What guns do you think are underrated/overrated?
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
No. 1 underrated gun: The M-1 Carbine. It's stopping power is just FINE for it's intended use... a short range stopper. It's also one of the most fun guns to shoot ever made.
I'm not sure the Garand is underrated, either!
LOTS of shooters prefer them to the M-14/M-1A.
Overrated would be the M-14... it's merely a beefed-up Garand originally designed to be shot full-auto. When the military realized the foolishness of this and returned the rifle to a semi-auto state, the damage had already been done... a greatly overengineered, bulky. heavy rifle.
Flyer
I'm not sure the Garand is underrated, either!
LOTS of shooters prefer them to the M-14/M-1A.
Overrated would be the M-14... it's merely a beefed-up Garand originally designed to be shot full-auto. When the military realized the foolishness of this and returned the rifle to a semi-auto state, the damage had already been done... a greatly overengineered, bulky. heavy rifle.
Flyer
Underrated:
Most certainly the Bersa as mentioned above. I also include my beloved Keltec P-11 as people that have never owned one seem to love talking smack about it.
Overrated:
Anything in 10mm and The M1a / M14 What good is a weapon that has too much recoil for practical follow up shots. One shot stops are an accident or a myth, and both of these choices lack in this department while their adherents would have one believe they posses magical powers.
Most certainly the Bersa as mentioned above. I also include my beloved Keltec P-11 as people that have never owned one seem to love talking smack about it.
Overrated:
Anything in 10mm and The M1a / M14 What good is a weapon that has too much recoil for practical follow up shots. One shot stops are an accident or a myth, and both of these choices lack in this department while their adherents would have one believe they posses magical powers.
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
Over appreciated
HK Rifles....very expensive, but they don't perform any better than my CETME -- from which HK took the design.
Under appreciated
Hi-points....if it is all you can afford, it is a quite capable self defense weapon.
HK Rifles....very expensive, but they don't perform any better than my CETME -- from which HK took the design.
Under appreciated
Hi-points....if it is all you can afford, it is a quite capable self defense weapon.
G
Guest
·M1 Garand
Underrated:
The M1 Garand is a great gun, definitely underrated. It has a lot of power and range, and other than the unusual magazine design, it is one of the best guns ever made. I am the proud owner of two. My unmodified one can get a 4in. pattern at 800yds, which is pretty good, considering the gun is over fifty years old. My modified one can get a 1in. pattern at 800 yds. It has been modified heavily, and when loaded with handloads, is probably my most accurate and powerful rifle.
Overrated:
The M-16 is a good gun, but the government has ruined it. It fires wimpy bullets, so you need a burst or autofire option to get guaranteed kills. It doesn't have enough range or accuracy to ever be more than a military assault rifle. Finally, the government has been stupid enough to change the gun. All new M-16s have lost the ability to go full auto. Without that factor, the gun becomes almost worthless as a military rifle. In combat, a FN FAL would be more reliable, and would have a better chance of one-shot stops.
Underrated:
The M1 Garand is a great gun, definitely underrated. It has a lot of power and range, and other than the unusual magazine design, it is one of the best guns ever made. I am the proud owner of two. My unmodified one can get a 4in. pattern at 800yds, which is pretty good, considering the gun is over fifty years old. My modified one can get a 1in. pattern at 800 yds. It has been modified heavily, and when loaded with handloads, is probably my most accurate and powerful rifle.
Overrated:
The M-16 is a good gun, but the government has ruined it. It fires wimpy bullets, so you need a burst or autofire option to get guaranteed kills. It doesn't have enough range or accuracy to ever be more than a military assault rifle. Finally, the government has been stupid enough to change the gun. All new M-16s have lost the ability to go full auto. Without that factor, the gun becomes almost worthless as a military rifle. In combat, a FN FAL would be more reliable, and would have a better chance of one-shot stops.
Um...
Nope, have to disagree, here.
I believe the M-16 is probably the single best military rifle ever designed.
It's got incredibly good accuracy, unbelievable reliability, and perfectly adequate stopping power with proper ammo.
It's just got to be maintained properly... and if you can't do that, you've likely got no business with one anyhow.
Flyer
Nope, have to disagree, here.
I believe the M-16 is probably the single best military rifle ever designed.
It's got incredibly good accuracy, unbelievable reliability, and perfectly adequate stopping power with proper ammo.
It's just got to be maintained properly... and if you can't do that, you've likely got no business with one anyhow.
Flyer
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
The M16 became an absolute necessity. The characteristics of war changed. It became apparent in the Korean conflict when American squads found themselves staring at hoards of rushing chinese and their 8 shot M1s just weren't mowing em down fast enough. We aren't waging rifle battles at 1000yds these days. The military still employs special teams that use 300 Win Mag and other extremely long range calibers if sniper type work is needed, but the days of Sgt. York are gone.
