Really bad weapons...

[dragoon500ly]

Here it is, late at night, the kids are in bed, and I'm bored!

So here is a new thread about some of those real "gems" of weapons that have been inflicted on the innocent service member...

For any US tanker, the weapon that leaves you shuddering in disgust is one that was designed by the good ole Springfield Arsenel as a replacement for the venerable M-1919A4 machinegun. It was known as the M-73 co-axial 7.62mm machine gun.

The big feature of this weapon is that it has a very compact body, saving precious space inside the turret for other items. Breaking down the M-73 usually left you with over 30 parts, many of them small. A real pleasure to break down and maintain inside the turret, but that wasn't make it a bad weapon.

What really took this weapon into the realm of just plain aweful was the development of its replacement, the M-219. This improved model of the M-73 had even more parts (40) and earned the nickname of "The 25 and jam".

Without fail, no matter how much love and maintaince, no matter the amounts of RBC and Break-Free applied, no matter how much was offered to the Eldar Gods. This piece of junk would fire from 5 to 25 rounds and then jam. The loader of a tank could always be identified by the impressive muscles on his right hand and the callus on his left palm. You used your right arm to yank the chain to eject the misfired round, while using the left hand to hold down the manual trigger. A favorite statement was that if the Soviets invade West Germany, the first M-16 that could be scrounged would be mounted in place of the -219. At least the M-16 would fire!

When the M-240C first came out, the civilian ordnance techs had a great demonstration. They would mount the -240C on a tripod and layout a thousand round belt of ammo. Then load the weapon and hold the trigger down. The sight of a machine gun firing for that long and not jamming amazed every tanker that witnessed it.

[Legbreaker]

For me it was the M60 machineguns from the Battalion armouries. For almost two decades they'd had almost no maintenance from a competant armourer. Instead of replacing worn out parts with new, our armourer had the brilliant habit of storing said used parts for reuse in other weapons at a later date.
1991 rolls around and we're at Canungra. Out of the 9 guns we took with us, all 9 were found to be completely unservicable and dangerous by the JWC (Jungle Warfare Centre) staff. Two days later were were handed the guns back and to our great amazement, no more UD's (Unauthorised Discharges), parts falling off, jams, etc. They were still bitches, but at least they were bitches that worked.
Unfortunately, the other 30 odd M60s left behind in the battalion didn't get the same loving attention.


A couple of years later and we were issued with M16A1's which had come from a unit recently converted to the Steyr AUG. These were to replace the 9mm F1 SMGs and M79 grenade launchers (with M203s).
After the M60s, I'd have to say these were the worst weapons EVER! Not a single one was anywhere near accurate, most having barrels which appeared to have been used as prybars, sights knocked completely out of alignment and most scary of all, you could grasp butt and stock and twist the weapon - the whole thing would shake and rattle with every shot.
Basically they made the M16EZ of 1st ed look like high quality engineering...

[dragoon500ly]

Now this may not be an horrible weapon, but I don't know if I would want to risk my life using it.

On the M-48/M-60 series tanks, two M-3A1 sub machine guns were issued for the use of the driver and loader in the event that the crew has to fight dismounted. That's right the ole World War II "Grease Gun" soldiered on with the US Army well into the 1980s.

The first time that I ran into this was during Advanced Individual Training at Ft Knox, Kentucky. The first I that I picked up and used was a runaway, i.e. with a single tap of the trigger, it fired the entire magazine. Same thing with the second and third ones that I fired. Okay, these weapons have been used by trainees for 30+ years, not much call to update, right?

When I arrived at my first posting in Germany, the assigned weapons for my tank was a pair of M-3 submachineguns, right down to the little crank on the side to retract the bolt with.

And the M-1911A1s that we had, according to their serial numbers, they were third production run M-1911s. Yup, 1914 production models!

[Dog 6]

The M-3 smg was useless.

[TiggerCCW UK]

The first time I fired the L98A1, the cadet version of the SA-80/L85, the cocking handle came off in my hand. This was a brand new rifle, fresh out of the box Never really had any faith in the rifle after that, something that ws further borne out by my experience with the L85.

How ever, as a quantifier to that I have heard much better things about the A2, although I've never used it.

Another example of how bad a reputation the L85 has occured in the early 90's, in Coalisland here in NI. A foot patrol was surrounded by a hostile republican crowd. The troops were unable (rightly) to fire as the crowd were unarmed and he range was too close for baton rounds. The patrol was partially overwhelmed and a number of the squaddies became seperated, which must have been a terrifying situation for them. Thankfully there were no serious injuries, but in the melee three of the troops lost their weapons, a gimpy and two L85's. These weapons were presumed to have been snatched for use by republicn terrorists. The gimpy disappeared completely, but the L85's were discovered after being stripped of their SUSAT's and magazines. How little faith does anyone have in a weapon when even a terrorist group won't take them?

[dragoon500ly]

You its a sign of a poor design if a terrorist group won't touch it!!!

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by TiggerCCW UK

The first time I fired the L98A1, the cadet version of the SA-80/L85, the cocking handle came off in my hand. This was a brand new rifle, fresh out of the box Never really had any faith in the rifle after that, something that ws further borne out by my experience with the L85.

How ever, as a quantifier to that I have heard much better things about the A2, although I've never used it.

The L85A2 is reputed to be a much more reliable and better weapon after H&K got involved and sorted out the mess that was the L85A1:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L85A2#S...d_modification

I've never fired one myself however so I can't speak from personal experience.

I have read on the T2013 forums however that the L85A1 has an "unreliable" flaw on it (in terms of game mechanics) that the L85A2 doesn't and the guys there working out the game mechanics of different weapons certainly seem to know their stuff.

[copeab]

Originally Posted by Dog 6

The M-3 smg was useless.

Was this an inherent problem of the design, or just a side-effect of a 30-40 year old weapon that was originally built as cheaply as possible?

[Adm.Lee]

A GM introduced a horror to us in a GURPS game once: some kind of breechloader from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It needed at least 13 steps to change a round! Make sure you don't forget something.

Lee.

[Dog 6]

Originally Posted by copeab

Was this an inherent problem of the design, or just a side-effect of a 30-40 year old weapon that was originally built as cheaply as possible?

both imo