There's a lot of discussion as to which rifle is the best of WWI or WWII or the Cold War and so on, but what were the worst guns you could reasonably expect to be issued to infantry? The CETME Model L and L85 come to mind for the late Cold War period, but I'm not sure which one was worse and I only have experience with one.
>>62783696INSAS was so bad it made the Indians swallow their pride and admit they fucked up. If you've seen the amount of horrible programs they continue to put time and money into, getting them to quit is an accomplishment
>>62783736I mean the wiki image literally has a bit of poo in it
>>62783696M16/M4s chambered in 5.56
>>62783736Thread
>>62783736Pajeets are some of the most persistent motherfuckers on the planet that also don't know what the word "no" means.
>>62783771>shittiest>M16pick one
>>62783696Definitely INSAS and it is not even close>INSAS’s battle debut was considered a spectacular failure. The cold weather would cause the polymer magazines to crack and break apart and the weapon would also randomly fire full auto regardless of what the user had set the setting to. The rifle was prone to all manner of failures in a firefight and, in some instances, apparently sprayed weapon lubricant into the face of the user. The gas regulator, which the weapon relies on to function, would also occasionally break.>Nepal also purchased the INSAS and had similar results. In 2005, the Nepalese army engaged in and lost a 10-hour battle with Maoist rebels. During the battle, the INSAS rifles apparently overheated and seized up and 43 Nepalese soldiers were killed.>Users have also complained about the gun’s furniture breaking frequently or the charging handle frequently binding when the user tries to operate it. Further, professional examination resulted in the opinion that the rifle’s cover is overly complicated for no real reason.>Lastly, due to their needlessly complicated construction, the rifles are quite expensive to produce.I am going to take a wild guess and say these guys had no experience designing a rifle before>>62783736FPBP, 600 seconds to go on captcha
>>62783790Why you think they rape everything?
>>62783736>>62783798I guess this one was pretty obvious. What about other periods? I know the French couldn't fully equip their forces with MAS 36s in WWII and they had to use Lebels and Berthiers, and I've seen photos of Italian (ISR) and German soldiers using captured Lebels. Did any countries issue anything shittier than that?
>>62783696How did a random American in bumfuck nowhere made a better version of this than the actual Spanish Military manufacturer?
>>62783696That would definitely be the M16.Had the M16 had time do teething and the issues resolved, it would have been a fine rifle.However, instead it was rushed into service during the vietnam war, subjected to conditions it could not manage, and completely failed to perform. At a time when morale was low, the M16 swooped in and got servicemen killed due to simply not being ready for war.
>>62783932Sweden pulled out some old Remmington rolling blocks to equip the Homeguard with when it was created in 1940 and a over 100 000 of people instantly volonteered. They were replaced as more Mausers became available but had Germany invaded in 1940 like they did with Norway and Denmark they would have seen combat...
>>62783696I like how some Spaniard was genuinely baffled that Americans bothered importing parts kits and rebuilding CETME Ls. To him and everyone he worked with the retirement of the L was practically a cause for celebration because it was so universally hated and the G36E was so much better.The L85 was a real turd that got somewhat unfucked over time after many expensive updates. It's at least a somewhat competent rifle nowadays, but the real L is just how much time and money it cost to get there when even an H&K would have been cheaper with much better results.>>62783736That's the real winner. Walking trunnions and rivets, plastic magazines that shatter in the cold (Himalayas, anyone?), typical procurement corruption, expensive as fuck with absolutely nothing to show for it. There wasn't even a way to save face and pretend that the INSAS was anything but a disaster and the average Indian soldier is sooner spotted carrying an L1A1 or rusty captured Chinese AKM than their own design.>>62784033They had some previous knowledge to work with. The principle behind the CETME design is straightforward enough but they used horrible steel that was way too soft and had no reason to really put effort into quality whatsoever. For an American manufacturer they were making new receivers from scratch so they had an opportunity to get it right (or at least a little better), and at the price point getting authentic Spanish quality levels wouldn't have been acceptable. Likewise if we ever get L85 parts kits the kit guns are going to cost an absolute fortune and people will feel very ripped off if they don't run 99.9% reliably and print 1MOA groups with Tulammo and Promags.
