“Gun Pr0n”? Well, Maybe. Kinda. Sorta.
The folks at Ranker have a number of firearms-related lists.
The following link is one of them. It purports to show the Ugliest Guns Ever Made.
One might quibble whether this is indeed the “top 40” of ugly firearms. However, the list certainly contains many that are truly . . . homley.
Hey: many people consider “pr0n” an ugly thing. So that list must qualify as “gun pr0n”, right? (smile)
I’d say “enjoy” – but some of the firearms shown in the list make a bulldog’s butt look pretty in comparison. Consider yourself forewarned. (smile)
Category: Guns
Yep, some of those are seriously lacking in the beauty department, mostly depending upon from which side you might be viewing it. Some rather laughable, and many no more ugly than what is or has been in inventory in the US military.
A couple of them would make great novelty gifts for someone who likes such things.
A few of those I wouldn’t mind having while I look at some and ask what their designers were stoned on. I’m sure that some are JUNK like that French Chauchat which I’m sure the use of in WWI saved many a German life.
The Chauchat in 8mm Lebel was okay-ish. Not great, but decent enough by contemporary standards if you kept it clean and oiled (in trench warfare? Good luck with that! ). The Chauchat in .30-06 was dogshit. The US Chauchats were manufactured by a French bicycle factory who had no idea how to make guns, didn’t take quality control seriously (since the weapons were going to our guys), and didn’t size the chamber or feed ramp properly for .30-06, nor did they make sure the extractor properly engaged rimless cases. That they ever fired at all was a goddamn miracle.
I sort of remember seeing either a FP-45 liberator or something similar in design a long time ago and that is was designed for a one time use and purpose but the memory as to when and who had it is gone. I do remember, as it looks in the picture as well as when I seen the real thing, it sure looks like a toy more than anything else.
I have handled one, a very long time ago.
My 60’s toy raygun, steel stampings and trigger driven lighter-flint sparker, was about the same thing quality.
It was operable, for at least a few shots. The idea was, you as an aspiring Resistance member assassinated an enemy soldier and took his weapon, passing along the liberator to the next Resistance recruit.
The machines and skills to make “resistance starter kit” weapons are now commonplace. Ammo stockpiles in private hands are … huge. If the time comes, things will be …. Noisy.
I think the Liberator is a thing of beauty. Simple construction, easy to airdrop, and even easier to conceal. For the French resistance fighters it was one of the most beautiful things in the world.
Picture instructions, so anyone could use it, yeah, perfect for it’s intended use. I did read somewhere that it took less time to make them than it did to load them…
Ha! At the rate they were making liberty ships, I think they took longer to load than to build too. 😀
The Ford assembly line at Willow Run was turning out one B-24 every 30 minutes at peak production. Almost a thousand were flown straight to the boneyard from there in 1945.
I think it was 100 B-29’s a month from Boeing from the Kansas City Plant.
I could be wrong and I’m too tired to verify it.
The numbers of the American Arsenal of Democracy were staggering, there is no way any other country could build the numbers of things that we did.
A B-29 has about 25,000 parts in it and each one went through stringent QC tests before being released for shipment to the Pacific Theatre…
250,000 parts in a B-29.
sorry for the typo.
It is functionally beautiful , only for self-defense or a loud close quarter assassination weapon, which would amount to suicide if used if more than one enemy,or enemy soldiers.
Actually it is kind of a strange idea, as it is almost useless for what it was intended , a resistance weapon. A self defense weapon , which is what it is, IMO, is a different critter. Unless you are dropping these things to fanatics , who only want to take one enemy with them. Not a good weapon for the French Resistance to have except to cause “war-crimes” which would have begged retaliation.
Like another Sur de Orannge (sp) town massacre . Dual Evil purpose weapon IMO
I think a gun’s appearance might be directly related to how much you need one and how whether you have one. Kind of like women. An ugly one may be better than not having one.
Animal is now taking cover.
Good advice:
https://youtu.be/6EqFVWzOfN8
There are no ugly woman, well maybe a few
#3 the FP-45 Liberator. It is beautiful.
Ask anyone who had to use one to save their country.
Good luck with that. Though around a million were produced, only a few thousand were actually distributed. And apparently no record exists of one actually being used in combat.
https://m.ranker.com/list/worst-guns-in-history/mike-rothschild
“apparently no record exists of one actually being used in combat”
Proof positive that their clandestine nature was very effective. Or something.
Yeah be kind of hard to explain, “Sir, I lost my weapons and got shot by what looked like a toy gun.”
By a Frenchman no less. Doubt anyone in the Wehrmact would be willing to admit that.
Unrifled barrel, single shot, designed to be used at near point-blank range, and in .45ACP? Doubt you’d have many survivors to tell how they lost their weapon if one was actually ever used.
FWIW: per Wikipedia, there does exist one verbal account of a Liberator being used against a German soldier or official. But that verbal account apparently isn’t backed by any other documentation – and Germans were pretty thorough in documenting pretty much everything they were involved in during World War II.
I have this image in my head of some Maquis dude opening an air-dropped box, finding a Liberator, and saying, “Putáin merde! What ze fuck is zees sheet? Le Bosche won’t shoot me, zey’ll laugh me to death!”
If it works and is dependable…
If it doesn’t look functional, then it’s “ugly”, and probably expensive.
