BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Thanks for the info.
Worst Pieces of Crap That Have Ever Been Issued: 1. Rifles
Thanks for the info.
mmarsh
Active member
Except the Chauchat was a LMG, not a rifle. The problem of the chauchat was that it was too finicky a gun to be used in less than idea conditions, such as the trenches of WWI, where dirt, grim, etc would foul the gun up. However when the gun was used outside the trenches such is in 1918 its faults were less apparent. Still, nobody is going argue that the Chauchat was the greatest LMG ever made. The French Army got rid of it soon after WWI ended.
But back to the top: the Worst RIFLE. My vote goes to the Italian M91 Mannlichier-Carcano. Underpowered, used a poorly produced munition, inaccuarate at both short and long range due to a nonadjustable rear sight.
The gun was so unpopular that where ever it was sent, it was simply thrown away for something else. The Finns and later the Italians preferred the Russian Mosin-Nagant compared to this horrible device.
And strangely, this is the gun that was supposed to have shot JFK. A rather odd choice for sniper weapon.
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Why not here? It was a reply to the thread and pertinant to a crappy rifle. There was no intention of starting a new threat here, just the statement that it could lead to a new thread.
I have however, moved the post to a new thread.
Last edited:
Andrius_LT
New Member
Sweden made H&K G3 or AK-4, this gun shoots only then he wants:-D had two of them in a year.Both had jamming and bullet feding problems.
KJ
Active member
That´s because you got all our 30 year old rejects..LOL
Along with all our other surplus **** ready for the scrapheap.
Make sure your magazine springs are intact, most feedingproblems with that type stems from the magazine.
The few AK4,s still in use over here are the sniper version for the national guard..
In my opinion you could have gotten more modern equipment not in use anymore, like the first AK5 models that are only dated by ten years or so.
They are atleast reliable.
Andrius_LT
New Member
Yes those guns are old...magazines problems are well known to us, its pretty annoying in firing range,then ammo jams in midle of the magazine and you have to reload in another. And I had big problem with the bolt. Then I release the cocking handle the bolt with the round dont come back to the starting position.
Today our army is buying H&K G36KA4.
P.S.Sorry for my english
Today our army is buying H&K G36KA4.
P.S.Sorry for my english
KJ
Active member
Yes those guns are old...magazines problems are well known to us, its pretty annoying in firing range,then ammo jams in midle of the magazine and you have to reload in another. And I had big problem with the bolt. Then I release the cocking handle the bolt with the round dont come back to the starting position.
Today our army is buying H&K G36KA4.
P.S.Sorry for my english
Well at the range it´s anoying, in the real world it is a matter of life and death.
Heavy bitches too.
They are old, worked rather well during their day but I wouldn´t be caught dead with one now.
franzmaximilian
Active member
Let me disagree with your vote. There is possibly some misinformation and a couple of mistakes in your assertions. First is that the rifle that shot JFK was a M91 when it was actually a M91/38. An evolution of the M91, but a WW2 weapon, so totally OT.
Second is the poorly produced ammunition. I have read lots of critics about the equipment and the weapons available to the Italian Army in WW1 in tenths of books, but I never came through bad comments about ammunition quality. WW1 vintage ammunitions (from a box found in the ice) has been fired recently by friends with full satisfaction. The myth about poor ammunition is something that grew post WW2, when an abundance of M91 (in all variants) became available internationally on the civilian markets. Very few knew outside Italy that the actual calibre of the 6,5 x 52 was 0,268 inches, while other ammunition in 6,5 mm such as the better famed Swedish 6,5 x 55 is 0.266 and others are 0.264. This caused the manufacture and use of totally wrong ammunition that lead to very poor performances. The original 6,5 x 52 has ballistic characteristics that are perfectly comparable with the much better famed 30-30 Winchester and the 6,5 x 55, using a less aggressive charge that leads to a longer lifetime for the gun with much less maintenance. All these are important aspects of a military weapon.
The real weakness of the 6,5 x 52 ammunition is it's stability at the impact. It was not uncommon for a bullet to come out of the hit body without leaving other damage but it's neat passage: too "humanitarian" for a military bullet!
The M91 was also rugged and possibly better than its opponents Mauser, Steyr and Mannlicher in terms of sensitivity to dirt, sand and mud.
Also, it used a symmetrical 6 cartridge loader (vs. 5 of its opponents) and was easier to reload than the Steyr whose loader could be inserted in one way only. Try yourself at night while wearing gloves!
Not to mention that field dismantling and mounting the M91 was foolproof.
The M91 was also extremely robust. The Germans captured hundreds of thousands of M91, M91/24 and M91/38 in 1943 and rebored many of those in 8mm Mauser, a much more powerful ammunition, to be distributed to second line troops. Not only it resisted well to the higher pressures but it was regarded as a reliable gun when Mausers were not available.
