Worst US military guns.

>>33512435
You first OP

M16

File: 1466341093008.jpg (20KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 600x300px

when it came out, it was a piece of shit.

>>33512452

FP-45 Liberator

Some US general got the idea to make a whole bunch of these shitty little guns and drop them over German occupied France. They would fire a single 45 bullet you would kill a German with and take his gun. None of these where reported as actually being used.

>>33512466

I head a lot of soldiers wanted to stick with their m-14s. How good was the M-14 and did they fix the m-16 issue while we where in Vietnam?

File: P1310765-900x601.jpg (304KB, 900x601px) Image search: [Google]

304KB, 900x601px

>>33512466
Honestly what I was gonna post. Maybe I'm just a newfag but I don't really know any genuinely issued weapons that were unreliable/awful.
My vote goes to the Thompson submachine gun though, for being expensive, heavy as fuck, and having a fairly low magazine capacity. They still seem quality though

>>33512466
Rifle was fine, ammo and maintenance doctrine were shit.

>>33512513
Fuck if I know from actual life experience, but the m14 fired a heavier round, was made of quality wood and metal, and was quite reliable. So when the troops got M16s that were made of a light plastic and constantly jammed, they were pissed

>>33512435
Any American made kalashnikov

>>33512548
Why

File: m-3.jpg (66KB, 465x349px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 465x349px

>>33512516

What was shittier is when they tried to make a cheap version of the Thompson. The M-3 "greasy gun". I hear this was shit.

File: 1490262673971.gif (4MB, 280x302px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 280x302px

>>33512548
>military

>>33512544
kys my man

File: m1garand-300x225.jpg (11KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 300x225px

What were they thinking?

>>33512495
>joke
*your head*

>>33512557
Nah, there's nothing wrong with Grease Guns. They were still issued to a handful of tank crews as late as the Gulf War.

File: 1903-A3-Springfield.jpg (354KB, 3962x2238px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 3962x2238px

>>33512598
you think that was a fuckup? try this inaccurate piece of garbage. apparently the best trained marine marksmen couldn't hit a 10 inch target at 100 yards with this thing

>>33512599

I know, but I had to explain it apparently.

>>33512524
Wasn't that featured in karnikcon's semilast vid

>>33512557
It was named the "Grease gun" not greasy gun. And it had such a reputation for being a neat piece of pipe it was kept in inventories through Desert Storm.

>>33512557
Lol who the fuck told you the grease gun was worse than the thompson? Cheaper, lighter, more reliable, and came in 45 and 9mm.

File: Shellshock nam 67.jpg (130KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 800x600px

>>33512602

I remember them not getting the job done though.

>>33512600
>bait
the 1911 was heavy, jammed often, and the action beat itself to hell. switching to the M9 was the best, and most overdue change they ever made.

>>33512654
Kids take note, this is proper shitposting.

>>33512666

>666

File: Arthur-Bio.jpg (174KB, 501x328px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 501x328px

>not recognizing the advantages and disadvantages of a firearm

File: KAP-40.png (69KB, 512x256px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 512x256px

>>33512654

Neither can compete with the KAP-40.

File: wOeAV2Ch.jpg (24KB, 500x211px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x211px

>>33512666

>>33512542

Not that great actually, the average grunt-issued M14 was no sniper rifle, it was heavy and long and the ammo was heavy as well.
The M-16's issues were fixed with the M16a1 and the mass-issue of cleaning kits.

>>33512752

When were the m-16a1s issued?

>>33512557
My dad was a tanker in the Army for a while in the 90s and they still used old Grease Guns. said they were fine

>>33512697
How does it cycle?

>>33512466
They weren't shipped with enough cleaning units and the whole futuristic look made some people think it actually didn't need to be cleaned. Once that was resolved, it was ok.

>>33512513
The M14 has its flaws but it is actually more solid than most seem to believe. Of course heavy, wooden, and rather open action are an absolutely shit combination for jungle fighting.
I'd trust my life to an M14, but it would make its best effort to make life fucking suck the whole time.

