I forget how I even came up with this topic - it may have been an off-shoot of my "guilty pleasures" post - but it seemed like something that might generate a little discussion... Guns that are just bad ideas, either because of poor design, poor execution, or for any other reason (or combination thereof. Here's a handful of mine:
* Modern semi-autos that don't use magazines. Yes, of course, I mean the Grendel P-10, which in the days before the Kel-Tec P3AT might have seemed like a viable option, but now just looks odd. The non-removable magazine completely negates the advantage of a semi-auto over a revolver, offering more shots initially, but much slower reloading time (plus, you have to carry rounds loose or otherwise collected).
* Revolvers that fire shotgun rounds. Whether it be the maligned and hated Taurus Judge, or the disgustingly ugly Thunder Five, firing a shotgun round out of a rifled barrel is a bad idea to start with. Add in a short barrel, and it's just an excuse to make noise rather than a viable defense option.
* Insanely overpowered Derringers. .44 Magnum, .45 LC, there's even a .45-70 Derringer out there; firing one of these rounds out of a gun properly sized is difficult enough. Trying to shoot it out of a small handgun with a unique grip design that focuses the recoil into a small area? Just smash your hand with a ballpeen hammer and be done with it.
* Semi-autos that fire centerfire revolver rounds. Deagle, Coonan, even the venerable Smith & Wesson model 52; all were designed to shoot rimmed revolver rounds. All suffered from reputations (deserved or not) as finicky (at best) due to the manner in which a rimmed cartridge stacks in a magazine and loads in a semi-auto.
* AR/AK pistols. The rounds they fire are marginal rifle rounds. Cutting the barrel down to 10 inches and only having a pistol grip to back it up takes away muzzle velocity *and* accuracy, the two big pluses to these rounds in their rifle variants.
* Tubular magazine fed rifles that feed through the stock. My Remington Nylon 66 does this, and it's just so incredibly non-intuitive that I want to scream every time I load the rifle. Every other tube-fed .22LR rifle I own loads through the tube, which makes sense, except for the 66.
What other bad idea guns are out there?
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
The .22 load-through-the-stock thing doesn't bother me: I grew up around a Mossberg .22 51M semi-auto that had this same layout, and it made sense to me then. Note that rounds went through a recess in the side of the stock, which probably made the whole process more intuitive.
My Remington Nylon is the model 12 bolt action, which has the tube under the barrel - where you would expect it!
Mosin Nagant revolver - DA revolver that moves the cylinder forward to get a good gas seal so as to squeak the last few bits of energy out of a marginal round. To be sure, it's the only revolver out there that can be suppressed, but still... bad idea.
How about guns that you need an engineering degree and a dex of 18 to disassemble for cleaning? *cough*Mark III*cough*
And hearing YOU, Jay, dinging on "insanely overpowered" derringers when you carry the Snubby of Doom? Oh, that just kicks over my giggle box.
Is that the Ruger Mark II, Ross? Got one. And I have an engineering degree.
WV: bedthewa Bed the what???
III. Quite obvious that I didn't buy enough vowels.
Any tube fed .22, what a pain at the edge of the field
to unload. Used to carry on in PA for small game and
it's larger 30-30 cousin for deer. Learned to only load 2 or 3 rounds as I'd end up loosing one in the snow unloading. Bought a clip fed Marlin 725 after that!
Eck!
A few:
Stevens Visible (miserable) loader
Any two-shot semiauto shotgun (AR-17, Browning 'Double')
The Chauchat
The Gyrojet
The Dardick
HK G11
M28/M29 Davey Crockett
Some of the above are collectible, but not because any were good arms by any means. And the Davey Crockett was just one step up from a nuclear hand grenade.
Derringers that fire rifle rounds:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=190199412
If the M-16 is a poodle shooter, what is this?
Regarding the Ruger .22 semi-auto pistol family: I have a Mark II Target, and recall struggling with the directions the first time I took it apart. But it just made sense to me after that - though I'll admit it's a chore to explain to someone why things have to be done in a particular way.
I know the Mark III add the cartridge indicator, but I believe the rest of the procedure is the same.
That said, I am an engineer...
(I'm an EE - embedded designer)
"I have a Mark II Target, and recall struggling with the directions the first time I took it apart."
Mine is a Mark III. Taking it apart was annoying. PUTTING IT BACK TOGETHER was what completely stumped me. I can now do it without frustration, but the first few times completely p!$$ed me off.
Phil, trust me... the Mark III is FAR worse to put together than the Mark II. They let the friggin' lawyers in the room during the design process...
Any handgun in 30 carbine.
Compared to the 357 mag it has less ballistic force in the bullet, but much, much more, muzzle blast.
Oddly enough, the 30 Carbine outperforms the 357 mag in rifle-length barrels.
Re: derringers. What I never understand is why someone would want to carry such a huge hunk of metal for two shots, when there are any number of choices that would give you more shots for equal or better concealment.
+1 on Derringers. Ross the Snubbie from hell does kick like a cow, but does so with a manageable trigger pull, holds 5 shots, is light and portable, and can be reloaded inside of a fortnight.
Oh I might as well toss some of my hate for the CETME/G3/PTR91 rifle. MISERABLE ergonomics, bizzare charging handle that for whatever reason they decided to mount as far away from the user as possible. No bolt hold-open (so it doubles the annoying nature of said charging handle) and on top of all of this it shoots .308 Win (which is hardly a cheap round) from a fluted chamber that will put your brass through a meat grinder.
While the Centrury CETMEs are in the price range of an AK, the HK and PTR variants cost the same as a an M1A, FAL, or AR-10, all of which are better choices.
Oh and the .45 GAP. Wally and MikeW. have told me some merits of the .357 Sig, but I've met NOBODY who actually likes that silly cartridge.
+1 for the .45 GAP.
Heard a story once about the first woman to be a regimental commander at the Navy's OCS. She supposedly was five foot nothing, weighted under 100lbs, had never fired a weapon in her life and she shot expert with a .45 ACP.
One benefit of an AR/AK pistol is that in a free state like NH you can keep one loaded in your car under the seat, whereas you can't do that with a real rifle.
"Tubular magazine fed rifles that feed through the stock"
Even one designed by John Browning?
Browning SA-22
Weerd, my wife really likes .357 SIG. Now you know of someone.
Bad gun ideas abound.
Colin - I love my Browning .22 Auto (what they used to call them) Do wish they had a removeable magazine though that would mess up the beautiful lines of the gun.
Ross - The lawyers are the reason there is a Mk III. The 'lawyer parts' are the only difference from the Mk II.
The hang-up I have about re-assembly of the Mk III is having to insert an empty magazine and pull the trigger to release the sear so that you can get the main spring assembly back in.
All I know about the .357 SIG is that they're damned loud in an indoor range.
Agreed with all of your choices save the stock loaded .22.
It's hard to find a more elegant or handy little rifle than the Browning Takedown .22, Goofy loading be damned.
I'm also fond of shooting (not loading) the Winchester 63. Very handy.
Ross and Hat Trick: Take the offending lawyer bits out of your MkIII. It's a $5 fix and makes things much nicer. Toss the magazine disconnect and replace the MkIII hammer bushing with one from a MkII.
Post a Comment