I would like to know where you found references to the Italians preferring the Moisin Nagant. I have never read anything about this in tenths of books (or again are you talking about WW2?). Could you please mention any reference?
If we talk about the worst gun of WW2, I may agree with you. The M91 (and subversions) was totally outdated, though still reliable within its limits.
At the time of the First World War, though not one of the best, the M91 was perfectly adequate, relatively inexpensive, easy to train illiterate peasants on, reliable and performed quite well.
Last edited:
This was a problem then. In 1988, I attended a shooting course in Mississippi. The Navy guys that were there experienced slide failures two days in a row. In each instance, the slide broke and hit each man in the right eye. They were fairly nasty cuts.
franzmaximilian
Active member
I found out your source by myself. You read carelessly the "Carcano" page on Wikipedia. Please re-read that page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano
You are talking about post WW1 ammunition and about a version of the M91/38 in 7,35x51 that was built in less than 100,000 units vs. millions of different M91 in 6,5x52. You can not despise a rifle because of a poorly designed minor version.
Also, about the poorly assorted ammunition, the reference cited on Wikipedia is a British one post WW2 (1948). I wonder which ammo has they inspected and when. For field reaload whatever was available was used, everywhere and by any army. I have personally found on the battlefield a magazine for a Madsen MG loaded with a mixture of 7,92x57 I (round nose) cartridges of three different lots and a Villar-Perosa sMG magazine with 9x19 Glisenti ammo from two different brands mixed.
About the 6,5x52 beeing underpowered, just compare its ballistic data with the celebrated 6,5 Grendal and think that the 6,5x52 M95 cartridge is about 107 years older....
Last edited:
mmarsh
Active member
I said M91 Mannlichier-Carcano (the original 6.5mm version), I did not say the M91 Mannlichier-Carcano Modello 38 (the rechambered 7.35mm version). The older version was retained in WWII because the Italians couldnt produce enough of the Modello 38. Moreover, the subject of this thread was not about the quantity but the worst quality rifle ever issed. So before you start arrogently and wrongly lecturing me about my reading comprehension skills, you might want to check yours first.
Secondly 100,000 units is *not* a small production run. 100,000 rifles is enough to equip 2 entire WWII US Army Corps with spares. Granted it doesnt compare with the Millions or Garands, Mosins, Mausers, or Lee-Enfields but your suggestion that it was unimportant minor varient is flat out wrong. For comparison British build only 130 De Lisle carbines in 3 years (and yes they were issued to to SOE and other commandos). The Germans build only 12000 G41 before switching to the G43. Those are what I'd call a small production run.
Italy was not the only combatant to use 6.5mm as a munition size, the Japanese also used 6.5 in their Arisksa Type 38 rifle (which was based on the Carcano) and there too the Japanese discovered that the ammunition lacked power, which is why they devoloped the Type 99 rifle in 7.7mm. You possibly compare a 6.5 round from 1895 with the modern 6.5 Grendal. the fact they are the same caliber is about the only about similarity they share, furthermore the Grendal's future is not even decided, last I heard it might never be issued. Whatever statistics and ballistic reports test are meaningless when its contradicted by the people that had to use the rifle in actual combat. Both the Carcano and the Model 38 were used in combat and just about everybody who did use it thought it was garbage.
Last edited:
franzmaximilian
Active member
Please list referenced sources to support this opinion.
mmarsh
Active member
Why are you asking for sources when you said you already found it? Everything I said is in there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano
The Italians:
After reports of inadequate performance at both short and long ranges[2][3] during the campaigns in Italian North Africa (1924-1934), and the Second Italo-Abyssinian War (1934), the Italian army introduced a new short rifle in 1938, the Modello 1938.
The Finns:
Approximately 94,500 7.35 mm Modello 1938 rifles were shipped to Finland, where they were known as Terni carbines.[5] They were primarily used by security and line-of-communications troops during the Winter War of 1939–1940, though some frontline troops were issued the weapon.[6According to reports, the Finns disliked the rifle.With its non-standard 7.35 mm caliber, it was problematic to keep frontline troops supplied with ammunition, and its non-adjustable rear sight (fixed for 300 m) made it ill-suited for use in precision shooting at the varied ranges encountered by Finnish soldiers during the conflict.Soldiers also complained that the ammunition demonstrated excessive bullet dispersion on the target.
The Germans assigned it to the Volkstrum, the Isrealis and Syrians only used it for training. In other words: it was given out because there was nothing better available.
Last edited:
franzmaximilian
Active member
mmarsh wrote "the Italian M91 Mannlichier-Carcano. Underpowered, used a poorly produced munition, inaccuarate at both short and long range due to a nonadjustable rear sight."
