User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:19:28 PM EDT
[#1]
It seems like these days people like to use M320s as standalone. I'm assuming rifle + under barrelled grenade launchers can be heavy and make prone/barrier braced shooting more of a pain.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:24:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Chopped down m79 pistol https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c9/3D-1-1025-68.tif/lossy-page1-220px-3D-1-1025-68.tif.jpg Fuck, that is the shortest I've ever seen one chopped |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:27:18 PM EDT
[#3]
I agree with both stand alone and rifle mounted launcher. I've fired both the M79 & the M203. From an administrative point of view, I would much prefer the M203 option as it makes it easier to keep up with one joint weapon system versus a rifle and a "O'Shit!" where did I lay that grenade launcher down at the last patrol halt. I know that soldiers should be expected to keep up with their sensitive items, however, There are times, me included, where things happen due to chaos and loss of sleep. I once forgot that I placed my rifle in the bustle rack of my Bradley and forgot about it until I didn't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:31:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Zero experience but weight and portability the type of rifle grenades which allow firing with live ammo seems to make the most sense as everyone could have a couple rather then one guy with either a dedicated launcher or under barrel. Though my understanding is projectile payload being the big downside. Speaking of payload I also don’t see why the M72 Law type rockets aren’t more popular since our modern fighting seems to have less armored units and more Toyota’s which don’t need the additional payload and weight. Is there a similar weapons system that fires a LAW like projectile that is reloadable? I fired the training LAW reloadable rockets and often wondered why we could not design one that worked like the RPG system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:31:54 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: I would like to discuss the pros and cons of different grenade launcher (concepts) as they are issued and utilized by Infantry. The broad argument is a dual purpose weapon (ex M16/M203) vs a stand alone weapon that allows a soldier to carry another weapon (ex M79) If you're gonna contribute it would be nice if you mentioned your experience. Infantry, combat experience, reading books, watching YouTube vids, COD? All can contribute. My background is I carried an M16/M203 during many field problems and qualified more than once with it. Plus I keep track of new weapons innovations in other ways. We're gonna gonna do this chronologically... Starting with WWII because we see both concepts used. The Japanese "knee mortar" a separate weapon that was carried in conjunction with a primary weapon. To be used as a support weapon when needed. https://memberfiles.freewebs.com/14/56/39755614/photos/Japanese-Knee-Mortar/Jarrods%20Knee%20Mortar.jpg The Rifle Grenade Launcher- a dual purpose weapon. In this one the weapon itself is not more unwieldy than the rifle itself but keeping track of blanks to fire it would have been a PITA. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/M1_Garand_rifgren-shooting_line.jpg I think other times this was used (Rhodesia and South Africa) the grenadier would have had one blank loaded with a grenade that was used immediately as the fight started. then became a regular rifleman or fired more grenades as needed. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/24/d1/af/24d1afc251b0f7b1f84e7144a2c6ad8e.jpg In Vietnam we went with the M79 as a stand alone weapon. It was primarily used as a primary weapon with a pistol as a backup. But IMO it could have easily been carried as a secondary weapon in conjunction with an M16A1 https://263i3m2dw9nnf6zqv39ktpr1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/VIEP-180800-KILLERTECH-04-1040x750.jpg Later in Vietnam we realized that the grenade launcher as a primary weapon was dumb and went with combo weapons. XM149 http://www.mooremilitaria.com/media/wysiwyg/blog/misc2-16.jpg M203 (what I carried) https://olive-drab.com/images/grenade_launcher_m203_01_700.jpg and today's M320 https://www.americanspecialops.com/images/photos/rangers/ranger-m320.jpg There are still stand alone grenade launchers that are small enough to be carried with a rifle as a primary weapon. HK69 http://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/grenade/gl08/hk69-1.jpg Stand alone M320 https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f4e54872c9e09ffb35a32dc8bd455203 And there are grenade launchers that are repeating weapons that are to bulky to allow the carry of a rifle primary. The first attempt at this was the famous China Lake https://www.newsledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/china-lake-launcher.jpg And more modern stuff like the Milkor https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pm8qcspCOyc/maxresdefault.jpg These are three different categories. Each with its own benefits/ restrictions 1. Lightweight mortar. the modern equivalent would be something along the lines of British 51mm and to a lesser extent 60mm when used in this context. Bad Weight Good Range and payload, accuracy, dead space coverage, round selection 2. Rifle mounted/ muzzle launched Bad Awkward, Range and payload smaller, Special round to launch usually, hard on barrel user and zero Good Range and payload, more round choices 2. Rifle mounted like M203 Bad Heavy and awkward when mounted to rifle, Range 400 Max payload tiny half of round occupied by fuse Good Convenient and accurate at shorter ranges. I would go stand aone if I went this route personally. ETA: The 30mm AGS-30 Round seems like it has a lot of bang for the buck |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:35:39 PM EDT
[#6]
More here also questions from a civilian who also doesn't know shit...
