LMAMs are the future of warfare. Putting them at the team level is the true game changer.  Using a switchblade operationally was well worth the extremely painful 3 day course for it.

Afghanistan,  so legacy.  Supposedly some of the new ones were found in Syria but I never saw one.

A new extractor still won't ease my concern about sticking my hand until the muzzle every time I want to load or unload rounds.

The Purse swinging shitshow that was the Armenia/Azerbaijan dustup showed that to be true, if anyone was unconvinced of this fact.

i'd like a small standalone attached to something like an MP-7 for emergency use. I figure you don't need a grenade launcher enough for it to hang off your primary, but when you need a grenade launcher, sometimes you will also need a bullet hose for emergencies, and most stand alone launchers are already attached to a stock chassis, might as well make the stock chassis house a PDW with a magazine in the pistol grip.

I know this is a 203, and the grip geometry is wrong, but side pivot load instead of the shucker load.

Military weaponry are 80% solutions. This isn't like golf, where for each shot you pull out of your bag what you need for that shot. What you carry is the right weapon for most of what you meet, realizing that is may not be the best choice for every situation, but should be capable even if the less than optimal solution. For this reason, I went with the dual config 203/320 mounted on a bullet launcher.

This makes me want to buy a 37mm launcher and build one.

I have had those same thoughts, but then, I am good at thinking up news ways to make good things marginally better, the execution is the sticky part for me.

The "barrel-parallel" magazine form factor of the P90 would, IMHO, really lend itself into grafting a small pdw onto a platform for launching big explodey things.

Look at the P90:



When you remove the parts that are just there so give you something to hold onto and the ones that just get the sight where you can see it, it's a ridiculously compact design.  The actual working action fits in an "envelope" that's just a few inches in height and width.

Been reading up on some of the mac/sog adventures in Vietnam. At least several of the troops on a patrol carried m79's cut down like a sawed off shotgun or pistol like pictured on the 1st page. Since they were out of support range most of the time, these were their artillery. Secured to their harness with a carabiner and paracord and some troops had holsters made up for them. Crude but it worked for them.

Not sure how actually widespread that item was in reality, Im sure some teams were outfitted that way but it is tough to say as there was no such thing as "standardized" for that unit.  My Dad was on a 12 man (3 US, 9 indig) "Heavy team"; one of two that operated out of CCC at that time and they carried between them, 1x RPG2 (B-40), 1x shortened 60mm mortar, at least one full size M79, and at least one belt fed (RPD) in addition to a WP rifle grenade on the rifle of the point man.  If a particular mission required more ass, they would add an M60 with what they called a "deathpack" ruck frame ammo carrier and potentially more M79s.

For better or worse, I think we're reinventing the XM29 OICW here.  

I've run into cut down M79's on trips that were passed down the TPE train. It's neat, but heavier than a 320 and you can't add a stock back once you cut it off.

Depends on the situation.

In a long range situation like Afghanistan the best solution is probably a lightweight 60mm mortar with a laser rangefinder, as the larger round, descending vertically, big enough to have a prox fuse, is very effective, and your 40mm rounds may not even range. In that case a handheld stand alone weapon would be best...may not get used that much.

In an urban situation the M203 is probably better as the grenadier always has his weapon at the ready.  On the other hand, the additional weight could slow you down during CQB.  I think the M203 is better for a chaotic situation like Fallujah where you could have a 360 degree 24/7 threat.  A raid on single house, perhaps you wouldn't want the weight of an M203 in CQB and a stand alone is better. Thats a toss up.

Best way to deliver small precision HE will soon be UAVs.  I think its a platoon weapon at the moment, not squad, but I imagine future technology would change.

Sort of... but with a couple of decades-newer hardware possibilities, and slightly different role. The OICW concept made a lot of sense, but was based on late-Cold War tech, and envisioned as more of a "infantryman Swiss Army Knife" for wider issue.  What I'm envisioning is more of a way to get more HE down to the squad level, and give the grenadier a better means of self defense.  5.56 and an autoloading grenade launcher was never going to be small enough to be workable, but one of the new PDW rounds and a single-shot launcher might be.

Like I said in the poll though, I think 2 small weapons is a better way to get this done than one big one.  I do think that the little PDW rounds would allow for a better "combination weapon" than either XM29 or M4/M203, if you wanted to go that direction.

One of the biggest flaws with our 40mm grenades is that we cling to the HEDP concept, where we get shitty frag dispersion combined with the ability to penetrate a small amount of armor.  The all HE rounds are quite a bit more efficient for 99% of what 40mm's get used for.

With that said for the most part the biggest impact a 40mm provides is in signal smoke.

HE rounds




HEDP

That might be a better idea than a pistol grip magwell. Downward ejection would also make it easier to handle.

HEDP made a lot more sense in a cold war scenario.  Practical or not, it was a simple way to have something that could penetrate a BTR.

For what we've spent the last 20 years doing, regular HE would be cheaper and better.

20mm Inkunzi PAW

Door kicking with your PS90 under barrel 40mm buckshot round sounds fun. *brrrrrrt* *BOOM*

Fuck it.  Bring back side stick magazines.

Plus nothing puts heads down faster than a nice direct fire HE bomb.  Even if it doesn't kill them outright it's hard to ignore when that shit is going off near you.

We're not fighting zombies, here.

Rifle grenades would seem to offer versatility, with either shoot-through or projectile capture.  

You have HE, HEDP, frag, thermo, WP, CS, para flare, cluster, anti armor, among others I am surely forgetting.  As munitions get smarter, in theory so would these, while still offering a heavier payload.

But think of the unit versatility too.  Everyone in the platoon is a grenadier.  Everyone carries 3, or more.  This would free up the dedicated grenadier position(s) to be platoon mortarman(men) or "rocket artillery" (a phrase I am using because I cant think of position dedicated to firing rockets like the grenadier fires grenades).

Cheaper to train with, especially the shoot through or bullet capture rifle grenades.  No need for blanks.  The rifle grenades could be re-used hundreds or thousands of times.


Just a thought, from a Schmoe.  I have fired chalk rounds from an M79, thats it.

I'll preface this by saying I'm a civilian. I have handles but not shot an M203, no experience with mortars, but i like to mess around with inert rifle grenades.

When fired from an M1 garand, the range usually maxes out at about 200 yards with an M31 rifle grenade and a grenade launching cartridge. Surprisingly accurate after some practice

Using newly made rubber and aluminum rifle grenades, and coupled with M1909 blanks, performance matches true rifle grenade performance.

A 20" AR15, with the same rubber grenades and M200 blanks gets you maybe 100 yards, max. I don't know of any available grenade launching cartridges for 5.56, or how well the M16 would hold up to that

I have not seen anyone mention the old Riflemans Assault Weapon. A less clunky version of that might be a better option than traditional rifle grenades

The French, interestingly, do more than one.  They use rifle grenades, but also issue cartridge-type grenade launchers as well as knee mortars.  They also take more care to incorporate features into their weapons that facilitate grenade launching than just having a grenade spigot (like incorporating direct and indirect fire sights, grenade retaining springs, etc. into the weapon).

I think they have the right approach on that one.  Rifle grenades can make every rifleman a grenadier if needed.  Rifle grenades also can carry a larger, more effective charge.  They also do not require the launching weapon to be much more than just a normal rifle, and even the sights can be dispensed with if the grenades are issued with disposable ladder and quadrant sights, which is something some countries do.

One downside, though, is the increased bulk and weight per round, however, this is distributed throughout the squad instead of one or a couple of men carrying all of the grenades.  Some solutions include telescoping rifle grenades that fit in larger hand grenade pouches and can also double as hand grenades (Telgren is an example, IIRC).

Modern rifle grenades also do not usually require a special launching cartridge.  Most countries that continue to both purchase and use rifle grenades use bullet trap (and sometimes shoot-through) rifle grenades that are launched using a ball cartridge (AP or semi-AP type projectiles usually are not recommended for use with these; if something like M855A1 or M80A1 were standard, you might need the launching cartridges, anyways; not sure if M855 is compatible or not).  Launching cartridges are mainly just use in those countries for reusable training grenades.

The normal practice with launching cartridges is to either have a small magazine (like a ten-rounder) loaded with them, or to have one or two contained in the base of the grenade, held in place by a plug removed before loading.  

Grenade launchers and knee mortars can be carried by a couple of specialists who can provide direct or indirect fires in different forms taking advantage of the differences in capabilities offered by those weapons.

Rifle grenades have a significantly larger payload than 40mm grenades, since they are not limited by a bore diameter.

