Last night on TV3, they showcased the top 10 'Greatest Ever [Handheld] Weapons' here are the rankings (based on maximum lethality, mimimal training and global impact):

10. Katana (Japanese)
9. Walther PPK (German)
8. Pike (European)
7. Arquebus (European)
6. Boomerang (Australian)
5. Thompson .45 SMG (US)
4. Barrett M82 'Light Fifty' anti-material sniper rifle (US)
3. Longbow (English)
2. AK-47 (USSR)

And drum roll please for....

1. Wingchun martial arts (Chinese)

I was surprised that the first mass produced rifles werent mention. During the American Civil War the Norhts ability to mass produce the rifled bore guns turned the tide of the whole coflict. Smooth bore weapons had way less range and accuracy when compared to the rifled bore (which has a spiral groove running down it meaning the projectile is spinning when it leaves the weapon thus giving greater range and accuracy) allowing soldiers to take out the opposition with no change of being hit themselves.

walter PPK? i mean cmon! anyone think the colt 1911 had a waaaaayyy bigger impact? i mean its still standard issue today, with the exception of replacement from the browning high power.

number 1, martial arts? what an anticlimax!!! yes it may be the most widly used "weapon" but by definition its UNARMED combat. LAME! i would definatly have nuclear weapons in the number 1.

and the barret? wow its impressive but its hardly a worlds greatest weapon, its just tha usual american "look at us, we made a stupidly large "anti-material weapon"" there are many other antimaterial rifles. it fires a 50 calibre round, exactly the same as many other rifles, Artic Warefare Magnum springs to mind, as do many older school tank rifles. if your were going to do a sniper rifle a WW2 model would be more suitable, maybe number 4 mk1? made a difference in WW2 for the brits.

That thing about the crossbow was fucking fascinating, pulling back the string was the equvialent of lifting his own body weight, and he could shoot that thing accuratley over a huge distance, amazing.

I must admit, some of them were a let down. But the Wing Chun nuns were funny.

I thought the longbow guy was awesome too... can you imagine how many arrows they need to fire in battle? And good God can you imagine the arms they must have on them!!

*sighs* It was a longbow.

Youre being more pedantic today than usual... or should that be anal?

Pedantic? The crossbow is so utterly different from the longbow its ridiculous.

Historically they were very different. The speed of shooting was lost with the crossbow but it did gain range and accuracy. Plus they look very different :P

And when you posted that "comment" you knew EXACTLY what Shedevil was talking about so the need to correct her with a sigh wasnt necessary.

Two obvious items are missing: the Roman short sword, the gladius, and the Mongolian Horse Archer composite bow.

The Mongolian bow created the largest contiguous land empire the world has ever seen. The 'composite' elements-horn, wood, sinew, glue-were all readilly available to the army on the move. The wooden bow, when combined with horn and sinew, works far better. Horn resists compression, and forms the bow's inside face. Sinews of the right kind-the Achilles tendon is best-resist extension and are laid along the outside.

In the 18th century, English archery experts became facinated by the composite bows used by the turks. They were amazed to discover that the Turkish bow-essentially the same as the mongol weapon-far outperformed the English longbow. Longbows rarely shoot further than 350 yards (the world record is 479 yards) Yet on 9 July 1794, in a field behind Bedford Square in London, the Turkish ambassador's secretary, using a composite bow, shot 415 yards against the wind and 482 yards with it. The secretary said that this was nothing, his master, the Sultan, was an even more powerful bowman. Indeed, in 1788, the Sultan, in the presence of the British ambassador, Sir Robert Ainslie, shot an arrow a distance of 972 yards.

At close range, arrows from a composite bow have more penatration power than many kinds of bullet. They leave the bow at well over 300 kph- a quarter the speed of a bullet-but since they are many times heavier, they pack an equivalent punch. At 100 metres, an arrow can slam through several centimetres of wood. Armour was no defence.

The reason why they included the longbow is that it had dominated English warfare for four centuries. It's accuracy was only matched by firearms of the American Civil War era and few modern men are capable of firing a longbow (in an effective manner) as it would require oneto lift his own mass in order to draw the bow.

It's still a bloody pain in the arse considering that they did not list the Chinese repeating crossbow (invented 4th Century BC and effective the first ever semiautomatic).

The Walther PPK was listed due to its compact size (a sure favorite for those undercover) and the fact that it was the first successful double action semiautomatic pistol. It's ingenius safety system was soon copied by others. Its low ranking was due to the lack of impact. Those undercover shoot at close range, it should therefore be less of an issue, compared to the roles of other sidearms.

The M82's rating was high because of its ruggedness and the fact that it has seen more combat than other rifles of its role. WWII era anti-tank rifles were much heavier than the M82 and their abilities were questionable at times. (Few individual weapons are capable of piercing modern armor and the concept of the anti-tank rifle has been abandoned.)

It's so widely used that its a very basic skill in military training and almost every culture has it. Best of all, once train, it never leaves your side (unless you've somehow lost a limb).

AK47 is my fav in Counterstrike

Since my last post here was made rather hastily, I'll add in more information. (I had to roast potatoes the old fashion way- in a backyard fire, all thanks to a faulty oven.)

The longbow's armor penetration and its aerodynamic abilities (which was better than most musket balls) were also responsible for its high rating. Nuclear weapons have only been in existence for about 50 years and since only one nuclear bombing has been used in warfare, the show did not judge on the political impacts. In my opinion, there is no greater weapon than the nuke (unless miniature blackholes become a reality).

Behold, your true number one...The Potato Gun



Nice pair of tits in the background.

What the fuck is that?!

(And why isn't that woman wearing a bra?)

Your potato gun's no match for this...