What's everyone else in the team/squad carrying? Is there a reasonable scenario in which the GL might be called upon for suppressive fire or engagement beyond the effective range of the rifle/lmg? I'm thinking about the possibility of the iGL being employed in lieu of a .30 cal MG or a light mortar by dismounted infantry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:38:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryWhen you got a guy who really can hit what he's aiming at...may as well give him the best tool for the job. Conventional marksmanship skills paired with skill at range estimation were what I saw really pay off with the M203 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:52:30 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More here also questions from a civilian who also doesn't know shit... What's everyone else in the team/squad carrying? Is there a reasonable scenario in which the GL might be called upon for suppressive fire or engagement beyond the effective range of the rifle/lmg? I'm thinking about the possibility of the iGL being employed in lieu of a .30 cal MG or a light mortar by dismounted infantry. Standard light infantry squad circa 1990 Squad leader M16A2 2x team leaders M16A2 2x SAW Gunners M249 2x Grenadiers M16A2/M203 2x Riflemen M16A2 The hand held GLs can not reach past the effective range of rifles and LMGs But they can do things like (in the defense) fire on defilades or (in the offense) clear a room through a window |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:55:29 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stand alone with the best man (or men) in the platoon armed with one. Everybody carries a couple of extra HE rounds for him. When you got a guy who really can hit what he's aiming at...may as well give him the best tool for the job. I'll agree with that concept of operation and add that something compact and lightweight like the Japanese knee mortar would work well in that role. Dad talked a lot about how prized the knee mortars were as battlefield pickups on Palau and in the Philippines and how it was criminal that the US had not developed something similar for small units. On Palau he got to use one and was very impressed at how it could be used as direct fire for close in targets instead of making high angle shots with US mortars to hit close in enemy positions. Dad compared the knee mortar size/weight wise to a WWII entrenching tool, so a modern version could be a manageable piece of kit that could be added or left behind/ in a vehicle needed for a mission's planning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 4:11:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Poll needs more MK18 mod 0. Coolest grenade launcher ever! https://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Photo-2.jpg It actually used the 40mm X 46 mm round vs the 40mm X 53mm round IIRC. 400 meters vs. 2000+ is not apples to apples. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 4:13:01 PM EDT
[#11]
Zero fucking chance I'm putting a grenade launcher on my rifle. I think we have (thankfully) evolved beyond that setup.
The big revolvers suck. Too big and heavy, take too long to load/reload, and overall unnecessary. M79 antiquated compared to the 320/Mk13, and I've never really messed with the China Lake. Whenever we go out, we have one guy per cell as the dedicated grenadier. Typically, he'll have a Tac Tailor 40mm belt loaded and strapped to the top of his pack and a 320 under the top flap or on the side. If we take contact and need the launcher, he'll duck into cover and prep the gun to do his thing. The belt and gun can be passed around as necessary. We had a JTAC that would rock a holstered 320 instead of a pistol on his belt This was my carry config: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 4:28:53 PM EDT
[#12]
Stand alone, but not the 320.
The LMT 40mm, red dot, and collapsing stock. Made for a compact unit, had a tango down side mount speed load and bandoleer. Worked great. Not .mil but .gov with big trucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 5:02:05 PM EDT
[#13]
Just a history nerd.
