol was a small lever set in front of the grip."

 

[tark]

. I would pick a Type 14 over a Type 94 hands down, no question.

Pretty sure anybody would. The type 14 was a better design than the 94. But nowhere near the same class as a 1911, or a p-38.

 

[.455_Hunter]

My buddy inherited a mint Baby Nambu from his WW2 veteran father. Underpowered certainly, but VERY well made and the fit and finish puts a Swiss Luger to shame.

Yes- The 7mm Baby Nambu is a very special piece. The cartridge is similar to a hotly loaded .25 ACP, and the gun is a manufacturing gem.

 

[entropy]

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.

Since these were actual issue pistols, not AMTU range guns and the matches were fired with ball ammo, all I did was the triggers,and tighten a couple slides. They still had to be combat ready, so 4.5# was as low as I could go for trigger pull and I left just a little looseness to the slides.

 

[Monac]

Pretty sure anybody would. The type 14 was a better design than the 94. But nowhere near the same class as a 1911, or a p-38.

Oh, yes, completely agree. Heck, the FN 1903 was a better design with a better cartridge than any of the Nambu pistols. But national pride came first, same as it did in Intaly and Austria-Hungary.

 

[gc70]

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 do not believe there were many or significant initial design problems with the R51, but early production was horrible to an extent nearly unmatched in the history of the firearms industry.

Remington had begun consolidating and modernizing the operations of its two dozen or so arms businesses. R&D was the first function to be consolidated and a new, state-of-the-art corporate design and testing center was produced with the R51 being one its first new products. The first guns sent to the media were made at the R&D Center and apparently worked fine; the gun writers who got those guns lavished praise on them. Production guns made at the former Para USA plant were the ones that soon proved to be absolute trash.

Some locals who worked at the Para USA plant suggested reasons for possible tolerance stacking. After the design was transferred from the R&D Center to the Pineville, NC, facility "a few small changes" were supposedly made to simplify production and R&D was not involved. The local workers were also not motivated to produce a quality product; they had already been told the Para USA plant would be closed and production would be moved to a new plant being built in Huntsville, AL.

It was probably not a coincidence that the R51 Gen 2 was not released until after production had been moved to the Huntsville plant.

 

[OrangeCat]

The zonda
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/argentinas-open-bolt-pocket-22s-the-hafdasa-ha-and-the-zonda/

I know that I shouldn't but I actually kinda like the little guys.......

 

[DeepSouth]

Jennings or Bryco .380 and 9mm. Could see daylight under the slide, barrel would crack the frame.

I thought the same, so many companies have gone under trying to make that pos, I must admit my first thought was of my Walther P22, it was a turd from day one but I can’t say it was a design flaw, I just don’t know enough about the design to make that judgment.

 

[DocRock]

USFA Zip .22 pistol

Ding-ding-ding! Winner. Hands down. You can't believe it was ever made let alone sold.

 

[barnetmill]

I do not believe there were many or significant initial design problems with the R51, but early production was horrible to an extent nearly unmatched in the history of the firearms industry.

Remington had begun consolidating and modernizing the operations of its two dozen or so arms businesses. R&D was the first function to be consolidated and a new, state-of-the-art corporate design and testing center was produced with the R51 being one its first new products. The first guns sent to the media were made at the R&D Center and apparently worked fine; the gun writers who got those guns lavished praise on them. Production guns made at the former Para USA plant were the ones that soon proved to be absolute trash.

Some locals who worked at the Para USA plant suggested reasons for possible tolerance stacking. After the design was transferred from the R&D Center to the Pineville, NC, facility "a few small changes" were supposedly made to simplify production and R&D was not involved. The local workers were also not motivated to produce a quality product; they had already been told the Para USA plant would be closed and production would be moved to a new plant being built in Huntsville, AL.

It was probably not a coincidence that the R51 Gen 2 was not released until after production had been moved to the Huntsville plant.

What could go wrong with that? The original design years ago was in .380 and this was in 9x19 luger. It use: "hesitation-locked" action originally developed by John Pedersen. Sounds like that needs to be made just right.
Relative to making changes, just the smallest change from the original design can result in malfunctions.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

I doubt it was the worst, but the Italian Glisenti Model 1910 seems to be universally criticized whenever it's mentioned.

Absolutely worst automatic pistol ammo supply system goes to Italy. Three cartridges based on the 9x19mm case in the supply system.
9mm Glisenti (low power)
9mm Parabellum (standard)
9mm M38 for Beretta submachine gun (+P+)

That made keeping the Glisenti in general issue an accident-in-waiting.