>>62783798All they had to do was license produce AKMs under Russian supervision but they do this retard shit instead LOL
>>62784714it's only a matter of time before india thinks they can develop their own 5th generation fighter, spends a trillion dollars on a plane that kills half of their qualified pilots in testing, then fails to buy back all the mig 29s they sold to pay for them.
>>62783696>no M14It was the US military service rifle for all of 7 years lmfao>b-buh it can be really accurate if you accurize it!!!!!!Yes most firearms will perform better when you dump $4k worth of improvements into them.
>>62784740nice 21 round mag
>>62783736fpbppajeets will defend their country until the end of time, them admitting it sucks means it sucks 1000x more than the l85see>>62783755
>>62783793The original was kinda bad as issued
>and, in some instances, apparently sprayed weapon lubricant into the face of the user
>>62783798>>62785077Even their rifle shits itself
>>62783696>but I'm not sure which one was worseSA80
>>62783932IIRC Russia had to pull out Berdans and Gras for WWI. Though from what I understand that's not super unusual given that Germany also used 1871s in limited capacity during that war and even dusted some off for the volksturm in the sequel
>>62783696My CETME L (Marcolmar) is fucking awful, but I hear they break in after 200-300 rounds. I've gotten less than 30 through it because it mangles brass cases and needs to be partially disassembled after every shot. I've shelved it until I get a bunch of steel case. It's also hard to get motivated to drive an hour and wrestle with a gun that barely shoots when I have fun guns.My buddy says his is almost broken in at ~200 rounds, with only 1 malf per mag. I have a proper L mag, btw.
>>62783696Ik another anon already posted it, but I hold such a burning hatred for this piece of fucking garbage, that I physically cannot contain myself. It took the charm away from the m1 garand and left only the flaws.>Mag insertion is just downright Clunky and fucking stupid for no reason>Chambered in faggot .308 instead of based .30-06 for literally no reason other than nato standardization>Huge fuck off gash behind the charging handle lets in a metric fuck ton of any debri you can possibly get in there and the moment you drop it in the mud, it jams like a bitch>Huge exposed bolt makes it prone to jamming if it gets rained on or gets dirty>Select fire for some fucking reason despite being Chambered in FUCKING .308 AND HAVING A RECOIL SYSTEM THAT BARELY MITIGATES SHIT>Heavy as shit due to wood furniture because fudd government thought polymer was the devil until almost a decade later>Not very accurate at long range unless heavy customized>Not very good at being a dmr, infantry rifle, or fucking anything really. It has no idea what it wants to be.I genuinely don't get the hype behind this stupid faggot gun. It's like how you wanna fuck the hot Stacey at school (m1 garand), but she is too busy fucking chad, so you go for her slightly slow 5/10 sister.
>>62783696
KvKK-62. This dogshit LMG sucked at fucking everything. Heavy, clunky and jams all the time. I once saw a guy running with this thing in the woods, and the belt pouch thing hit a tree and the guy got knocked out.
>>62787379>>Not very good at being a dmr, infantry rifle, or fucking anything really. It has no idea what it wants to be. I carried one for three years. Best parade rifle ever made. sad day when I had to turn mine in for a saber.
>>62787522It's probably the worst weapon for its role in the whole arms catalogue of the fdfI have never heard anyone defend it
M1 Garand>only 8 bullets>fires too fast, wasteful>too heavy>you can hurt your thumb
>>62783696its really cool but everything ive read about it says its a piece of shiti think i even saw a video of some chink slapping the back of the stock and it made the bolt slam forward
>>62789306>we have famas at home
>>62787522>>62789229Supposedly
>>62789306Don't care, looks cool (only metric that matters in the real world).