I'm attracted to a modern commando mortar like the French LGI. Rheinmetall got a 60mm down to 14lbs and Polish SOF recently adopted a 60mm that got to 10lbs using extensive use of carbon fiber. A 51mm like this I assume could be made significantly lighter than either. Since every member of the rifle squad would be carrying 2 or more mortar shells anyway, the in me wants a bullet trap added. Every rifleman a grenadier, every grenade a mortar bomb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 9:59:28 AM EDT
[#14]
iMortar brings 60mm punch down below 12 pounds.
  Failed To Load Title But going back to pure grenade launchers, I think the M79 "form factor" was damn near perfect. I'd love to see the design updated with polymer furniture, a small optic, and an auto ejector to increase RoF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 10:00:47 AM EDT
[#15]
China Lake and Milkor for the win!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 10:17:51 AM EDT
[#16]
No experience, no opinion.
I just love the idea of infantry being able to drop booms on people way over there (points). Booms, frags, smoke, fire... like a six demon bag. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 10:24:22 AM EDT
[#17]
40mm grenade launchers are way overthought for being what they are. I hate under barrel with both the 203/320 since it fucks up going prone, fucks up the balance of the gun, and makes it harder to use i tight spaces/vehicles. There's also on the fly height over bore concerns. The standalone 320 is great and extremely light without a stock. You really dont even need the stock either. Ive worn one in a belt holster or just slung it with a single point sling.
Quote HistoryQuoted: My preference is an M4/M203 which is what I carried in Afghanistan. Army Infantry. Some guys in the other platoons carried M320s as standalone weapons and I didn't see a single one with an effective solution for actually carrying it. It was always strapped to their assault pack which required them to unsling weapon, unsling bag, remove 320, load and fire. Then if they need to move they have to either pick everything up in a jumbled mess, or pack it all back up which takes too much time. Compare that to just flipping off the 203's safety and firing a grenade and then instantly going back to the rifle if needed. Lots of people complain about the weight the 203 adds but I really didn't mind. The 320 is too goddamn bulky though and doesn't gain you any practical combat advantage. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 10:28:23 AM EDT
[#18]
MK19 or GTFO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 10:32:30 AM EDT
[#19]
The japanese (and to a lesser degree the UK mills bomb) concepts where a single grenade could be used multiple ways is sort of cool. The "knee mortar" could launch their regular hand grenade with a propellant charge screwed to it.
 Does anyone have experience with the muzzleloaded Russian grenade launchers? I've handled, but not fired them, and they seem less bulky than a M203.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 10:52:24 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The japanese (and to a lesser degree the UK mills bomb) concepts where a single grenade could be used multiple ways is sort of cool. The "knee mortar" could launch their regular hand grenade with a propellant charge screwed to it. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Japanese_Type_91_50_mm_grenade.gif Does anyone have experience with the muzzleloaded Russian grenade launchers? I've handled, but not fired them, and they seem less bulky than a M203. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/VVday2015_56.jpg/1920px-VVday2015_56.jpg Ive fired one round out of one, and done post blasts on incoming VOG-25's. It has a very symmetric frag pattern and the radius is a bit larger than a comparable US HE-only round. The sights go out to 400m, but I doubt it would make it that far as it looks to have even less propellant than ours and it becomes a basic trigonometry issue. The biggest concern is i've seen rounds getting stuck in the tube before from partner forces, and there is no easy (or safe) way to get it out. Ive heard you can double strike the primer on a dud round which is not good either. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 11:06:48 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ive fired one round out of one, and done post blasts on incoming VOG-25's. It has a very symmetric frag pattern and the radius is a bit larger than a comparable US HE-only round. The sights go out to 400m, but I doubt it would make it that far as it looks to have even less propellant than ours and it becomes a basic trigonometry issue. The biggest concern is i've seen rounds getting stuck in the tube before from partner forces, and there is no easy (or safe) way to get it out. Ive heard you can double strike the primer on a dud round which is not good either. https://i.imgur.com/Vo2lzC6.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The japanese (and to a lesser degree the UK mills bomb) concepts where a single grenade could be used multiple ways is sort of cool. The "knee mortar" could launch their regular hand grenade with a propellant charge screwed to it. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/Japanese_Type_91_50_mm_grenade.gif Does anyone have experience with the muzzleloaded Russian grenade launchers? I've handled, but not fired them, and they seem less bulky than a M203. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/VVday2015_56.jpg/1920px-VVday2015_56.jpg Ive fired one round out of one, and done post blasts on incoming VOG-25's. It has a very symmetric frag pattern and the radius is a bit larger than a comparable US HE-only round. The sights go out to 400m, but I doubt it would make it that far as it looks to have even less propellant than ours and it becomes a basic trigonometry issue. The biggest concern is i've seen rounds getting stuck in the tube before from partner forces, and there is no easy (or safe) way to get it out. Ive heard you can double strike the primer on a dud round which is not good either. https://i.imgur.com/Vo2lzC6.jpg Neat. The "extractor" won't remove a dud? I would have thought that with setback/rotational arming function on the fuze, a dud wouldn't be all that big of a safety concern to extract. But then again, the grenades are probably made on vodka monday so trusting their safety features may not be ideal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 11:25:26 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Neat. The "extractor" won't remove a dud? I would have thought that with setback/rotational arming function on the fuze, a dud wouldn't be all that big of a safety concern to extract. But then again, the grenades are probably made on vodka monday so trusting their safety features may not be ideal. The issue is rounds getting stuck so the extractor wont budge them, mainly from foreign debris and moisture. Ive seen rust form inside the tubes before. The fuze isn't armed without setback and centrifugal force, but initiating the primer and propellant charge isn't a real sweet option when you are standing in front of it trying to pry the round out. I'm also not a fan of loading live rounds from the front and putting my hand in the line of ejection. Ive seen battlecarried rounds get stuck in 203's and 320's before, but you can remove it from the rear or just pull the tube off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 11:33:12 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It actually used the 40mm X 46 mm round vs the 40mm X 53mm round IIRC. 400 meters vs. 2000+ is not apples to apples. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Poll needs more MK18 mod 0. Coolest grenade launcher ever! https://www.returnofkings.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Photo-2.jpg It actually used the 40mm X 46 mm round vs the 40mm X 53mm round IIRC. 400 meters vs. 2000+ is not apples to apples. How about the HK GMG? It shoots 40x53. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 11:47:34 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The issue is rounds getting stuck so the extractor wont budge them, mainly from foreign debris and moisture. Ive seen rust form inside the tubes before. The fuze isn't armed without setback and centrifugal force, but initiating the primer and propellant charge isn't a real sweet option when you are standing in front of it trying to pry the round out. I'm also not a fan of loading live rounds from the front and putting my hand in the line of ejection. Ive seen battlecarried rounds get stuck in 203's and 320's before, but you can remove it from the rear or just pull the tube off. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Neat. The "extractor" won't remove a dud? I would have thought that with setback/rotational arming function on the fuze, a dud wouldn't be all that big of a safety concern to extract. But then again, the grenades are probably made on vodka monday so trusting their safety features may not be ideal. The issue is rounds getting stuck so the extractor wont budge them, mainly from foreign debris and moisture. Ive seen rust form inside the tubes before. The fuze isn't armed without setback and centrifugal force, but initiating the primer and propellant charge isn't a real sweet option when you are standing in front of it trying to pry the round out. I'm also not a fan of loading live rounds from the front and putting my hand in the line of ejection. Ive seen battlecarried rounds get stuck in 203's and 320's before, but you can remove it from the rear or just pull the tube off. I suppose the grenades themselves can still rust? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 11:48:00 AM EDT
[#25]
I hadn't even mentioned the Russian ones, thanks for bringing them in to the conversation
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:00:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm honestly surprised the Russians didn't chrome the hell out of the barrel to prevent rust? I can't remember what the inside looked like anymore, its been quite a while since I looked at one. I suppose the grenades themselves can still rust? I don't know if the tubes themselves are chrome lined, but I know everything isn't chrome lined. It only takes a tiny bit to seize things up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:03:45 PM EDT
[#27]
No pirate gun?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:11:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hadn't even mentioned the Russian ones, thanks for bringing them in to the conversation QLZ-87 is kind of neat in that its a true direct impingement gas system (unlike the Ar-15), but with flap locking. Sort the bastard child of an AG-42 and a DP machine gun, but sized for grenades.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:11:34 PM EDT
[#29]
I have -0- experience here but this is a cool thread. My dad was issued, as I understand it, an M79 back in the 60's. He barely avoided Vietnam due to circumstances beyond his control - the red cross pulled him out of line and sent him home as his dad was dying of cancer. Probably saved his life. But he spoke fondly of the M79.
