Was there ever a bad milsurp?

Alex_Zues

Alex_Zues

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
123   0   0
Location
Sasquatchewan, the flat part
Hey all. In my free time, I began to wonder: Was there ever a bad milsurp model?

I don't mean have you ever shot a particular mosin or enfield that was junk, but I mean a whole series of firearm. The Ross gets a bad name, but it seems that was due to circumstance, not design. I've heard Carcanos get sh!t on, yet there's plenty of folks who'll defend them too. The SKS may not be a sniper, but if you clean and feed it right it'll serve you well.
Was there ever a milsurp which just all around screwed the pooch? Lack of accuracy, unreliable, etc.

I know that countries do tests before spending fortunes to outfit their troops, so that crappy guns are avoided. But I also know that politics, personalities, mistakes and poor judgement can all affect firearm selection.
Be it handgun, rifle, machinegun, or even artillery, was there ever a milsup that most can agree was a poor choice to outfit troops with?
 
The Chauchat is pretty much universally regarded as "the 'worst machine gun' ever fielded in the history of warfare."

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

The version chambered in .30-06 for the AEF was particularly prone to failure.

I've read the account of an American that claimed his grandfather carried around a piece of one of them embedded in his hip for the rest of his days, after it exploded on him in France.
 
Last edited:
I'm a lee enfield guy, don't get me wrong, but wasn't the .303 jungle carbine nicknamed the "wandering zero"? Please forgive me lee enfield, for I have said your name in vein.
 
The Ross was definitely not a POS.It was one of the most accurate service rifles out there.Just look where they placed in shooting competitions.
 
Hmm interesting, i really can't recall where i heard that they were a piece of junk, maybe i dreamed it who knows. Learn something new every day.

Just did a quick look-up on the rifle and it was excellent target rifle but a poor military rifle. so i was half right.
 
The Ross that established a reputation as a target rifle was the MkII** which was not used in WWI as a combat arm.
 
mr.e moose said:
The Ross was definitely not a POS.It was one of the most accurate service rifles out there.Just look where they placed in shooting competitions.
Click to expand...

Yes it was a good target rifle but it was an embarasment in combat when the target chamber wouldn't allow the use of slightly less than perfect ammo. I guess it made a fine club at that point though.
 
The early M16s were introduced with lots of hype and limited cleaning supplies and tools. When the troops couldn't clean them (or didn't), they started to jam up. Knowledgible commentators blame the combination of cheap but fouling powder, the basic design faux-pas of the gun vomiting gas back into its mouth, and uncertain maintenance. Ever wonder why there is a forward assist on the M16A1s and every version since?
 
olansky said:
Wasn't our Ross rifle a POS as well? I don't know too much about this gun.
Click to expand...

I might venture that you read a lot more and learn a lot more about the Ross. Even better, go fire one. The Ross was a fine and accurate rifle but it was not perfect. It was considered a bit too long in the trenches, (compared to the shorter Short Magazine Lee Enfield), but because of Political necessity, it became the "Whipping Boy". The jamming of the Ross rifles was caused by British ammunition, (Birmingham Iron and Metals Lots B14 and B15) that was not to specifications and actually had been condemned by the British, but was issued to the Canadian troops. Canadian ammunition was held to better tolerances, and the British scooped it for their Machine Guns and replaced it with British made ammo.

But of course, the real story would have caused a scandal and the British are NEVER wrong, so the Ross rifle took the blame. In WWII, the Canadians were blamed for the collapse of Hong Kong, when the British General failed to occupy and fortify the high ground. Couldn't have one of the Good Old Boys reputation sullied as an Incompetent, you know old chap.

In most cases, Military Firearms were tested and approved FOR THE APPROPRIATE TIME in History. That is what we have to look at, along with Manufacturing ability, costs, and available materials. STEN guns are one case. The first Mark I Sten was very crude, but the Mark II improved upon the design and worked quite well. However the Mark III was a step backwards. Even the M-16 rifle had it's problems. Stoner designed the system to use IMR powder, but someone changed the ammunition specifications to use Ball powder, and along with the "you don't really need to clean it" attitude, the gas system plugged up, and the rifle did not function.