In terms of global impact, the weapons themselves should be considered with the tactics with which they were used. The Gladius was revolutionary because the Roman Army's system of flexible legionary cohorts changed the way war was fought. The composite bow was revolutionary because the Mongolian horse archer made the infantry armies of the enemies of Mongolia largely obsolete.
Both of these weapons had far more historical impact than any on the list.

No way would they beat the number 2, held by Mr. Kalashnikov's great creation. There's currently 100 million AK-47s in circulation and it has participated in every war since 1950! It's so ridiculously simple that you can be trained to use it effectively within 10 minutes. Its 5 moving parts can be put together within 1 minute and the receiver is able to survive being crushed by vehicle tires. Try that with the Mongolian bow, it'll be snapped by an traditional wagon wheel.

With 1/4 of thw world's population living under communism just after Stalin's death and the AK's presence under the red banner, it served as an empire building tool for an ideology. The AK has surpassed all the bows and arrows in history.

Could the AK 47 be considered as a decisive element in the way the world looks today? If the AK 47 was never created, would the world be a radically different place? No, of course not. In it's 50 or so years of existence, it has not revolutionized warfare, or enable its creator (Russia) to subjugate its rivals.

Now, consider the Gladius. Roman heavy infantry revolutionized warfare in the ancient world. For centuries the Greek/Macendonian spear-armed phalanx were the best troops in the world. Alexander conquered the known world with the Macedonian phalanx. The flexibility of ther Roman legionary cohort challenged this dominince. In successive battles at Cynoscephalae, Magnesia, and Pydna, Roman commanders crushed the Phalanxes of the super powers of the ancient world:the Macedonian and Seluicid Empires. The powerful, yet inflexible phalanxes could be torn to pieces when skillful commanders manouvered their formations to attack the flanks and rear of the enemy.

The Gladius, and the tactical battle fied innovations that accompanied it, made possible the decline of the Greek East and the Rise of the Roman Empire in Europe and the East, and laid the foundations of the western world.

How's that for historical influence?

You actually need to get a life.

Without the versatility of the AKs, would the adherents of communism be as successful with PPSh or other assorted WWII era Soviet firearms? The AK's ridiculous simple design did revolutionize the expectations of firearms durability. For many thrid world countries, it made the dream of owning large numbers of assault rifles a reality all thanks to the AK-47's low cost and simple assembly.

It also has another advantage: while the enemy are laughing at your gun made out of wood, you can shoot them in the genitals.

The AK is so damn numerous that they make very good deception. If the American all use AKs while they confront an insurgent town, the locals are not going to report to their insurgent fellows. The AK makes such a distinct sound that they'll think it's their own men firing the shots. Such a trick works like a charm in Iraq.

I'm not saying that the AK isn't an important weapon-it certainly is. But you can't say 'because of the AK 47, we now live in a Pax-USSR world.' For long stretches of time there existed a Pax-Romanum or a Pax-Mongolia because of the Gladius/Composite bow.

just for the record , it was the human hands / or something else that kinda completely defeats the idea of hand held weapons at the number one spot ... Sure some wiseass writer got his tea and scone bought for him that day

cause as much as i love hand held weapons , nothing says i love you like a colt 45...

Guns for show, knives for the pros.

Apart from the stopping power, there was nothing special about that pistol.

Speaking of which, I'm not surprised that spec-ops use crossbows (unprecidented silence).

cough :retarded:

This thread reminds me of a classic Murphys Law:
A Smith & Wesson beats four aces.

The SAS most certainly DON'T use shit like that. If they want silence they use silencers. I personally know people in the SAS and have heard stories of them killing barracks of enemy with silenced weapons and knives. I don't see the need for crossbows... though i'm sure you have an example of special forces needing them.

Truthfully, if my army mates ever head a 'civi' talking like you about the military and weapons they'd probably beat you to a pulp. There's not much they hate more. But eh, I personally think it's an interesting hobby.

*Cue Cockney accent*

I think you need help! Now put those away before someone fookin' sees us.

CAUTION: I may have misquoted Lock Stock there.

If you needed something even more silent than a silenced gun (which does make a small amount of noise), I figure you would go for a crossbow. So I expect there would be some very rare occasions where special forces do indeed use the good old crossbow, when they need to be very, very silent. Bearing in mind this would presumably be a very modern teched out crossbow, not some medieval shit.

Unless of course there's some other projectile based weaponry that is more silent than a silenced gun, but I can't think of any (at least, none that are any better than a crossbow).

I've heard of blow guns being used-you can't hear them at all.

Nothing beats a stun gun, a plastic bag, and a pack of hungry pigs.

'What the fuck are you looking at'-Brick Top

:bowdown: best lockstock/snatch refrences ever :bowdown:

now go put the kettle on

Uncle Avi: What should I call you? Bullet? Tony?
Bullet Tooth Tony: You can call me Susan if it makes you happy.

Brick Top: Do you know what "nemesis" means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent. Personified in this instance by an 'orrible cunt... me!

Brick Top: In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary... come again.

Vinny: I thought you said he was a getaway driver. What the fuck can he get away from?

Ok i know people who were formally SAS and you are right they would never use a crossbow, thats just bullshit. A silenced pistol for close range and a silence submachine gun/assualt rifle for medium ranges, then at long ranges a silenced rifle doesnt actully have to be very silenced seeing as the ranges aint gonna carry alot of noise.

Most silenced weapons have little to no firing sound, but the sound of the action and bolt slide cannot be silenced, so the most silenced weapons still make a quite loud claking noise of metal hitting metal, but its not like the movies, no high pitched peow noises at all.

Crossbows couldnt be used at close range where the silenced weapon would actully be heard, so therefore they would be useless to an SAS soldier.

Both the British SAS and the SEALs have used (or at least trialled) the crossbow, whether it is still in service, I wouldn't know.