What's the Worst POS firearm you ever owned?

[GH41]

AMT Hardballer.

Anything AMT!

[SteyrAUG]

AMT Hardballer.

I almost bought that gun a half dozen times thanks to "The Terminator" but one of my friends had an AMT "backup" that was so bad it would miss the paper at 15 feet and could be thrown more accurately.

[Doc Safari]

Depends on the parts, depends who made it.

I'm defining a parts gun as something "thrown together" without regard to spec-ing components and whatnot. Obviously, a BCM rifle could be considered a "parts gun" by an extremely broad definition, but because the builders are professional and stick to quality parts, they are considered a manufacturer and not just a builder.

I'm limiting the term "parts gun" to something other than a professionally-manufactured firearm, i.e., something cobbled together and not something carefully produced.

[RetroRevolver77]

I had an LMT that would rip through steel cased rims on occasion, not often, but maybe once every other range trip.


7n6

[T2C]

1) Bushmaster BAR-10. It was the most unreliable rifle I have ever owned or handled. It would not feed, constantly jamming, so basically it was a single shot. It spent more time on the UPS truck and at Bushmaster than at my home during the 18 months I owned it. I marked the parts with tiny drops of fingernail polish to ID parts that were not replaced before the last trip to Bushmaster. The only thing that was not replaced were the lower receiver, grip and buttstock. It fed and fired 10 shots in a row, I cleaned it and sold it as fast as I could find a buyer, giving them full disclosure.

2) Taurus TCP 380. The extractor broke when I fired the second shot. I sent it in for warranty work and received it 5 weeks later. It did not feed reliably and I sent it back for warranty work a second time, a third time, then a fourth time with the same results. Somewhere between the second and fourth trip back to the factory, I spoke with a Customer Service representative who promised to ship me a new magazine the following day. I never received a magazine. After several telephone calls and being lied to several times by Taurus employees, I traded the pistol off and took a huge beating on it. The guy at the gun counter where I traded it in was a huge Taurus fan and told me how great the TCP 380 was compared to all the other 380 automatics on the market.

I will never do business with either company again.

[kerplode]

Overall I've had pretty good luck. The worst, however, was a Vector Uzi. Thing was a train-wreck and had to go back a couple times just to be able to get through a magazine without encountering a malfunction. Second worst was one of their V93s. Also a POS. I'm not really sure why I gave them a second chance after the Uzi fiasco. Shame on me, I guess.

[joe138]

AMT .45 Back Up. I would have been happy to know how accurate it was or wasn't but I could not fire more than one shot as it would absolutely not feed or cycle. Plus the one shot per mag, the first, that I was able to fire, the trigger pull was long and heavy. I should have known better about an AMT product as a friend had the Skipper and it would not feed reliably. I really wanted to like the Back Up.

[ramairthree]

I forgot the worst offender of all.
Not idiosyncratic owner dislikes, not a lemon issue, just EVERYTHING-

The Beretta 9000s



All the r And d and production costs that went into that line,
It really makes me wonder.
The 9000 is crazy.

I have several issues with it:
ONE:
It is supposed to be 92 mag compatible,
But 92/96 mags run about 0.810" and 9000 mags run about 0.860 wide.
It is enough that 9000 mags will not fit into the magwell of a 92/96 series gun.
I suspect this is why 92/96 mags, with or without a spacer do not run reliably in a 9000.

The 9000's I have don't run as reliably as a 92/96 or a Cougar with their regular mags,
But in a dozen tries each I cannot get one full sized 92 or 96 mag to run through them without a malfunction. And these mags run fine in every other non-9000 gun I put them in.
If a key feature of your product is 92 series magazine compatibility, why do you make it take a wider mag to start with, and have it not function with the compatible mags?

I have taken the mag release out of a Taurus 92, dremeled it to fit Beretta magazine notches, and it has run 100%. Think about that.

TWO:
The trigger is atrocious. And I don't think I can relay how bad it is in words alone. I have shot stock spring 92s for decades. I have tried horrible guns like the sigma. And I have never used a worse trigger. Ever. The DA has an unbelievable, extra long, mushy pull with a high break weight. The break weight of SA is not bad, but still a horrible, long feel of mush to get to it. More on this when I go over manual of arms.

THREE:
The controls are difficult to manipulate. And I have spent a fair amount of time putting extra work on them to break in. When you are hammer down on safe you cannot reliably put the gun on fire with your thumb. When you are cocked and locked you cannot reliably put the gun on fire with your thumb. When you load the gun, the slide is so small height wise it is hard to grab and rack. Then you can almost never decock with your thumb and have to use your other hand.

FOUR:
The whole manual of arms with this gun. It is different than the 92 or Cougar series. Why? Especially when it is supposed to be 92 mag compatible would it have a different manual of arms than the 92. So it can have cocked and locked carry capability as a claim to fame? Most CC people choosing a subcompact cocked and locked carry gun are not looking for a plastic gun. People that choose cocked and locked typically choose a metal gun with the same manual of arms and design as a larger version. Such as a 1911. They are choosing it for the fantastic trigger and smooth functioning frame mounted safety.

FIVE:
Quality. This gun does not have it. Grip material the cracks and crumbles off. Unreliable function. I can't rember if it was one or two recalls. Models that made it to market that go off when decocked.

As a another example of quality and market understanding, beretta made a polymer holster for this. It is a giant pancake holster. Something nobody choosing to carry a pistol of this size would want. And my example is too soft and not durable enough. It is cracking in places. I have super cheap Glock holsters and mag pouches that are 25 years old without these issues.

Why not just make a little polymer frame that took actual 92 magazines? This gun is wider than a 92. How on earth is that an acceptable design for a new sub compact?

1911s, CZs, etc. have been made with polymer frames.

Anyways, enough of my thesis of the 9000.
I hate both of mine.
They have no redeeming features or qualities.

Only buy for collector purposes.
I have wasted money on the guns, extra mags, holsters, range time, and ammo cannot count on them for anything.

SIX
You cannot manipulate the slide. They let looks guys design the gun, and give you about 2mm of slide to grasp. They were like screw it, the trigger is too long to reach, too crappy to pull, and you cannot manipulate the controls, just top it off with a slide you need needle nose pliers to grab, as your grip crumbles in your hand-
It's not like you can get through a mag without a malfunction anyway and its wider than a full sized gun and nobody is going to CC with it. It will look cool in some nice photographs on a magazine cover while dudes paid to write glowing reviews for advertiser's guns sing its praises.

[Arik]

SKS. It fired with safety on and without the trigger being pulled. I think adding Chinese quality steel to a bad fire control design makes them all an AD waiting to happen.

Slam fire?

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[flenna]

AMTBackup .380 DAO. Trigger pull that feels like it is full of sand and will cause you to pull a muscle. Not to mention the only thing it might feed is hardball. But hey, it's 1993 and I needed a deep concealment back up gun. It got traded off after my first range session with it.