In the later part of WWII, the Germans produced some very crude weapons and issued them to their troops. The Italian Carcano was mentioned, but the Carcano system served very well in it's role as a Military rifle. The Italian Military Rifle Team used them to defeat the Americans and their much vaunted Garand. It is natural for Military authorities to praise their own weapons, and denigrate those of the Enemy. A case in point is the German MG-42 where it was described as not effective as it was stamped construction, etc., but anyone who has been on the receiving end of a MG-42 can tell you that this is certainly not the case.
.
 
The Russians bought up a lot of Ross rifles and made target guns out of them. It just didn't fair well in a friggen mud hole called France. I only owned one Enfield and it had something like a 12 inch spread between shots. I would like to buy one again some time just to see if one could actually make one shoot proper. The japs made some pretty poor guns towards the end of the war due to shortages.
 
mg4201 said:
Yes it was a good target rifle but it was an embarasment in combat when the target chamber wouldn't allow the use of slightly less than perfect ammo. I guess it made a fine club at that point though.
Click to expand...

They also didn't take well to mud and dirt; the parts were too closely machined. A great target rifle; a lousy combat rifle. The bolts blowing apart when not assembled properly also didn't help it's reputation.
 
AK47. Horrible thing. Such a huge POS that there has been one made for every tenth person in the world. :D

As the OP stated, countries spend quite a lot on outfitting their troops. Now there has been a lot of firearms with teathing problems. The M16 has been mentioned, the SA80 is another.

The early Long Lee Enfields are a good study. When first produced, they would only test random rifles out of a production run. As such a lot were sent to the troops shooting somewhere out to the left field foul line. When the British came up against the Boers, and proceeded to get outshot, part of the blame was on the rifle (another big part was that the boer made every shot count whereas the solders didn't). The Boers were using Mausers, each of which was tested for accuracy before leaving the factory. As such the troops started complaning that they wanted Mausers because they could hit what they were shooting at. Now, the Enfield could be made to shoot very well. The Boers captured some and after modifing them had them shooting very nicely. After the British started to test every rifle that left the factory problems soon disappeared. Soon the British had a rifle taht could truly compete with those bloody Mausrs.

Now to really get a good discussion going we should start to talk about all the accessories that were thought up to be used with a particular firearm, that soon found themselves at the bottom of shell holes, or 'lost' in a retreat.
 
The Mauser G41 was a bad rifle. Was semi-automatic but could be operate like a bolt action too. The rifle was complicated,unreliable. Supposedly,6673 rifles built, 1673 returned unusable. The Walther G41 was the other german semi-auto rifle. A bit better then the Mauser G41 but still complex and unreliable. The russian Simonov AVS 36 was a selective fire rifle but complicated to manufacture and maintain and unreliable as well.
Joce
 
I love the fact that certain rifles are deemed to be crap! That means I can afford to buy and shoot them. I'd put my $150 Ross mkIII against any $1500 garand in a match, even if I lost it would be great fun to watch people at the range point and stare as I risk my face with every pull of the trigger.
Then there's my Turk Mauser an always despised gun. I'm not sure why this is so as the Turks have huge military history and the fact that it's a Mauser should be good enough for most but they're still deemed to be "junk". Oh well guess I'll keep buying all of the "crap" and leave the fancy milsurps to the more serious collectors.
 
Part of the problem with the Ross, was that it was redesigned by a committee. They kept screwing with the design and changing the Mk#'s. They didn't deal with the real problems. The MkIII's weren't developed long enough prior to WW1 for problems such as weak extraction when hot to show up before battle. If A MkIII had been designed with a 24" barrel, larger chamber, double row 10 shot magazine, better charger guide and larger diameter bolt stop, it would have been more successful. Designs that are rushed into service without time to find the flaws are always problematical.
 
The Russian weren't fans of the svt 40 at first, too complicated, troops didn't know how too maintain it. The German captured svt40 were seen for how excellent they were and some Germans solider upgraded to the svt.

But I don't consider it bad, I fact it's my favorite rifle
 
Chauchat would likely top this list for worst rifle made to general distribution.

I disagree with the Ross rifle. It was a very good rifle. It was not however, a very good combat rifle due to a variety of factors, from the design of the gun and tolerences, to the ammo that it was supplied with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom