1) Chaupat
The American bred Lewis would have been a much better choice
2) Krag-Jorgensen
Obsolete before introduction.
3) The 1960's M-16.
Battle is no place to work out the bugs of a wepaons system.

If I may be so bold as to comment on a topic I have no first hand knowledge, I would have to say the Krag was a very good choice for the army at the time.

The Krag was well suited for the army doctrine of the time.  I for one like the idea of being able to top off a magazine while keeping it ready for instant action.  The rifle was butter smooth, lightweight and easy to operate.  The only real weak link was the lack of stripper clip loading, but the rifle could be modified for this.  The army had a better cartridge in mind and did not follow through with this.

It was not obvious in 1892 that the Mauser system would be the world beater.  Besides, its key features were patented.  Not everyone thought stripper clip loading was the only way to go.  The Krag was strong enough for its cartridge.  

I used to have a Norwegian Krag in 6.5.  Damn!  That is one rifle I wish I never sold.

The Chautchaut was a piece of meat compared to later guns.  BAR's would have been better of course, but they did not exist.  The "sho-sho" was available - in numbers from an arsenal and able to be used by troops.  There were no other LMGs around, if you neglect the MG 08-15.  

To a limited extent, I'll go along with the M-16.  The majority, if not all, of its problems were caused by after-the-fact errors.  If it had been issued AS DESIGNED with the proper ammo, cleaning kits, and training there would have been minimal problems.

The Chauchat was a miserable failure, but what I have read indicates that the original French version in the standard French caliber was a far better weapon, though it was no world-beater either.

You are completely off base on the Krag.

When you criticize old weapons, keep in mind that the modern weapons you are comparing them to didn't exist.  Saying a Sten isn't as good as an MP5, for example, is a meaningless comparison.  There were no MP5's during WWII.  If you consider them as a product of their times and compare them only to weapons that existed at that time, your comparison is more valid.

At the risk of offending a great many people, I think the worse USGI rifle in widespread use was the M-1 carbine (really neat little gun that it is).  Admittedly, the major problem was with the underpowered ammo and the use of the weapon in situations it was never designed for.  However, the rifle itself did have accuracy and cold-weather reliability problems, especially in Korea.  (I don’t know why these didn’t surface in WWII - possibly it was the massive frontal assaults, heavy winter clothing, and occasional use of body armor in Korea that brought out these weaknesses.)  

With all due respect to pogo, I believe BAR production started in 1917.  My understanding is that the BAR wasn’t sent overseas since the U.S. military was afraid the Germans would capture and copy it!!  I’m not sure it would have been widely available, anyway.  Apparently the Chauchat wasn’t a total failure, the tubing used in its construction could be used to make a good still!

Re: M-16’s - I agree that wars are a bad time to be developing equipment, but sometimes wars won’t wait.  Many of the great weapons of WWII were developed during that war, especially ours since we were caught napping.  

Don’t forget the miserable performance of the Colt .38 service revolver in the Philippines.  Though, again, the real problem wasn’t so much the gun as it’s ammo.  

(Maybe I’m answering this question wrong; I’m talking a lot about ammo.)

You're right on base, 199.  The .30carbine is a cowboy rifle load, not a true ballistic device by any means.  The underdeveloped load and the hideously ball-designed hunk of lead is best saved for shooting coyotes or "injuns", if I may be so bold.  Don't get me wrong, they are a blast to shoot, but I do not, and never will, consider it a "battle rifle".

[brown]Evil Jew~[/brown]

The Chautchaut

According to the Frankford Arsenal proof house, OLIN produced "DIRTY" ammunition for the 5.56.  The Arsenal was responsible for the testing of lots and determined that Olin was producing this problem by their choice of powder.  Prior to Vietnam, all war ammunition was produced by the Arsenal and not contractedout.  The M-16 eventually became agreat weapon with good ammunition.

M-1 carbine, let's see a little less powerful than 7.62X39, but more powerful than an .44 magnum load.

Most of the complaints were about failure to stop, with the M-2 select fire carbine. Could it be that soldier moved the selector to "spray and pray" and missed what they were shooting at and blamed the gun??

On the other hand it was not a good weapon in the cold.

M-60 machine gun, design elements stolen from the german MG-42 and the FG-42. Apparently the managed to screw that up tho'. Both were exellent weapons.

Based on time "in service" the M-14 might be one of the worst.

The M-1 Carbine as a rear echelon replacement for the 1911 was brilliant. Used by GI's as a submachine gun and battle rifle, it did not work as well.
With all that, I could see why GI's took to it. A thirty round clip over the eight round Garand. Easy to change out magazines, light and handy. I still wish I had mine.