Given the lack of quality, easy-to-use-in-a-hurry rangefinders back then, it seems to me that the usefulness of any grenade launcher would be primarily at fairly close range for lobbing grenades through windows, etc, unless you were in position to guesstimate range, shoot, adjust range estimate, shoot again, and so forth. Most humans suck at range estimating. Before the advent of modern techniques for stitching together aerial photos, you could kinda-sorta make some rough range estimations off the aerials, if you had the photos and understood how they were taken. But that was probably not of much use under the time pressure of combat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:21:31 PM EDT
[#30]
I love the idea of a short M203 under the M4, but I agree it's no great shakes -- ergodynamic and balance-wise it gets in the way. The Russian system looks nice and trim.
The M79 as a stand-alone is bulky and a pain in the ass when balancing needing grenades and suppressing or killing rifle fire. The buccaneer-style cut-down M79 looks great and briefs well, but is tough as shit to get close to what you're aiming at after 50-odd yards. All relative when talking grenades. They're not mortar bombs or tacti-nukes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:30:17 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M79 as a stand-alone is bulky and a pain in the ass when balancing needing grenades and suppressing or killing rifle fire. Some timed range testing of engaging multiple grenade and multiple rifle targets with M79X (my theoretical updated launcher) + Mk18 versus M4/M203 would be crazy fun to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:39:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I desperately want that China Lake pump grenade launcher. The Gun Jesus has a video about the attempted remake of the pump grenade launcher. I would go with the 320 or 230 setups first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:42:31 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some timed range testing of engaging multiple grenade and multiple rifle targets with M79X (my theoretical updated launcher) + Mk18 versus M4/M203 would be crazy fun to do. Imagine a world with less mental illness - I mean, specifically, democrats not voting - I can see this being the sort of thing that a nation of citizens would do for fun with the guys on Saturdays and eventually their findings would work their way into military protocol. Also, I'd think it would be simple enough to turn an M79 into a side-by-side model. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:46:55 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is there a similar weapons system that fires a LAW like projectile that is reloadable? I fired the training LAW reloadable rockets and often wondered why we could not design one that worked like the RPG system. The Marines have the SMAW which is what you're asking about. I fooled with one in the Army in Desert Shield time frame. It was interesting. As far as everyone saying the 203 is unbalanced etc. I purposely carried a 203 nearly my entire career. Prone isn't an issue because the fucking 30 round magazine is in the way, even with a 20 rounder it sticks way farther down than the GL. Bore over height, that only occurs when you're resting the 203 tube on something to stabilize. Adjust your POA, same as it ever was. It's a force multiplier to have multiples in a unit, especially in a smaller unit. The 320 standalone is a great weapon system as well but it does not eclipse the 203 in my mind, sorry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:49:22 PM EDT
[#35]
I’ve been issued the FNC+M203 and the G3+M203, and I’d prefer a stand-alone launcher for 40mm rounds.
