Really bad weapons...

[HorseSoldier]

In the aftermath of the SAW, the US came into possession of the Phillippine Islands, and soon found themselves involved in putting down the local resistance. It was quickly discovered that the .38-caliber round just didn't have the same knock-down effect as the old .45 and the US Army scrambled to refurbish and reissue as many of the "old" revolvers as possible. It also spurred Colt to develop the M-1911 pistol, one of the longest serving, and most reliable, hard-hitting weapons of the 20th Century.

This doesn't really belong in a "really bad weapons" thread, as there was nothing wrong with the weapon itself -- which was a dramatic improvement in ergonomics and functionality over the Single Action Army. The problem was that the .38 caliber cartridge in question was extremely anemic -- loaded weaker than modern .380 ACP, which most experts either consider to be the bottom end for serious defensive/fighting pistol calibers.

Anyway, the Moro story is primarily myth -- at least the idea that the 1911 fixed the problem. There were lethality complaints concerning 30-40 Krag rounds as well, and if a full power rifle round couldn't get the job done no handgun round could. The 1911 is a great design (I carry one as a duty sidearm), but the Philippine Insurrection stories are enshrined legends rather than reality.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

This doesn't really belong in a "really bad weapons" thread, as there was nothing wrong with the weapon itself -- which was a dramatic improvement in ergonomics and functionality over the Single Action Army. The problem was that the .38 caliber cartridge in question was extremely anemic -- loaded weaker than modern .380 ACP, which most experts either consider to be the bottom end for serious defensive/fighting pistol calibers.

Anyway, the Moro story is primarily myth -- at least the idea that the 1911 fixed the problem. There were lethality complaints concerning 30-40 Krag rounds as well, and if a full power rifle round couldn't get the job done no handgun round could. The 1911 is a great design (I carry one as a duty sidearm), but the Philippine Insurrection stories are enshrined legends rather than reality.

LOL...The Philippine Insurrection saw the replacement of the .38 revolver by the reissue of the old thumbbusters. To the best of my knowledge, no M1911 ever served in the Philippines until after the end of the Insurrection. So that famous print of a soldier shooting a Moro that hangs in the Army Heritage Museum is based on the popular myth, not reality.

The reason I added the M1895 pistol, is it failed the acid test of combat. In contrast, the M1894 Krag-Jorgensen was noted for several deficiencies that led to its replacement by the Mauser-based M-1903 Springfield rifle. But it was never considered to be a failed design.

I certainly don't consider myself to be the guru of military weapons, the weapons that I have added to the list are based on my research and are my personal opinion. I stand by my opinion of the Colt M1895 Revolver.

[dragoon500ly]

Time for another really bad idea for a weapon.

In the late 1950s the Army, in its infinite wisdom, decided to field the the M-28 and M-29 Davy Crockett. The M-28 (120mm caliber, max range of 2,000m) and M-29 (155mm caliber, max range of 4,000m) fired the M-388 round, a modified version of the W54 nuclear warhead. This particular warhead weighs in at 23kg and had a selectible yield of 0.01KT up to 0.02KT (just about the smallest possible fission warhead). On the minimum setting, this was about twice the size of the bomb used in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995.

The problem with the Davy Crockett lies in its intended usage. It was to be deployed along the border, prior to the Soviets lauching their great drive to throw NATO into the Atlantic. The theory is that the Davy Crocketts would launch their bombs and lay a belt of intense radiation (in excess of 10,000rem) that would last for 48 hours, buying NATO time to deploy forward and defeat the Soviets.

Hmmmm, a short range, very dirty nuclear warhead with a promise of being non-lethal within 48 hours....nope can't see a problem!

[dragoon500ly]

I'm going to post this picture as soon as I get my scanner back up and running.

The source is US Infantry Weapons of the First World War by Bruce Canfield...

It is an experimental combination sword and pistol made from a M1913 saber blade with a handle containing a M1911 .45 caliber pistol and a sliding shoulder stock. This unusual, one-of-a-kind prototype weapon was carried in a M1913 saber scabbard. Reportedly fabricated at the Springfield Armory.

Since it may be a bit before I get to a scanner....the M1913 saber is the one designed by George Patton, a long, tapering blade, used only for the thrust. It has a bell handguard and the pistol is welded to the top of the handguard, which has seven bars welded and running back and ending in a ring, protecting the hand while it holds the pistol.

You basically have the choice of shooting your target as you gallop towards it and then sticking it as you ride past.

THANK GAWD only one was ever produced!!!!!

[pmulcahy11b]

Somewhere I have a picture of something similar done for a Japanese officer with a Nambu pistol and a samurai sword.

[dragoon500ly]

And there is a pic floating the web that has a British Heavy Cavalry Saber, brazed to a Webley revolver...

Its such a bad idea, and it seems that every armory sooner or later gets this wild hair.......

Its as silly an idea as the OSS glove with a single-shot pistol riveted to the back, "Why no Mr. Donovan, sir, no Nazi will every suspect you want to shot him!"

[mikeo80]

I know the following weapon is historically much earlier than the weapons discussed in this thread. Seeing that one of the regimental guidon's for Custer's 7th Cavalry was sold at auction, I thought it might be worthwhile to contemplate the poor grunts at Little Big Horn who were stuck with the Springfield Model 1873.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springfield_Model_1873

By all accounts, the Souix and others had a motley assortment of weapons from tradional bow,arrow, and lance to Winchester and Henry repeating rifles.

Once again the war department wanted to save money by issuing a poor substitute to US soldiers.

Just my two cents worth!!

Mike

[bobcat]

the reason Custer's men lasted as long as they did was because that single shot rifle everyone loves to malign was excellent for long range where as the pistol caliber repeating rifles sucked at the ranges that battle was mostly fought at. the thing that killed Custer was numbers.