What are the worst milsurp rifles

[womble]

Australia specific but any action.

I thought I’d pose the question. We have some very knowledgeable enthusiasts here.

I see some fetch high prices and it gives you an idea of which ones are highly sort after.

But just out of curiosity, are there any particular ones that were really terrible on the battlefield. How so and why.

[womble]

By Australia specific I mean availability here for collectors; enthusiasts

[No1Mk3]

Your question contradicts itself, even what I would call the worst was not terrible on the battlefield, every Service rifle earned it's place by passing significant torture tests during acceptance trials. There are some that fulfil some needs better than others such as long range accuracy, but fall well short of "handiness" in CQB conditions, whilst some just feel clunky and rough but never-the-less served their soldiers well for many years. As to price, this must neccesarily reflect scarcity over quality, Swedish Mausers are brilliant, as are Swiss rifles and all of the other various Mausers in their different calibers espacially 7x57 and 8x57. But they are graded in price by availability, I would not pay much more than $700 for a Spanish M95 Carbine in original calibre but happily pay $2000 for a Spanish M93 "True" Carbine, same with the Chilean M95 and the Carabineros Carbine. The Carcano it all its iterations is rough as hessian sacks to use, but still a capable combat rifle and I know of one veteran who carried it by choice over a German K98k.

[womble]

That’s fair.
Any military would choose the best available tool for the job. The right tool for the job.

It would be better to highlight the exceptional ones.

[Tinker]

The Ross .303 rifle issued in the US (and Canada too, I think) was exceptionally well made with tight tolerances. This however caused problems on the battlefield when fouling built up or the ammo was dirty, with frequent malfunctions. I see them for sale here occasionally, but they were never issued to Australian troops.
The Enfield No. 5 (jungle carbine) had a reputation for a "wandering zero" as the barrel heated up, but was still favoured in close country because of its shorter length. This wandering zero is still debated among collectors today. Lithgow made some experimental carbines similar to the No. 5 but were never issued.
I've never used a Mosin Nagant but they have a cult-like following among some collectors even though they look as rough as guts.

[dnedative]

But just out of curiosity, are there any particular ones that were really terrible on the battlefield. How so and why.

Easy one for me: 1903 Springfield; The sights are terrible.
Fantastic if your lying prone shooting off a sandbag at a range on a sunny day but in poor lighting conditions (anything from cloudy onwards) finding that skinny small front post with the just as small rear notch is difficult at best. I'm sure you can drill and train it away to some extent but its arguably the worst battle sight set, hard to find and you lose all the field of view concentrating on it - not to mention all the other crap they jammed into the rear sight, the Americans honestly thought they were going to fight a war on a 1000yrd range with it, only has 5 different rear sight pictures to chose from.

Beyond that, in bolt guns, would have to be the mosin.
The design is actually up there as its very simple and robust but I can only imagine how much of a bear it would of been to load and run one with steel cased ammo in a Russian winter. Sights are average, triggers were poor, the stripper clips combined with the interrupter (rimmed ammunition) are just not that slick and the bolt handle is on the short side. They dont break, easy to strip and clean so atleast there is that.

I dont think carcanos are that bad at all, 6.5x52 is a flat low recoiling cartridge, they are stout, simple rifles and the fixed sight versions easily shoot minute of man at 300m. They are junk compared to what the Swiss and Germans were handing out but for what they were designed for, good.

People also love to hate on K98's and T99 Arisakas because of the sight setup; They are actually fantastic for the purpose of shooting at people in a conflict but because people struggle to hit a coke can at 50m with them they get written off. Front and rear sights are very easy to find, K98 sights allow you to keep your field of view and situational awareness whilst keeping aim and the T99 puts a rear aperture on the leaf which blends low light performance and still being able to see whats going on.

[womble]

Interesting input. Thanks team.

The No 5 saw a lot of a lot of service in jungles. I owned one once a long time ago. The wandering zero I think is a well established fact now. It’s still a brilliant compact weapon. Sights and flawless in function. Trigger creep is about 4 inches though.

I did see a Number 6 or was it number 5 mk 2, up for sale asking 14k pristine condition.

But that’s the only milsurp I’ve owned. The No5.

I do like the Carcanos and they’re always cheap. I would give them more consideration now. And yes the chamberings were fantastic cartridges.

[bigrich]

as No1MK3 points out , there isn't really a "worst" milsurp . they all had pro's and con's and served their respective military's . collectability and values are a different matter . the price of lithgow's appears to be climbing again . when i was a kid it was hard to give them away, they were just really common. i won't comment on milsurp collectability any further as it can be a real can of worms .