With all due respect towards 199, my BS detector went off when I read that the BAR was not sent overseas to prevent the Germans from copying it.  

I do not have the information that he does, but it seems odd that our country would not use a weapon that would revolutionize small unit tactics.

That being said, the BAR would seem ideal for the effective German assault battalion tactics adopted the last year of the war.  Captured BAR's could be easily rebarrelled to 8mm and used within hours of capture.  

The gun could be reverse engineered or used as is, so perhaps this was a valid reason for not sending it overseas.    

from my limited knowledge of military rifles. i.e- mostly 20th century weapons. id have to agree on the M-1 carbine. i love the gun and its a blast to shoot, but there's something about going into battle with a semi-auto pistol caliber rifle that scares me. ive heard that the problem with them was that the rounds over penetrated and did not deliver all of their energy to the target. just my $0.02, whether right or not.

 


Yeah but lets face it a .30 caliber hole is  not much compared to a .44 caliber whole. Number wise it may be more powerful but I dont think in real life it is that much more powerful. I dont even think the .30 caliber carbine causes a temporary wound cavity.


Six

.30 caliber carbine                         [url]http://www.winchester.com/ammunition/store/cfrlist.eye?cartlist=MzAgQ2FyYmluZQ%3D%3D&uselist=none&brandlist=none&image=on&summary=on&velocity=on&energy=on&shortrange=on&longrange=on[/url]  

Or check out the .44 magnum
[url]http://www.winchester.com/ammunition/store/cfhlist.eye?cartlist=NDQgUmVtaW5ndG9uIE1hZ251bQ%3D%3D&uselist=none&brandlist=none&image=on&summary=on&velocity=on&energy=on&traj=on[/url]

This here shows the numbers. The .44 magnum has almost the same numbers and thats coming for a 4in barrel campared to the 10 inch barrel of the carbine as tested.

The big problem with the M16 was that Eugene Stoner designed it with a chromed barrel and chamber (something that was deemed to expensive by the people in charge of the contracting) there was also the fact that it was designed for a stick powder but the ammo supplied was ballpowder (or if it was the other way around, I'm drawing a blank.) The result was that you hade ammo that would foul the rifle at a higher pace than designed for, and a barrel and chamber that were harder to clean and not as tough as originally designed.

In an urban or jungle setting, I would not feel underarmed going into battle with a M1 Carbine or M2.
I would feel underarmed with a STEN, but guys loved them. I guess a lot of it is taste.

the 30 carbine has more energy at 100 yards than a 357mag has at the muzzle, and with roughly the same diameter bullet
(at least thats how i heard it)
how is it Not a light rifle ?

if the gun was so bad as some claim then why did the US soliders keep it through 3 wars ? WW2, Korea, Vietnam(SpecOps weapon)

when the US troops threw away there 45acp Reisings?

My earlier statement that the BAR wasn’t sent overseas during WW-I since the U.S. military was afraid the Germans would capture and copy it was based on a recent History Channel “Tales of the Gun” episode dealing with the Chauchat.  Unfortunately, I don’t have this on tape.  I sincerely hope my brain neurons didn’t get crossed!!

I also sincerely hope it’s not true; I agree with pogo that it seems odd that we would not use a weapon that would revolutionize small unit tactics.

I cannot find any other stated reason why BAR’s weren’t sent into action.  Per Smith and Smith’s “Small Arms of the World”, 85,000 BAR’s were produced by Armistice Day.  Perhaps they just arrived on the scene a little too late.  

 

[center]Load...Energy ft lbs...barrel lenght
.30 Car.............967..............20
7.62X39.............1552.............24
.44 Mag............533-1042..........4-6
.223..............1280-1282..........24
9mm................272-440............4 [/center]

Based on muzzle energies from my old Reminfton ammo catalog .44 mag., 9mm, and .223 had multiple loads listed

By sixgun357:

Yes, but it was a weapon that was issued to non front line troops in place or in addition to a pistol. I would rather have a carbine than an equally powerful pistol, becuase it has better ability to put the round on target.

During WWII many soldiers, NCO's etc, liked the carbine it was a lightwieght easy handling semi-auto weapon. During Korea there were reports of failure to stop mainly from select fire M-2's. No matter how good/bad the round it doesn't matter if you don't hit. The carbine did have a weak operating system.

During Vietnam it was given to "indiginous" people to fight, they liked it due to it's handling abilities.

Not quite true... Stoner originally designed the M16 without a chrome lined barrel (for accuracy's sake) however many in the military knew that it was a necessary feature.  The beancounters didn't want it because, yes, it made the rifle more expensive, and "if the rifle needed a chrome lined barrel Stoner would have produced it with one."