 

[lsudave]

If we're talking "in history", I may go with the Steyr M1912. It seems an interesting enough gun, but let's remember the Austro-Hungarian Empire was an industrial powerhouse and a major force back then. I can give the Steyr 1907 a bit of a pass, since it was the first semiauto adopted by a major power's military; but the 1912 came out after the US adopted the 1911, the Germans the Luger, etc. We're talking about a pistol without a removable magazine, an outdated and dead-end concept before the first one was assembled.

As for the Ring of Fire guns, were the designs that bad, or were they just horribly made? My impression was that they were generally a mainstream design, but with substandard materials and a level of craftsmanship that would make the Spanish Rubies laugh. If you took the blueprints today with tool steel and good aluminum alloys, wouldn't they be serviceable guns?
I guess you could make a case for the Hi Points, although they generally work. Simple blowback for major caliber, crappy pot metal, but enough mass that they don't fall apart.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I was wondering the other day what was the worst, most poorly designed, most trouble prone auto pistol ever made. Please, no smart ass replies like "A Glock, of course." I'm hoping to learn something here because my knowledge about auto pistols is mostly limited to 1911s and C-96 Mausers.

I'm guessing that a lot of you will mention one specific pistol that has a reputation (undeserved) for for being extremely dangerous. If it is mentioned, I'll explain why that reputation is largely undeserved.

In my opinion, that particular notariety goes to the Lorcin L380.

Aside from some other engineering design choices which were unfortunate but not atypical of .380ACP pocket pistols - like a straight, unflared coil spring around the barrel for blowback operation - the mag release is placed such that it will drop the mag with normal grip pressure, whichever hand is used for firing, during operation. Other than that little quirk, accuracy is abysmal, ergonomics are very bad with the sights being both blackened and "low-profile," and the construction materials are poorly chosen for the pistol's intended use: concealed carry. Add to that, the stiker body and trigger parts are made out of cast Zamak.

I am very curious to see why, in your opinion, the Lorcin L380's reputation is undeserved.

 

[entropy]

If we're talking "in history", I may go with the Steyr M1912. It seems an interesting enough gun, but let's remember the Austro-Hungarian Empire was an industrial powerhouse and a major force back then. I can give the Steyr 1907 a bit of a pass, since it was the first semiauto adopted by a major power's military; but the 1912 came out after the US adopted the 1911, the Germans the Luger, etc. We're talking about a pistol without a removable magazine, an outdated and dead-end concept before the first one was assembled.

As for the Ring of Fire guns, were the designs that bad, or were they just horribly made? My impression was that they were generally a mainstream design, but with substandard materials and a level of craftsmanship that would make the Spanish Rubies laugh. If you took the blueprints today with tool steel and good aluminum alloys, wouldn't they be serviceable guns?
I guess you could make a case for the Hi Points, although they generally work. Simple blowback for major caliber, crappy pot metal, but enough mass that they don't fall apart.

I actually Like the Steyr M1912. Agreed the loading system was not the best choice available, but otherwise a good solid gun. certainly not the worst in history, nor even worst adopted as a service pistol.

The Pre war Nambus were well- made copies of the Glisenti, and as .455 Hunter says, the Baby is a work of art. The enlarged trigger guard on the later Type 14 made them uglier, but it was added as a lesson learned from combat in China.
Everybody's (Combatants, anyway; Switzerland and Sweden continued to turn out excellent quality arms then) external fit and finish dipped to varying degrees during WWII. I had a 1942 Ishevsk Mosin Nagant that looked like beavers chewed on the outside of the receiver, and many '42-'44 Mosins share that look, but the working parts were made as well as pre-war Mosins.

 

[GeoDudeFlorida]

I have no idea who the "Inventor" was, but if this isn't it I don't know what could be.....View attachment 1011019

Ah, yes, the Russian Segovic. Also known as the Roulette model. The only firearm sold to Soviet civilians.
Yes, kidding.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

If we're talking "in history", I may go with the Steyr M1912. It seems an interesting enough gun, but let's remember the Austro-Hungarian Empire was an industrial powerhouse and a major force back then. I can give the Steyr 1907 a bit of a pass, since it was the first semiauto adopted by a major power's military; but the 1912 came out after the US adopted the 1911, the Germans the Luger, etc. We're talking about a pistol without a removable magazine, an outdated and dead-end concept before the first one was assembled.

As for the Ring of Fire guns, were the designs that bad, or were they just horribly made? My impression was that they were generally a mainstream design, but with substandard materials and a level of craftsmanship that would make the Spanish Rubies laugh. If you took the blueprints today with tool steel and good aluminum alloys, wouldn't they be serviceable guns?
I guess you could make a case for the Hi Points, although they generally work. Simple blowback for major caliber, crappy pot metal, but enough mass that they don't fall apart.