This because of variant made in late 30ies (in a different calibre) which represented less than 5% of total production of many different M91.
Again, I agree that Mod. 91 in any variant was a poor, outdated rifle in WW2, specially beacause of the cheaper, simplified versions issued in the 30ies. But I also affirm that the same rifle was nothing but excellent in WW1.
A few references, a bit more deep than Wikipedia:
Mullin, Timothy J. - Testing the War Weapons: Rifles and Light Machine Guns From Around the World Paladin Press, 1997, Paperback, ISBN 0873649435
Wacker, Albrecht - Disputatio ad arma. Zur Verwendung kaliberaptierter Waffen des Musters Carcano in der Wehrmacht
in: Deutsches Waffen-Journal 1988, Heft 2, pp. 240-241
Hobbs, Richard J. - The Carcano: Italy's Military Rifle ©1996, 2nd ed. 1997
N.N. - Die neuen Waffen unserer Verbündeten: Das italienische 6,5 mm Repetirgewehr M. 91 in: Kriegstechnische Zeitschrift, 1898, pp. 462-473, 10 ills.
Finally a website (american) http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/
From this website I copy here the closing of one of the articles:
Dave Emary - SHOOTING THE 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm CARTRIDGES AND THE CARCANO RIFLES October 2002
CONCLUSION:The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as a military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been an even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its timing been different. It is interesting to note that the .308 Winchester / 7.62 X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the same dimensions. Both the 6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and properly loaded capable of very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a well made rifle that is by no means weak or poorly manufactured. They are reliable and strong rifles that are fun to shoot and offer a tremendous variety of types and markings for the collector. I will admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle as compared to some others. However, they are probably one of the most efficient, cost effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their era. The rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of accuracy that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings. (Bold charachters added by me)
Again, I want to mention that I never found any complaint about the M91 or its ammunition in tenths or WW1 diaries and history books. The same diaries and books, on the other hand, report many critics and complaints about other Italian made handguns (Glisenti Mod. 10, the "poor man's Luger"), MGs and many other ordnances.
During WW1 lots of captured Austrian excellent Schwarzlose MGs were reused in combat. I have never read any account of captured Steyrs, Mausers or Mannlicher-Shoenauers being reused in combat.
You also wrote: "...later the Italians preferred the Russian Mosin-Nagant compared to this horrible device." I can't find any reference to this.
For WW2 lots of references can be found about the Italians envy the Russian PPSh-41. The Italian counterpart MAB 38 was not available to the Italian Expeditionary Force in Russia. I never read a single word on a preference for the Moisin-Nagant!
This because of variant made in late 30ies (in a different calibre) which represented less than 5% of total production of many different M91.
Again, I agree that Mod. 91 in any variant was a poor, outdated rifle in WW2, specially beacause of the cheaper, simplified versions issued in the 30ies. But I also affirm that the same rifle was nothing but excellent in WW1.
A few references, a bit more deep than Wikipedia:
Mullin, Timothy J. - Testing the War Weapons: Rifles and Light Machine Guns From Around the World Paladin Press, 1997, Paperback, ISBN 0873649435
Wacker, Albrecht - Disputatio ad arma. Zur Verwendung kaliberaptierter Waffen des Musters Carcano in der Wehrmacht
in: Deutsches Waffen-Journal 1988, Heft 2, pp. 240-241
Hobbs, Richard J. - The Carcano: Italy's Military Rifle ©1996, 2nd ed. 1997
N.N. - Die neuen Waffen unserer Verbündeten: Das italienische 6,5 mm Repetirgewehr M. 91 in: Kriegstechnische Zeitschrift, 1898, pp. 462-473, 10 ills.
Finally a website (american) http://personal.stevens.edu/~gliberat/carcano/
From this website I copy here the closing of one of the articles:
Dave Emary - SHOOTING THE 6.5 X 52 mm, 7.35 x 51mm CARTRIDGES AND THE CARCANO RIFLES October 2002
CONCLUSION:The 6.5 X 52 is a very useful and capable cartridge. It served well as a military cartridge for over 80 years. The 7.35 X 51 would have been an even more effective military cartridge than the 6.5 X 52 had its timing been different. It is interesting to note that the .308 Winchester / 7.62 X 51 mm NATO and the 7.35 X 51 mm are nearly the same dimensions. Both the 6.5 and 7.35 cartridges are fun to shoot and properly loaded capable of very good accuracy. The Carcano rifle is a well made rifle that is by no means weak or poorly manufactured. They are reliable and strong rifles that are fun to shoot and offer a tremendous variety of types and markings for the collector. I will admit that they are a rather utilitarian rifle as compared to some others. However, they are probably one of the most efficient, cost effective, user friendly battle rifles produced in their era. The rifle, ammunition combination properly loaded is capable of accuracy that will rival the most accurate of the Mauser chamberings. (Bold charachters added by me)
Again, I want to mention that I never found any complaint about the M91 or its ammunition in tenths or WW1 diaries and history books. The same diaries and books, on the other hand, report many critics and complaints about other Italian made handguns (Glisenti Mod. 10, the "poor man's Luger"), MGs and many other ordnances.