The loss of full auto isn't a big deal in my book either. 30 rounds doesn't last long even with 10 pulls of the trigger, and the slight pause helps you get back on target. It's still sufficient to lay down suppressing fire... possibly more effective suppressing fire. The American Revolution was won, in part, by the superior marksmanship of American riflemen. Full auto only encourages inexperienced soldiers to throw a handful of 30 rocks at someone hoping they'll hit him with one. Limiting it to three shot bursts encourages the soldier to pay more attention to his marksmanship skills.
Standardization of the military's weapon system makes it easier to train people. You don't need 6 different groups only trained to use one specific gun. The round itself is plenty effective and it allows a soldier to carry nearly 3 times the number of rounds while maintaining the same payload as an M1 outfit. The round COULD be better but "guaranteed kills" is not what war is about these days according to the Geneva Convention which governs what types of bullets are acceptible in civilized warfare.
There were certainly missteps made during its early development but they have been corrected and improved and the weapon has been in use longer than any other rifle in US Military history.
The loss of full auto isn't a big deal in my book either. 30 rounds doesn't last long even with 10 pulls of the trigger, and the slight pause helps you get back on target. It's still sufficient to lay down suppressing fire... possibly more effective suppressing fire. The American Revolution was won, in part, by the superior marksmanship of American riflemen. Full auto only encourages inexperienced soldiers to throw a handful of 30 rocks at someone hoping they'll hit him with one. Limiting it to three shot bursts encourages the soldier to pay more attention to his marksmanship skills.
Standardization of the military's weapon system makes it easier to train people. You don't need 6 different groups only trained to use one specific gun. The round itself is plenty effective and it allows a soldier to carry nearly 3 times the number of rounds while maintaining the same payload as an M1 outfit. The round COULD be better but "guaranteed kills" is not what war is about these days according to the Geneva Convention which governs what types of bullets are acceptible in civilized warfare.
There were certainly missteps made during its early development but they have been corrected and improved and the weapon has been in use longer than any other rifle in US Military history.
G
Guest
·Wrong
First of all, I don't see how you can say that guaranteed kills aren't important. Which do you want: a gun that puts three rounds of fmj through a guy's chest, but doesn't kill him until he runs out of blood, or a gun that puts one round of fmj through his chest, and blows out his spine? I want a gun that stops the target with one shot, and the M-16 doesn't do that. Also, Flyer, I don't know how you can say the gun is reliable. Even today, with the newest variants, the gun is still considered by the military a waste of time, with all of the work that goes into maintaining the gun. Finally, the original reason for the .223 Remington and the 5.56 NATO were for fully automatic fire. The idea was that a few shots of small calibre ammunition would do the job that one shot of high-caliber ammunition. Yet, without the automatic fire, the M16 loses the power that it was designed for.
First of all, I don't see how you can say that guaranteed kills aren't important. Which do you want: a gun that puts three rounds of fmj through a guy's chest, but doesn't kill him until he runs out of blood, or a gun that puts one round of fmj through his chest, and blows out his spine? I want a gun that stops the target with one shot, and the M-16 doesn't do that. Also, Flyer, I don't know how you can say the gun is reliable. Even today, with the newest variants, the gun is still considered by the military a waste of time, with all of the work that goes into maintaining the gun. Finally, the original reason for the .223 Remington and the 5.56 NATO were for fully automatic fire. The idea was that a few shots of small calibre ammunition would do the job that one shot of high-caliber ammunition. Yet, without the automatic fire, the M16 loses the power that it was designed for.
Joined
·
3,629 Posts
Re: Wrong
The prevailing theory is, you want the gun that incapacitates the guy which makes two of his buddies stop shooting at you so they can take care of him. Now you've taken 3 people out of action and everyone goes home alive. This, of course, depends on everyone abiding by the Geneva Convention rules. We're talking about modern warfare here... NOT self defense. There is a difference. Never-the-less, the M16 HAS amassed an impressive body count and is quite lethal.Radamanthus said:
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
Gee...sounds like we need to break out all of those M-14s from the Anniston Army Depot! :ak2:
Actually the wound ballistics of the 5.56mm cartridge is quite impressive -- and does well to incapacitate a target.
I was jesting a little above, however -- you WILL see some of the old M-14s in use over in Iraq. But they are being used in semi-automatic mode only -- for longer distance targets.
I see your point, but 3 rounds from an M-16 in the chest is better IMHO than a three round burst from an M-14 where the muzzle rise likely causes most or all of the bullets to miss the target. Do you really think after 3 rounds of 5.56mm in the chest the combatant is still going to be able to fight? I dare say that one hit in the center body mass with an M-16 will "incapacitate" a combatant.