My Dad has one of the Gabilono (Llama) produced Rubys and its actually quite nice, though it could be an interwar example.

 

[barnetmill]

If we're talking "in history", I may go with the Steyr M1912. It seems an interesting enough gun, but let's remember the Austro-Hungarian Empire was an industrial powerhouse and a major force back then. I can give the Steyr 1907 a bit of a pass, since it was the first semiauto adopted by a major power's military; but the 1912 came out after the US adopted the 1911, the Germans the Luger, etc. We're talking about a pistol without a removable magazine, an outdated and dead-end concept before the first one was assembled.

As for the Ring of Fire guns, were the designs that bad, or were they just horribly made? My impression was that they were generally a mainstream design, but with substandard materials and a level of craftsmanship that would make the Spanish Rubies laugh. If you took the blueprints today with tool steel and good aluminum alloys, wouldn't they be serviceable guns?
I guess you could make a case for the Hi Points, although they generally work. Simple blowback for major caliber, crappy pot metal, but enough mass that they don't fall apart.

I am not aware that the 1912 was considered a horrible pistol in its day. Loading from a stripper clip is not a cardinal sin. The C96 was also so loaded. Stripper clip loading rifles were still being designed even past WWII like the SKS rifle.
I believe it was well made.

 

[gc70]

... The original design years ago was in .380 and this was in 9x19 luger. ...

The Model 51 was a downsized version of the 45ACP Model 53 (Model 1917) that Remington made for potential military sales in World War I.

 

[entropy]

The Model 51 was a downsized version of the 45ACP Model 53 (Model 1917) that Remington made for potential military sales in World War I.

Another gun I wish Cylinder & slide would have made in addition to the M1908 in .45 ACP.....sigh.

 

[GunnyUSMC]

I would like to add some regurgitation to the pile as pertains to the Colt 2000. What were they thinking??

Colt didn’t design the Colt 2000. They just took a good design and screwed it up. I can’t remember off the top of my head, the name of the two guys that designed the pistols, but it was said that it was a nice pistol. Colt bought all the rights to the pistols and sent it to their engineering department. At the time many police departments were making the transition from revolvers to automatics. Colt was a little late to the game but they made changes to the gun in hopes of getting LEO contracts. The gun was a flop.

 

[tark]

If we're talking "in history", I may go with the Steyr M1912. It seems an interesting enough gun, but let's remember the Austro-Hungarian Empire was an industrial powerhouse and a major force back then. I can give the Steyr 1907 a bit of a pass, since it was the first semiauto adopted by a major power's military; but the 1912 came out after the US adopted the 1911, the Germans the Luger, etc. We're talking about a pistol without a removable magazine, an outdated and dead-end concept before the first one was assembled.

You forgot to mention the 1912s most glaring flaw. The safety was poorly positioned and usually was touching the firer's hand. When firing, the safety tended to work its way upward, toward the "safe" position. Pushing it down usually discharged the gun. You had to push it up to the full "safe" position and then back to fire. IMHO this flaw was every bit as deadly as the 94s sear bar.

 

[mjsdwash]

My buddy inherited a mint Baby Nambu from his WW2 veteran father. Underpowered certainly, but VERY well made and the fit and finish puts a Swiss Luger to shame.

well made, for sure, but I stand by ugly and unsafe. I don't think every model was problem prone, but don't know which. The only one competing for gracelessly ugly that made it to full production would be the Steyr 12.

 

[tark]

I actually Like the Steyr M1912. Agreed the loading system was not the best choice available, but otherwise a good solid gun. certainly not the worst in history, nor even worst adopted as a service pistol.

Hello, fellow 45B brother. I like the 1912 Steyr myself. The quality of the gun was outstanding, typical for guns of that era. I owned one and shot it quite a bit, until the first time it did what I describe in post #71. It was the closest I have ever came to shooting myself.

 

[tark]

Yes- The 7mm Baby Nambu is a very special piece. The cartridge is similar to a hotly loaded .25 ACP, and the gun is a manufacturing gem.

Very, very special indeed !! This one used to be in the Arsenal Museum. It shows no signs of ever having been fired.

 

[dogtown tom]

The Model 51 was a downsized version of the 45ACP Model 53 (Model 1917) that Remington made for potential military sales in World War I.

You have it backwards.
Model 51 was designed first, so the M53 was an upsized version of the 51.
https://www.forgottenweapons.com/remington-m53/