Indeed.  It's a fine rifle, but by the time of its introduction there wasn't much sense in issuing what was basically a product-improved Garand.  

Pogo-- This is an isolated case of your normally excellent BS-o-meter going awry.  I think 199 was right about the BAR not being issued.  Jonathan Ellis in his "Social History of the Machine Gun" (Johns Hopkins Press) stated that Pershing did not allow the BAR to be issued, fearing that the "device was so efficient that the Germans would copy it."

This isn't the only time US Ordinance suffered from poor decision.  Didn't we try to adapt the German MG42 to 30.06 only to "fail?"  Yet the Brits were able to develop the Bren gun to fire the rimmed .303 Enfield cartridge. Things that make you go "hmmmm."

I don't have any convictions on truly unserviceable combat weapons.  M-1 carbine seems like a good whipping boy, but I seem to remember that the Germans liked captured carbines, and that powdered graphite solved some of the functioning problems.  

I wouldn't be thrilled to be standing in front of if, even if it was a failed precursor to the assault rifle.

While we're at it, how bout voting for the weapon system that if put into wide service would have been a fine weapon?

My vote is for the Post WWII Brit EM-2 bullpup rifle.  

As for stopping power of the .30 carbine, it did sound anemic.  On the other hand, what was the most common sub-gun round-- the 9mm.  Even if the 9mm is loaded hot, I would imagine that the .30 carbine has more energy.  

Maybe some of the problem was overpenetration of human targets.  FMJ at .30 carbine speeds might not be so good at causing terminal damage.

How about the Trapdoor Springfield?  I understand its extraction system was weak and contributed to major malfunctions in extended firing, as in the Little Big Horn.

Okay, let me clarify (yes, my mouth has a distinct taste of shoepolish now) the powder in the issued cartridges needed the chromed barrels/chambers. But according to what I was taught Stoner designed it with the chrome. (I believe they also mentioned this in Tales of The Gun.)

I previously stated that Olin corp. produced "dirty" ammo because one off the proof tech's at the Arsenal was my father.  He came home from work one night and was damned angry with Olin for "getting young kids killed in Vietnam".  Olin corp., a division of Winchester, was contracted to produce the 5.56 and the Arsenal did lot testing of the finished product.  First hand knowledge from my father, a WWII vet and the proof house worker till they closed.

Any referense to the powder, other than being "dirty"?

Sorry,  no mention other than his use of dirty for the rifle.  He passed away 5yrs ago but I'll bet he would remember excately what powder Olin, Winchester used.

That crow is getting mighty cold.  

Been busy getting my BS detector checked out.  No vendor, no manual, can't even blame the other guy at work.  Type I errors are the embarrassing ones.  On the bright side, it is still right 0.95 of the time!    

As far as a wonder weapon, how about the FG-42?  From what I have heard about it, a fairly controllable full-auto using the existing 8mm ammunition when the Germans really needed it.  Not awkward like the Tokarev.  

Actually, that is another underappreciated rifle.  There is a well known picture of Germans at the Atlantic wall with Tokarevs over the sandbags.  I saw them again in a couple pictures taken during early 90's caucasus rebellions.

I just visited the Little Bighorn Battlefield and I am doing a research project on the book "Archaeology, History and Custer's Last Battle".  The author started with written history, and also the location of markers showing where soldiers had fallen.  Then he based his archaeological work on the location of shell casings from both soldiers and Indians.  According to his findings, there was probably little organized resistance on the part of the soldiers, due to the massive Indian counter-attack and break-down of unit integrity.  

Few soldiers with Custer had time for "extended firing" of their Springfields.  No single-shot rifle is going to be very effective against 10-to-1 odds, in open territory on the enemies' home turf.

This book is fascinating if you are into this kind of thing.  Using modern forensic technology, the author was able to establish firing pin and extractor signatures for specific rifles, and determine the movements of individual soldiers.

The answer is obvious: the M14.  Millions wasted on a weapon that was obsolete before it came off the production line.  Dropped after only SIX years of production.  Beaten by the M16 in almost every category even with rigged tests.  Read Blake Stephen's book, it gives all the gory details.  The M14 made a great sniping rifle and match rifle but I think it will go down in history as a short lived flop as a battle rifle (I prefer to shoot my M1As over my AR15's, but historically the AR is way better)  The M16 has been in service 35+ years with NO successor anywere in sight.

I forgot to add:  That story about the BAR is verified in Ballou's book.  Stoner's original design did not have a chrome lined chamber/barrel, the Ordnance Corps should have known better and included it, but they didn't.