The M-1 Garand was a vast improvement over the Model 1903 for battle in WWII. In Korea, we saw the M-1 used again -- and the M-14 introduced for more firepower (box-fed magazine and full auto capability). The Army quickly learned that a full auto 7.62mm rifle was difficult for most soldiers to adequately control.
The M-14 made it to the early years of Vietnam, and yes -- there was an outcry when the first M-16s were introduced in the jungle. However, many of the malfunctions were traced back to the cartridge rather than the rifle. The Army had switched from a ball powder to a stick powder (or vice versa) one was more subject to swelling in the high humidity of the jungle. Soldiers were not able to keep a round in the chamber overnight -- or it would swell and expand in the chamber. The "new" powder was also very dirty compared to the other.
Once the powders were changed back -- and soldiers were properly instructed in the care and cleaning of the M-16 -- it became a very reliable weapon. If it was a waste of time -- the Army would have scrapped it and moved on to something else. It's been in our arsenal in some form from the mid-60s to present. As Flyer said, longer than any other front line combat rifle in US history. The next thing on the horizon still uses the 5.56mm cartridge as a primary cartridge -- although it will also be able to fire a 20mm (yes, 20mm) round designed to air burst over a target or in a room for more generalized anti-personnel use.
Actually the wound ballistics of the 5.56mm cartridge is quite impressive -- and does well to incapacitate a target.
I was jesting a little above, however -- you WILL see some of the old M-14s in use over in Iraq. But they are being used in semi-automatic mode only -- for longer distance targets.
I see your point, but 3 rounds from an M-16 in the chest is better IMHO than a three round burst from an M-14 where the muzzle rise likely causes most or all of the bullets to miss the target. Do you really think after 3 rounds of 5.56mm in the chest the combatant is still going to be able to fight? I dare say that one hit in the center body mass with an M-16 will "incapacitate" a combatant.
The M-1 Garand was a vast improvement over the Model 1903 for battle in WWII. In Korea, we saw the M-1 used again -- and the M-14 introduced for more firepower (box-fed magazine and full auto capability). The Army quickly learned that a full auto 7.62mm rifle was difficult for most soldiers to adequately control.
The M-14 made it to the early years of Vietnam, and yes -- there was an outcry when the first M-16s were introduced in the jungle. However, many of the malfunctions were traced back to the cartridge rather than the rifle. The Army had switched from a ball powder to a stick powder (or vice versa) one was more subject to swelling in the high humidity of the jungle. Soldiers were not able to keep a round in the chamber overnight -- or it would swell and expand in the chamber. The "new" powder was also very dirty compared to the other.
Once the powders were changed back -- and soldiers were properly instructed in the care and cleaning of the M-16 -- it became a very reliable weapon. If it was a waste of time -- the Army would have scrapped it and moved on to something else. It's been in our arsenal in some form from the mid-60s to present. As Flyer said, longer than any other front line combat rifle in US history. The next thing on the horizon still uses the 5.56mm cartridge as a primary cartridge -- although it will also be able to fire a 20mm (yes, 20mm) round designed to air burst over a target or in a room for more generalized anti-personnel use.
G
Guest
·The 5.56 was developed so that soldiers could carry more ammunition. What Mcnamara and his "whiz kids" didn't count on was the fact that the 5.56 usually requires multiple shots to kill, and is deflected or stopped by vines, thatch huts, and plywood. That coupled with the average 71,000 tons average ammunition used each month and the 60,000 (don't know exact number) rounds fired per enemy kill compared to an average snipers 2... My vote goes for the 7.62+ M14 combo that we should have used.
P.S. The OICW program just got canned... now the HK XM8 is in the works.
P.S. The OICW program just got canned... now the HK XM8 is in the works.
How can I say it's reliable?
Well, for one thing, I own the civilian version of most military rifles available... and the only one that's completely reliable is the AR series.
NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING is as mechanically reliable as an AR, except possible an AK design... which loses that positive for it's inaccuracy.
Next, full-auto fire had absolutely nothing to do with the 5.56mm cartridge. The M-16 was originally designed as a longer-range replacement for the M-1 Carbine for the Air Force.
My AR outperforms my FAL, my AUG, my M-1A, my Galil, my H&Ks, and more.
I don't use THEM for my SHTF rifle, though I could.
The AR is the one I trust.
Flyer
Well, for one thing, I own the civilian version of most military rifles available... and the only one that's completely reliable is the AR series.
NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING is as mechanically reliable as an AR, except possible an AK design... which loses that positive for it's inaccuracy.
Next, full-auto fire had absolutely nothing to do with the 5.56mm cartridge. The M-16 was originally designed as a longer-range replacement for the M-1 Carbine for the Air Force.
My AR outperforms my FAL, my AUG, my M-1A, my Galil, my H&Ks, and more.
I don't use THEM for my SHTF rifle, though I could.
The AR is the one I trust.
Flyer
1 - 20 of 74 Posts
Join the discussion