The LAW is basically a single-use, disposable RPG.

IMO they should have never done away with them. Lower prone, as mag length is no longer an issue. I think a 10 oclock mag position would be handy.

You could run a 60-100 round mag and still get very low for prone shooting and reloading with visual of the mag well. People look at me like an idiot when i say that tho.

There at least used to be dedicated frag and anti-armor rounds for 40mm.  I think the latter was called the "smokeless, flakless" round.  I suspect they were both better at their respective roles than the HEDP is at either.

Launching cartridges are made for the 5.56.  You definitely do not get the range possible with a 7.62mm rifle.

M'Lady!!!!!

Same here!!! Dear ole dad would be proud!!

I never thought about the inadequacies of HEDP. That would be an easy fix, but big army is
to dumb.

is there even a point to having one chopped that low?? can the round even turn it's revolutions?

Yep that was 1 photo I came across.

There are HE only rounds, they are just somewhat rare nowadays.  Ive had access to them on three deployments, they are a lot better for what I needed out of a 40mm grenade.

For reenacting I have an M7 Rifle Grenade Launcher for the Garand. It is inconvenient to have to eject your enbloc, reach into some pocket/pouch to find your M7, slip it onto the barrel, find and load the booster round. Most soldiers already gave up on the M15 Grenade Sights because it took too long to dial in. The M7 system works great if you are sneaking up on a target with everything ready to fire but not so much if you're in an active firefight.

That being said, without any user experience, I would expect something like the M203 seems much more efficient. You can continue to fire bullets from your weapon without having to take a lot of time to swap stuff. I don't know for sure but I assume you can load a 40mm into the launcher and still fire your bullets so you have a grenade at the ready during a firefight

Nope, wrong.  MK-19 is best 40mm

Attached File

False


MK47 FTW

I say all of the above.  Nothing better than a mix to match your threats.  I like the modern muzzle attached rifle grenades with the shoot through capability, I'm not sure why the US hasn't dabbled in those; with those everyone can be a grenadier as necessary.  You still need a designated grenadier as well with a launcher for accuracy.

Going to be really interesting to see what these “tiny drones” are going to do to IADS and small-unit antiair defense, particularly for forces like the US, which have all but abandoned that mission because they haven’t been faced with a need for it in a long, long time.

I'm not sure what you mean by "going to be".

Sorry, just piss-poor elliptical grammar.  It will be interesting to see air-defense developments as the Attack of the Drones gets more and more widespread.

You're still using future tense when you should be using past tense.  We're like 6-7 years past the physical initiation of that problem set.

I remember being asked by the BDOC of an airfield in eastern AFG if I had any shot shells I could give them for use against quadcopters.  I said no and then all of my guys spent a significant amount of time on the roof in lawn chairs with M320s full of rubber buckshot.

I see what you're getting at now.  Unfortunately, militaries in general have a pretty lousy track record of responding to changing (at the macro level anyway) to meet evolving threat conditions.

6-7 years of a threat becoming present means that our forces are at the embryonic phase (at best) of developing a proper response.

No, it's a massive multi-faceted program. You aren't solving a threat that rapidly evolves every six months with a comprehensive one shot fix, but we are billions of dollars and several years past the beginnings of solution development.

Cool.  I guess I should have said it IS interesting to watch the new air defense paradigm develop.  But I still think that most of the changes (especially the ones visible to civilians) haven't happened yet, and from the outside it's going to get MORE interesting.  

It's definitely a complex threat to counter, without an obvious development path toward a solution.

Well, unless you're in specific contracting jobs related to this i'm not sure what changes you would expect to see as a civilian.


I'm not sure how you think you would have visibility on massive FDU changes, force posture adjustments, joint/COCOM staff protection cell creations, institutional MOS training changes, CTC implementation, adoption of new doctrine and policy, etc.

Just because you didn't read about it in an 90 word online article from a military times tabloid doesn't mean it isn't happening.  Even though almost all of this has been covered significantly in those types of publications.

Just remember, if you are so sure the military is always several years behind as a civilian you are always several years behind that....if you ever even heard about it at all.

No one has mentioned this game changer: the Pike 40mm grenade launcher launched GUIDED MISSILE!





60mm guided mortar already exist too.  Ground warfare in 10 years will get really interesting.  Grunts will have one man on counter measure duty, "Flare, flare, chaff, chaff!"