>>62783696>CETME Model L and L85Heh, unironically my favorites. The shittier I find out they actually work, the prettier I find them.
>>62789306found the video, the slap is at 0:27https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2RHdShS3-ci have no idea how guns work desu but that doesnt seem right>>62789418true it has a unique aura to it, i like it more than the AK clones chinks used to use
>>62787379I wouldn't expect you to understand...
>>62784740>>62787379I'll contend these statements, mostly because I am in the defacto Internet M14 Defense Force.I think the M14 doesn't deserve the vast majority of the hate it gets. Most of it coming from nogunz parroting Ian and Chris Bartocchi without having ever shot one or thinking for themselves.>Shortest service life.Technically yes and no. It did get repurposed for several roles that I'd served well enough for decades after being retired.>Worst US military rifle.Absolutely not. Krag Jorgensen was an obvious mis-step and we dropped it for a Mauser clone after going up against them in a war we won easily.>Can't decide what it wants to be.>Heavy.>High recoil.That's mostly because it is a battle rifle, rather than being a good or bad one per se.>FAL was better Absolute bullshit. Most of the same flaws plus shitty accuracy and a fiddly gas system.>QC problems Which was due to many reasons which would have almost definitely happened if we had adopted something else. These issues were mostly sorted by the time the rifles actually saw combat.>Worse than an M1Absolutely delusional statement disconnected from all reality. It's a slightly lighter M1 with more than double the magazine capacity and a better gas system.>Can't rock the mags in.Try not sucking. I can bump them like AK mags easy. Way easier than fiddling with an M1 clip and you have to do it half as often.>30-06 was based 308 is gayBallistic difference between M1 ball and M80 is insignificant, where the latter is slightly lighter, more compact and allows for a shorter action.>Inaccurate Way better accuracy than most contemporary rifles, especially the FAL. It's also very shootable thanks to good sights.>Exposed action.True, but no worse than the M1 and that fought everywhere.I will grant that the M14 did have flaws. It could have been cheaper, more innovative and in service faster with fewer problems (like the BM59) but it's really not terrible. Far from how awful the INSAS is.
>>62789825Some more counter-points.>Heavy because wood.Actually it was a pound lighter than the FAL as tested even with the wood, which got swapped for fiberglass later. Not for weight reduction mind you, but to eliminate swelling in jungle conditions. It is actually fairly light for a battle rifle and an overlooked benefit is how well balanced it is.>Full auto was hopeless True with pretty much every battle rifle. Granted it is worse in the M14 because the light bolt mass makes the ROF stupid high. Around 850 RPM, a bit brisk for intermediate calibers let alone 7.62x51mm.>RoleAs an infantry rifle it was at least a direct upgrade over the M1. It didn't do the LMG job well because by that point GPMGs like the M60 (which had it's own teething problems) did the job better. It did serve the DMR role competently with varying degrees of tweaking, and still does to this day. That usually does involve adding weight and cost, but not necessarily an extreme amount such as the M39.
>>62785822Reach out to them about it. They have great CS and helped me a bunch.
>>62789451you can do that with an ar15 or an m16 honestly.>lock back bolt>insert fresh mag or leave magazine out>hit butt hard or tap it on ground>bolt will ride forward
>>62783696this thing IS actually terrible.for once OP wasn't a fagggggg
>>62789825>>62789869you forgot the most important bit, its a really pretty rifle too.
>>62790375desu I never wanted one until little fox started getting posted here
>>62787522It's the only gun I've ever shot that kicks the shooter in the trigger finger when firing
>>62789825>Absolutely not. Krag Jorgensen was an obvious mis-step and we dropped it for a Mauser clone after going up against them in a war we won easily.The difference there is that the Krag was adopted during the era when everyone was still hashing out what these modern bolt-action were all about while the M14 was being tested IN PARALLEL with the M16. Imagine seeing a Gladiator and a Spitfire side by side in 1936 and saying "the Gladiator is cheaper and we already know how to fly biplanes so ditch the Spitfire; monoplanes are a meme"
>>62789306>>62790181its an emergency feature on the aug, if the charging handle is damaged you can forcefully bump the stock to chamber a round.