>>33512459
>>33512466
Please see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyXndCxn9K4
>>33513325
>>33512520
True
>>33512516
Please see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M50_Reising
though you do have some good points.
>>33512784
Details are a little fuzzy, but here is what I can figgure out from the Wikipedia article:
1961: US Air Force receives 10 AR-15s for testing in Vietnam
1962: US Air Force orders 1000 more AR-15s
1963: US Army orders 85,000 XM16E1s (has forward assist) and the US Air Force orders 19,000 more AR-15s, now designated M-16s (does not have forward assist)
1964: M-16 production begins, US Army receives first batch of 2,129 rifles
1965: US Army receives a total of 57,240 this year
1967: XM16E1 is improved with chrome lined bore and chamber, as well as other minor improvements. This new pattern of the rifle was designated 'M-16A1'.
1969: M-16A1 officially replaced the M-14 rifles as the US military's standard service rifle.

File: Chauchat-2.jpg (480KB, 2240x1360px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 2240x1360px

The Browning Automatic Rifle, which was developed in 1917, was rushed into production for US service as it entered the First World War.

In the few instances where it was fielded, it had a disparate impact. It was good enough that the US would use it for another 20 years.

But since it was so new and hurriedly produced, the states instead went with a poorly re-chambered version of a mediocre and unreliable French LMG: the chauchat.

This 30-06 chambering is objectively the worst weapon handed to an American soldier with a straight face. In 1918, even the French wished to abandon their 8mm version for the American BAR.

>>33513672
^this, unless there's some obscure gun I can't recall.

You could possibly say the Krag, but it wasn't really shitty as much as inferior to the rifles other countries where using at the time.

File: Springfield_Model_1855_-_AM.030363.jpg (592KB, 2650x1000px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 2650x1000px

Springfield 1855

>>33512557
GET OOOOUUUUUUUUUTTTTTTTT

>>33512495
They were going to deploy them. They have no reported uses because they were never deployed as intended. Instead they were handed out by soldiers on the ground, and if the area already has soldiers on the ground it defeated the purpose. The British were to release them on bombing runs, but it is more efficient to keep bombing.

>>33512495
The Liberator was a gun to get a better gun. It was meant to be the cheapest piece of crap possible by design.

File: Krag–Jørgensen.jpg (77KB, 2700x596px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 2700x596px

>>33512612
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't the Springfield replace the Krag–Jorgensen because the latter had some problems.

>>33514018
This. It was literally designed to sneak up on a lonely kraut taking a piss, magdump him and steal his gun once he was down.

File: IMG_9473.jpg (281KB, 1500x445px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1500x445px

>>33512516
>>33512557

To be fair, the m50 was the worse sub machine gun the US issued during WW2

>>33514320

Military smg, yeah. Police work, eh it's okay.

>>33514253
>Magdump
>with a liberator
Really hard to do that with a gun that doesn't have a gun, but from a less than technical standpoint you're not wrong.

>>33514018
>>33514430
> single shot .45

Mag dump with one trigger pull every time.

Let's face it, it wasn't an insurgent weapon: it was invented as the easy way out for conscripted grunts.

>>33514430
Sorry, meant to say ...hard to do that with a gun that doesn't have a mag...

>>33514320
I know the Marines hated them for how clean you had to keep them and because of the poor wire stock, but I can't help but like them.
Such a simple design, lightweight, and you control the rate of fire by adding weights to the bolt.

>>33512624
yes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO2DD_-23yg

File: OtzYbJ7.png (245KB, 550x600px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 550x600px

>>33513672
Have you seen the Forgotten Weapon video on the Chauchat, it didn't suck quite as bad as people say.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCwP3Dm52Ls

>>33514956
That was the 8mm Lebel version. It was the .30-06 that was burning dogshit.

>>33512572
This is what "Mental disability- not otherwise specified" looks like

>>33512654
>heavy

the others may be subjective, but this is an outright lie

>>33514036
Talking out my ass here, but the 30-40 Krag may have been under powered compared to other countries rifles, and lack of stripper clips didn't help the rifle either.