The Aussie Owen Sub gun was bought at the Lionel Train store in Lynbrook LI NY back in the 1950’S by my Doctor who wanted to sell it to me for around 60 bucks. Before the weapons were “de milled”, the method was a plug in the barrels muzzle so all one had to do was remove the plug and voila, a functioning weapon. Chauchats were sold from Popular Mechanics magazines back in the 50’s along with those .22 Lugers for which I forgot the name of the company that made them. Name could have been Kruger. The .45 sheet metal stamped Liberator guns were dropped behind enemy lines during WW2 and given to members of the resistance groups. The idea was that the resistance member would shoot an enemy soldier and then recover his weapon. Saw one at the Palm Beach County Fairground gun show.
I’d call the MAS-36 the ugliest bolt gun. Not the smoothest bolt either.
The M1879 Reichsrevolver is the ugliest thing you can hold in one hand. Hi-Points are pretty close.
Ever seen the rare LeMat Cartridge Model? If you need to induce vomiting, it will get the job done! I’m not a fan of Beretta aesthetics, either.
The Mosin Nagant Garbage Rod will never win a beauty contest, but at least it works.
The G-11 is pretty fugly as well. I saw one stripped on a Forgotten Weapons episode. The exterior is awful to behold, but when I saw the internals, I said, “God in Heaven, what the FUCK is that shit?”
Sounds like the guts of a Hi-Point.. NEVER disassemble one of those damn things, or you’ll be sending in a pile of parts to be rebuilt..
Personally, I’ve always liked the looks of the various early automatics of the turn of the century. There’s a beauty of innovation to them. Probably why I’m such a fan of Gun Jesus on Forgotten Weapons.
I would really like to add a Steyr 1912 in 9×19!(for ease of ammo availability) to my arsenal. I wouldn’t say no to a Mauser Broomhandle, either. And of course, there’s the entire catalog of Saint John Moses Browning.
Finding a C96 in 9×25 Mauser Export is on my bucket list.
I have a .30 C96 and a non-shootable “Red 9” that took some battle damage.
The LaMat is a fugly gun, but also cool AF. I would love a modern version in .22 Mag/.410.
Commie wartime Moist-Nugget 91/30’s ugly as hell! With thick uneven blueing, toolmarks galore and markings that look like they were stamped by a drunk 8 yo. Czarist M91’s are much better looking; with the hex receiver and intricate Imperial cypher. Finn Mosins are nicer too.
‘Last-ditch’ Arisaka…
Type 26 revolver…
Type 94 suicide special….
Japanese guns are even uglier than French. They even tried making an Uggified Garand copy!
I would also love a Merwin Hulbert!
The best revolver of the era. I almost what myself when I saw Patrick Wilson using one in Bone Tomahawk
Haven’t seen it, but I hear it’s the only movie that ever shows a Merwin-Hulbert being reloaded.
In my opinion, form following function is never ugly. They are just simple machines for throwing balls, after all.
“form following function”
Stevens Vest Pistol #5
Love the wood grips.
How can one call the M14 EBR ugly? Sure, a bit Lego-Looking but not ugly
As long as it works don’t matter if it’s fugly or not…..As long as it works!
That being said….Praise God Almighty for, among others:
Sam Colt, Griswold and Gunnison, Misters Smith and Wesson, Mr. Henry, Mr. Remington, Mr. Winchester, but especially:
The Saintly Brother John Moses Browning, Howitzer be his name.
Can’t forget St.Paul & St.Willy
Mauser!
I own a pair of their first production bolt action battle rifles; Gewehr M-71s.
I’ve always been a fan of the Smith & Wesson model 3. Ugly but beautiful in its own way.
Ain’t nothing ugly about a top-break wheelgun. That’s a gentleman’s piece!
Anyone ever heard of the Landstad 1900? It was a Norwegian prototype magazine-fed autorevolver. No that is not a typo. It was an autorevolver that was magazine-fed, the kind of gun you might expect to see on an episode of “Firefly.” You can probably guess how well it worked (or really didn’t).
Have heard of them,2 rd. I have my unfortunately reblued m1892 navy. I love the 1800s guns.
So was the Dardick pistol (#2 on the linked list/article). Except the Dardick didn’t have a removeable magazine; the user had to load it through a port, which was time-consuming. And it used a proprietary, triangular-shaped plastic cartridge called a “tround” (although some “adapter trounds” were apparently made allowing the use of standard ammunition by inserting same into the “adapter tround”).
Unfortunately, being plastic the “trounds” tended to warp over time. After they warped, they jammed the revolving action.
No, I’m not joking about the above. And the combination of the above – along with the pistol’s absolutely butt-ugly appearance – is probably why fewer than 100 were produced.
https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/9/a-brief-history-of-the-peculiar-dardick-revolver-and-tround/
Only saw about 7 guns on there that I would call ugly.
And there were about ten that I consider bad/awful designs. I don’t think all the bull-pup weapons should be considered ugly . Form follows function. when used as intended a short rifle that can be stored and used in confined spaces. That they have become standard weapons for front line soldier deployment(outside of used from inside and AFV) is where they are ugly and a detriment to soldier awareness and non-firing close quarter(bayonet range) use . Plus it is always good to have both hands out in front of you instead of stuck under your chin. Pure stupidity any army that gives Bullpups to its infantry for anything but a in-vehicle weapon or to rear-echelon because they are compact.