All us writers are highly opinionated (no, really?). We love and we loathe many a firearm, but its not common for us to say anything is “the worst”, as everyone has their own tastes. That however, did not stop the Washington Times, a news outlet not known for its expertise in firearms, from creating a list of “The Worst Firearms Ever Made”.
Calling something “the worst” is difficult, especially if it can reliably make a cartridge go “bang” and reasonably put a bullet in the general intended direction. Still, history has shown us that sometimes achieving these two minimum requirements can be a stretch.
There are a few firearms on the list that I do believe deserve to be on the list. Specifically, the Nambu Type 94 does come to mind (listed 3rd or 13) for all the very reasons the Washington Times states. Alex C agrees in this article.
On the other hand, The Liberator is listed (2nd of 13) due to its cheap manufacture and unrifled barrel, which the Times contends is a bad thing. I believe quite the opposite. The handgun did exactly what it was supposed to do, considering the war efforts. It was cheap, effective (if at short range) and actually reported to be reliable for its single shot.
So, do you think they hit the nail on the head? Or, did the hit the finger and miss the nail? Sound off in the comments. The Washington Times seems to have missed the VB Berapi LP-06.