The rifle+GL combo turns an already overweight rifle into a hambeast. The Carl Gustaf is obviously superior, though it weighs more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 12:58:23 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Also, I'd think it would be simple enough to turn an M79 into a side-by-side model. Funny you bring that up, there was a China Lake thread a while back, where I opined that while of course the pump-action launcher was bad ass, a 2-barrel O/U style M79 would have been about the same size, lighter and much simpler. And with auto ejectors and “third-moon” clips for 2 40mm rounds, I think would have given up very little in terms of RoF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 1:00:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Marines have the SMAW which is what you're asking about. I fooled with one in the Army in Desert Shield time frame. It was interesting. As far as everyone saying the 203 is unbalanced etc. I purposely carried a 203 nearly my entire career. Prone isn't an issue because the fucking 30 round magazine is in the way, even with a 20 rounder it sticks way farther down than the GL. Bore over height, that only occurs when you're resting the 203 tube on something to stabilize. Adjust your POA, same as it ever was. It's a force multiplier to have multiples in a unit, especially in a smaller unit. The 320 standalone is a great weapon system as well but it does not eclipse the 203 in my mind, sorry. I don't mind the 203, it's definitely a better mounted system than a 320, but I simply agree to disagree on usefulness versus a standalone. Prone is an issue when resting your weapon on something, like in a static position for an extended amount of time. You then have to rubberneck to see through the optic. It's really an issue anytime you are stabilizing the weapon on something, it ends up much higher than it needs to be. Honestly the range on a 40mm grenade launcher makes it fairly marginal outside of specific short range assaulting- type situations, not useful enough across the board to be lugging around under your primary weapon all the time. When you need one it's really handy, but that isn't even close to the majority of the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 1:03:12 PM EDT
[#38]
Why hasn't someone welded two M79s barrels together and built the ultimate double barrel?
For...uh...sporting purposes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 1:04:26 PM EDT
[#39]
My choice would be bullet trap rifle grenades (fire regular round to launch the grenade, not blanks).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 1:05:50 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’ve been issued the FNC+M203 and the G3+M203, and I’d prefer a stand-alone launcher for 40mm rounds. The rifle+GL combo turns an already overweight rifle into a hambeast. The Carl Gustaf is obviously superior, though it weighs more. There should be a Carl Gustaf under every Christmas tree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 1:25:18 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Stand alone with the best man (or men) in the platoon armed with one. Everybody carries a couple of extra HE rounds for him. When you got a guy who really can hit what he's aiming at...may as well give him the best tool for the job. Exactly 100% agree. I toted a M203 for 90% of my Infantry service |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 1:33:01 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryAs far as everyone saying the 203 is unbalanced etc. I purposely carried a 203 nearly my entire career. Prone isn't an issue because the fucking 30 round magazine is in the way, even with a 20 rounder it sticks way farther down than the GL. Bore over height, that only occurs when you're resting the 203 tube on something to stabilize. Adjust your POA, same as it ever was. It's a force multiplier to have multiples in a unit, especially in a smaller unit. I'm totally with you on this, based on my experiences as well with it in past assignments and deployments. I would add that the complaints about weight were never a big deal to me either- since the ammo load was always way, way more a significant weight factor (and space issue, actually) than the weapon itself. A three pound tool that does something nothing else in the platoon can? Yes, I'll happily tote that. Cut that weight in half and keep the capability, and it equates to two more rounds, changing a basic load by less than 10%. Better? Sure, just not a real game changer to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 1:36:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm totally with you on this, based on my experiences as well with it in past assignments and deployments. I would add that the complaints about weight were never a big deal to me either- since the ammo load was always way, way more a significant weight factor (and space issue, actually) than the weapon itself. A three pound tool that does something nothing else in the platoon can? Yes, I'll happily tote that. Cut that weight in half and keep the capability, and it equates to two more rounds, changing a basic load by less than 10%. Better? Sure, just not a real game changer to me. We used to call it "grunt arty". Everyone wanted one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 1:37:18 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: iMortar brings 60mm punch down below 12 pounds.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBMP1PlCXmoBut going back to pure grenade launchers, I think the M79 "form factor" was damn near perfect. I'd love to see the design updated with polymer furniture, a small optic, and an auto ejector to increase RoF.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 1:43:27 PM EDT
[#45]
I like the concept of the "ambush buster" rifle grenade. Fire the grenade then you're in the fight with your rifle. The single shot grenade launchers like the M203 and M79 were stupid, you either saddled a grunt with an extra weapon to carry or you had a limited use asset with a slow firing weapon. The rifle grenade is a lot faster to aim than the M203 or M79 (to me, anyways).