>>62789869>>62789825sorry lads, but the fal plays in an entirely different league. and dont get me started how the steyr stg 58 and the enfield l1a1 are battle rifle master race howering above filthy and foulty m14 peasants.
>>62783798>The cold weather would cause the polymer magazines to crack and break apartThe magazines are widely known to be awful and fragile as fuck. They regularly break for no discernible reason under normal use.Supposedly the pooistan army soldiers issued these rifles absolutely loathe them, primarily because the mags break all the time, and when the mags break, the individual soldiers have to pay out of pocket for replacement mags, which cost like 2-weeks worth of salary each, due to that good old corruption.
>>62787379>>Not very good at being a dmr, infantry rifle, or fucking anything really. It has no idea what it wants to be.The entire point of the M-14 was that it was supposed to replace ALL of the following weapons:M1 RifleM1 and M2 CarbineAll the Thompson gunsM3A1 SMGsM1918 Automatic rifleIn the end it only really replaced the M1 rifle, and it was arguably even worse than the M1 in some respects (average accuracy).It failed miserably at replacing all these weapons, so as far as the DoD was concerned, it was a failed dead-end project.That's why it was taken out of production before the M16 was even adopted, and why the adoption of the M16 was so rushed and troubled.
>>62784740It’s still in service you jackanape.
>>62791808>taken out of production in the 1950s>handful still left in service are the result of a failed accuracy-improving program that cost like $8k per rifle and resulted in 3-MOA accuracy, it also changed the model designation so it's no longer an M14>vast majority of these rifles "in service" are just used for drills and shooting blanks at ceremonial eventsIt's a piece of shit, and it's not in active service.
>>62790687No it wasn't. The M14 was tested in parallel with the AR-10 which blew up early in testing because carbon fiber wrapped barrels in the 1950s were a meme. There were many other reasons why the early AR-10 wasn't ready and was a long road until we got the AR-15 decades later. The AR-10s we have now are more like a 15 scaled back up to 7.62 rather than a continuation of the original AR-10 design.In hindsight the Armalite was a much more forward looking design that would have been a better choice, if it was ready for service. But it wasn't. The possibility should have been explored further but of course government bureaucrats tend to be conservative.>>62791785There isn't a good argument that the M14 was in any way a step down from the M1 other than QC issues. As designed it's a substantial improvement.No battle rifle could have adequately replaced all of those weapon systems in a satisfactory manner. They were really looking for an assault rifle but didn't want to admit it until they had to.>>62791822That is half true, but still far from adequate justification to rank it below the absolute shit show that is the INSAS. Like it or not the M14 was at least partially successful at something, instead of a complete failure all round. It was reasonably well liked as a rifle and is at least somewhat useful today.It is definitely a flawed weapon and it could have been better, but calling it the worst ever is idiotic bandwagonning by clueless nogunz.
>>62792799>No it wasn't.It was. The first AR-15s were delivered for testing in fucking 1957 and were tested in 1958 alongside the WLWMR and M14. The M14 was always going to see use just because there was so much invested in it but everyone except the army who saw the AR-15 wanted it.>The M14 was tested in parallel with the AR-10Yes.>which blew up early in testing because carbon fiber wrapped barrels in the 1950s were a meme. There were many other reasons why the early AR-10 wasn't ready Sure.>and was a long road until we got the AR-15 decades later.Lmao what. LeMay tried to buy 80,000 of them in 1961 - the same year that SOF glowies in 'nam started using them - and they started being issued in the army in 1964. Even if we're generous and say that the "road" ends with the A1 in '67 that's still all of ten years from entering existence to becoming the gold standard and I'd bet $100 that it would have happened by '63 if the army hadn't continually been trying to smother it in the cradle.
