Worst Firearm Gimmick

[Rifleman 173]

Remember the "rocket pistol" from about 1967 and on? That was one worthless firearm if ever there was one. The launching gun was made from potmetal, as they used to call it, and it looked like one of those old tin cap guns that had been on steroids and had holes drilled into it. The projectiles (little rockets) were expensive and about as accurate as a French anti-tank missle. Half the time they didn't even shoot the rocket right and when you were trying to fix the problem the rocket would suddenly and unexpectedly launch itself. That gun has GOT to be the Titanic of firearms because it never did go anywhere either except straight down.

 

[Crosshair]

You are thinking of the Gyrojet. The design had promise, but was not fully developed. The reason they were made of "pot metal" was so they could be made lighter than a firearm firing conventional ammo. There was no need for steel to be used in much of the construction, so lighter materials were used.

Not everything needs to be made of steel. Different materials are used according to the stresses and requirements of the parts.

Gyrojet

 

[MisterPX]

Howabout that handle that mouted to your scope for toting a rifle through the woods.............

Wow, I've never even heard/seen of that one. Now I'd like to.


As far as a Gyrojet, I'd love to have one, as long as I could find the rockets to go with it.

 

[Manedwolf]

AFAIK, the inherent problem with the gyrojet was that the rockets took too long to reach ballistic velocities, making it useless as a weapon within typical engagment ranges.

Since so many new propellants have been developed that might make it viable, it's worth a revisit, but it'll be done by a gunmaker in some other country. BATFE would immediately class it as a Destructive Device here.

 

[Davis]

You know, they mentioned it was tested as a grenade launcher and was a success as a flair launcher. In effect, as a grenade launcher it would be a mini-RPG. I could really see an advantage such a design in a weapon meant for longer-range work, where one would be certain to be out of blast range (and so be within effective ballistic range) before firing. It might make for a very accurate grenade launcher with a very mild recoil.

Davis

 

[FALshootist]

The Wiliams peep sight which replaces the rear sight on an SKS - absurd - it's too far forward to work - waaay to small of a hole that far from your eye.

I've found that these actually work very well. Substantially better than any of the SKS scope mounts I've seen. The SKS is a nice swamp gun for hunting pigs, and the Williams fire/peep sight combo works really well.

 

[Hawg]

Mercury recoil reducers do work. I've shot a NEF Handi Rifle in 450 Marlin that weighed less and kicked less than my 45-70 Springfield.

 

[Hafoc]

My personal choice for worst gimmick is those revolvers, like the Medusa, designed to fire several different cartridges instead of one.

While it hits high on the Cool Factor among writers-- Dale Brown gave a Medusa to his maximum baddie in The DaVinci Code-- it doesn't make a great deal of sense otherwise. I mean yeah, sure, if you're talking about wandering around in a Mad Max post-apocalypse, a revolver that can fire any .38 or 9mm you can find makes a bit of theoretical sense, although buying a much less expensive one that shoots a few kinds of ammo well (a Blackhawk Convertible in 9mm/ .357 for example) and then caching some ammo makes more sense.

And if you're not recovering from the apocalypse, why do you want to have a revolver that fires thirty different cartridges, none of which chamber exactly correctly? What are you going to do, go out and buy one box of each of thirty different chamberings?