During WW1 lots of captured Austrian excellent Schwarzlose MGs were reused in combat. I have never read any account of captured Steyrs, Mausers or Mannlicher-Shoenauers being reused in combat.
You also wrote: "...later the Italians preferred the Russian Mosin-Nagant compared to this horrible device." I can't find any reference to this.
For WW2 lots of references can be found about the Italians envy the Russian PPSh-41. The Italian counterpart MAB 38 was not available to the Italian Expeditionary Force in Russia. I never read a single word on a preference for the Moisin-Nagant!
Last edited:
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
The best combat rifle in my opinion was and always will be the British built FN FAL, the L1A1.
My dad brought 2 late in the war made 7.7 Arisakas. Those are total crap. I cleaned the best one and fired 1 round of Norma ammo in it. Headspace was way off and the case split. I tied it to a rest and pulled the trigger with a string. Once was enough. I pity the Japs that had to fight with those. I realize the early ones were fine, but the later ones pure crap.
Irishmusket
New Member
italian carcano
The carcano when first introduced to the Royal Italian Army in 1891 it was one of the most advanced combat rifles in the world.With this rifle Italy defeated the Austro Hungarian and the Imperial German army's .That's simply an historical fact .by World War Two the design was past its prime but still good .Poor political and military leadership lead to one military disaster after another and total defeat .It had nothing to what so ever .With bravery of the troops or the carcano rifle. these rifles are every bit as effective as lee enfields mausers Mosins and spring fields .With the proper ammunition and in good original condition theses rifles are extremely accurate and have good rate of fire better than most of bolt action rifles with the possible exception of the Lee Enfield .The 6.5 mm round contrary to some the posts I have read here is quite effective it's a flat shooter with excellent penetration .These had a deadly reputation during the heavy alpine fighting in World War One which was a long range affair 500 to 600 meters .At those ranges I would rather have a carcano than an m4 or an AK .I own quite a few of these rifles and carbines ,and over the last 40+ years I have shot thousands of rounds of carcano ammunition .no problems very accurate one of the best combat rifles ever made.One very simple fact to keep in mind No country is going to arm it's troops with a rifle that is dangerous to its troops especially for 60 + years In the case of the carcano it was in service from 1892 to 1960 in police use to this day and the m1891 is currently standard issue to the Italian NATO match team.I also know for a fact is that the average Italian soldier liked the carcano I knew Italian Army Veteran now gone to his reward.When I was younger I used to take the old soldier to rifle range to shoot the M91 He showed how to use that thing and all he would say is that it was the best and italian soldiers loved em .
The carcano when first introduced to the Royal Italian Army in 1891 it was one of the most advanced combat rifles in the world.With this rifle Italy defeated the Austro Hungarian and the Imperial German army's .That's simply an historical fact .by World War Two the design was past its prime but still good .Poor political and military leadership lead to one military disaster after another and total defeat .It had nothing to what so ever .With bravery of the troops or the carcano rifle. these rifles are every bit as effective as lee enfields mausers Mosins and spring fields .With the proper ammunition and in good original condition theses rifles are extremely accurate and have good rate of fire better than most of bolt action rifles with the possible exception of the Lee Enfield .The 6.5 mm round contrary to some the posts I have read here is quite effective it's a flat shooter with excellent penetration .These had a deadly reputation during the heavy alpine fighting in World War One which was a long range affair 500 to 600 meters .At those ranges I would rather have a carcano than an m4 or an AK .I own quite a few of these rifles and carbines ,and over the last 40+ years I have shot thousands of rounds of carcano ammunition .no problems very accurate one of the best combat rifles ever made.One very simple fact to keep in mind No country is going to arm it's troops with a rifle that is dangerous to its troops especially for 60 + years In the case of the carcano it was in service from 1892 to 1960 in police use to this day and the m1891 is currently standard issue to the Italian NATO match team.I also know for a fact is that the average Italian soldier liked the carcano I knew Italian Army Veteran now gone to his reward.When I was younger I used to take the old soldier to rifle range to shoot the M91 He showed how to use that thing and all he would say is that it was the best and italian soldiers loved em .
predatorarchery
Active member
P.O.C.
Beretta M9 POC....
Beretta M9 POC....