That being said, my Krag is really no less accurate than almost any other milsurp I own, the bolt is the smoothest out of any milsurp I own, and the trigger is pretty nice.

>>33512435

I would love to get my hands on one of those OP.

Its a neat little piece of history.

We gave as many of those to the french as we could in WW2 so the people would have a gun. It was good for one shot then took some time to reload. but if a group of people could gang up on a smaller group of german soldiers they could take them out then steal their guns.

We wanted to make them as cheep as possible and all they really had to do was go bang when the trigger was pulled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ERSQo6cmTQ

>>33513133
More or less like a Mauser C96.

>>33513672
>it had a disparate impact
>disparate impact
>disparate

I don't think that means what you think it means.

File: automatic exploder.jpg (950KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

950KB, 1200x800px

>>33512435

File: 1481447727534.jpg (133KB, 651x768px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 651x768px

>>33512516
>mag capacity
20/30 is fine for ww2 era

>>33514036
The round wasn't the best and the action isn't very strong, but it's smooth, the fit and finish is awesome for a service rifle and still holds up compared to most sporting rifles on the market today. Springfield spent way more time on detail than they needed to with those rifles.

I think the Norwegian models have issues with humidity throwing off the zero, but I don't know if that applies to the US Krags as well.

M14

When you have to sabotage the better design, its really telling.

>>33512598
M1 Garand was an awesome weapon. .30 '06 fucked up many a Hun/Jap.

>>33514320
This is the worst gun the US military has ever used, purely from a looks standpoint. Possibly the ugliest gun any military has ever issued, in fact.

>>33516578
>When you have to sabotage the better design, its really telling
What? Explain and source, anon.

>>33512557
>I hear this was shit.
You mean THE SHIT. I've read nothing but good reviews from those that used them in combat.
I've fired a Thompson and an M3A1, and I'd prefer the M3 too.

>>33512495
Nothing little about the liberators if you've seen them in person

>>33512557
gun is fine, my country still uses it (or rather, a 3-round burst clone) for police work

>>33515069
It's almost like you didn't watch the video

>>33516979
Big wigs went against using proper powder for 5.56 and forced the use of 7.62RFN powder instead. Causing severe quality and cleaning issues with the M16 which was compounded by not issuing enough cleaning kits or advocating the cleaning of the rifle. Many people had stock in the bigger boolet and wanted it to be the end all so they didn't like it when 5.56 showed up and started competing.

>>33512542
>quite reliable
>universally wildly out of spec

Also they are impossible to accurize

File: Julia-AR-10-38-right.jpg (67KB, 1600x427px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1600x427px

>>33516979
The Big wigs during the trials to adopt the M14 essentially sabotaged everyone else. Both FN and Armalite called foul but no luck. Theres a good chance if it hadn't been for the corruption that we would have adopted the FAL or AR10 design

In my opinion, it's the thompson. It's overly heavy and has the least comfortable stock I've ever felt.

>>33518644
This shit. It's not about supplying troops with the best possible weapons anymore- it's about making money in the military industrial complex. It's sad, but that's the state of things. Wish I had that quote from someone who loved the 1911 because it was outdated.

>>33516979
>>33518434
Powder change was big. It shifted the pressure curve on the system resulting in the guns rate of fire bumping up significantly. Parts weren't made to handle that rate of fire so they started cracking. They didn't bother to chrome line the barrel something that they knew was needed since WW1 and as such cases were getting stuck in the chamber combined with the bolt moving to fast to properly eject. The Army got in a lot of trouble for how mismanaged the M16 program was.

>>33518722
no, they stopped that when they adopted the AR15.
The 1911 is a shit pistol btw

>>33512557
>>33512602
>>33513001
>>33513875
>>33516979

Supposedly early versions of the original M3 had problems where they had very weak parts (kep in mind the original design intent of the weapon was to be somewhat of a disposable smg if it became unservicable) and were very prone to accidental discharges.

Most of you guys are probably thinking of the M3A1, which didn't have any problems at all.