The multi-round launchers are good because you have mini-arty able to put out mult rds in a hurry. Of course, you lose a rifleman so I guess you have to determine what's mission essential. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 1:56:24 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some timed range testing of engaging multiple grenade and multiple rifle targets with M79X (my theoretical updated launcher) + Mk18 versus M4/M203 would be crazy fun to do. Would need a sharp dude in charge. Someone with a little infantry experience of their own (but not so much as to be dogmatic) understands statistics and science, serious student of both historical and modern weapons and equipment, can write a good PowerPoint, and most importantly someone with experience designing objective shooting problems like two gun. Need a good out of the way place to have it, with plenty of range space and field space. I think Camp Shelby would work. Full access to all available weapons systems, gear and ammo. Rotate line infantry squads through and test concepts like this. Someone with some stroke in the pentagon needs to contact me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 2:06:28 PM EDT
[#47]
I tried to vote 2-5 but it didnt let me.
Basically mounting grenade launchers to rifles is pretty dumb IMO, especially with the the unwieldly 320. I carried a standalone 320 in a small assault pack full of 40mm that I would also toss batteries, snacks, ammo, water, and a small poop kit into when dismounted and not carrying a larger weapon system (Carl G, 60mm mortar, Switchblade). When mounted, that bag hung on a carabiner next to a Saw can full of HE/HEDP bolted to the inside rear of my truck where I sat. I liked the 40mm enough that I built my own 203 but really and truly they just arent that worth it when it comes to actual effects on target. They are loud and scary and folks will 100 % react when splodey bullets start popping around them but you arent killing anyone with a 40mm unless it lands in their lap. The big milkors are great for truck guns that you can dump 6 rounds out of real quick for some instant "Carpetbomber 2000" action but that reload might as well be depot level maintenance when attempted under stress. Rifle Grenades have been abandoned in the US at least, and I think they actually bring a lot to the party, available with real explosive payload versus the golf ball of hate & discontent that comes in low pressure 40mm, also some of their HEAT or HEDP rounds may actually stand a chance of accidentally punching a hole in armor if you connected with it just right rather than the shiny spot a 40mm HEDP would leave. It is true, we are just hanging shit on Robots anyway but why let those metal assholes have all the fun? Also, handheld 60mm and Carl G are the real answers, possibly supplemented by the Pike missiles and switchblade UAV systems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 2:08:22 PM EDT
[#48]
Seems like the old HEDP could be improved a lot without changing the launcher.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 2:11:05 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What we need is a testing program. Let's make it a permanent office that plays "devils advocate " for all new weapons systems proposed. Would need a sharp dude in charge. Someone with a little infantry experience of their own (but not so much as to be dogmatic) understands statistics and science, serious student of both historical and modern weapons and equipment, can write a good PowerPoint, and most importantly someone with experience designing objective shooting problems like two gun. Need a good out of the way place to have it, with plenty of range space and field space. I think Camp Shelby would work. Full access to all available weapons systems, gear and ammo. Rotate line infantry squads through and test concepts like this. Someone with some stroke in the pentagon needs to contact me. I always fancied myself as a poor man's Percy Hobart, except with no military experience or engineering background. My concepts include the Bradley M2A4 Infantry Fire Support Vehicle, the AC-2 Hellhound carrier-borne mini gunship, and hanging 70mm rockets on EVERYTHING!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/8/2021 2:12:41 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know if the tubes themselves are chrome lined, but I know everything isn't chrome lined. It only takes a tiny bit to seize things up. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I'm honestly surprised the Russians didn't chrome the hell out of the barrel to prevent rust? I can't remember what the inside looked like anymore, its been quite a while since I looked at one. I suppose the grenades themselves can still rust? I don't know if the tubes themselves are chrome lined, but I know everything isn't chrome lined. It only takes a tiny bit to seize things up. Supposedly the GP-34 has an improved extraction system. Of course that's russian marketing copy, so who knows. |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