>>62792829it's not that bad
>>62792829Not a terrible rifle. It's just mediocre.Still a worse rifle than an AKS-74m with some bolt-on upgrades.
>>62785822Shit luck, you got a CETME bashed by 300 conscripts before you.People that got CETME that were stashed as war strategic reserves and MATCH barrels may have more luck but it was a case of the factory saying:-For that price can be good but not light.And then the government said: -For that price I will get it good and light.yeah.
>>62789449Yeah, as long as the gun actually works the shit factor is part of the appeal. I love my Model L but I will readily acknowledge that the design is inferior to the HK33/93 except for its ability to accept AR mags. If L85 parts kits or repros came to the US I wouldn't want them to "fix" it, at least not in any way that would require significant mechanical changes. >>62785822Damn you got the authentic historical experience with your CETME LMy Marcolmar broke in in less than 100 rounds and is totally fine, except that it does NOT want reloaded ammo. Anything that's not new and relatively high quality will eventually cause case head separation, which is extremely difficult to extract in this gun. Haven't tried steel case yet.
>>62792947The fuck are you smoking?The various trials that led to the M14 were in the early 1950s. The Armalite concept for the AR-15 wasn't even a thing until 1956 and the SOF/USAF interest wasn't until 61. By that time the M14 was already adopted and in production.There was no AR-15 put head to head against the M14 when it was being evaluated for adoption. Only the AR-10, which got washed out early, sending Armalite back to the drawing board.It is only later once the various armed forces realized that they'd be doing police actions in jungles instead of fighting Russians directly in Germany and the Arctic Circle. It was only then that they realized they had the wrong tool for the job at hand and reluctantly got their butts kicked in the direction of the AR-15.
>>62793572>The various trials that led to the M14 were in the early 1950s. The Armalite concept for the AR-15 wasn't even a thing until 1956 and the SOF/USAF interest wasn't until 61. By that time the M14 was already adopted and in production. There was no AR-15 put head to head against the M14 when it was being evaluated for adoption.Right, but from '57 onwards the M14 WAS tested against the AR-15 and in every apples to apples comparison (ie. the ones not run by the army) it completely dunked in the M14.>It is only later once the various armed forces realized that they'd be doing police actions in jungles instead of fighting Russians directly in Germany and the Arctic Circle.First, "muh fulda gap" was on the table into the 80s so that didn't change. Second, the army was jerking themselves off via the ordinance corps. Their response to CDEC's trials where the AR-15 smoked the M14 neatly was basically "yeah". Third, the SOF and ARVN guys who were the first to field test it - with the original 4475 ammo - loved it from the word go. That was part of the reason it came to McNamara's attention; he had the army saying that it's a plastic piece of crap and he had ARPA and everyone else in the position to render an official verdict saying "holy shit these things are fantastic this is what we should be using".>It was only then that they realized they had the wrong tool for the job at hand and reluctantly got their butts kicked in the direction of the AR-15.The army had deliberately sandbagged the AR-15 from the moment it popped up. They rigged tests and ignored facts that they didn't like and when MacNamara said "eat shit, this is what you're getting" they decided to fuck with it - they added the forward assist, reduced the twist to 1:12 and even were responsible for changing the powder from 4475.
>>62783932WW1 Italians in the rear got converted Black Powder rifles that cracked locking lugs off after more than a couple shots of smokeless. If memory serves they were almost all given away to Romanians and Balkan militias because they were so dangerous and useless.
>>62785822>I have a proper L mag, btw.An original Spanish one? Original CETME L mags were fucking awful, use regular old GI aluminum ones instead.
>>62789195>a saber.Explain.
>>62795889
>>62792829Kino rifle
>>62783736Fucking abomination that is (allegedly) never riveted in the same place on each rifle.
