User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 7:55:35 AM EDT
Are grenade launchers like the M203 really that much better?
German signal pistol adapted to shoot grenades The Bullet-Thru™ rifle grenade 
Fabrique Nationale of Belgium, as in FN of rifle fame, makes a really unique rifle grenade called the Bullet-Thru™. With a telescoping tail, it is pulled out to make the grenade safe, not only separating the firing pin from the detonator but also separating the HE charge from the fragmentation sleeve. When fired, the bullet passes through a polycarbonate plug while retaining enough gases to launch the grenade, and as it is fired, a spring retracts the body and tail back together, arming the weapon. Range from a 7.62x51mm weapon is 400 yards. Polyvalent Grenade 
Another extremely clever rifle grenade that combines features wanted since Guadalcanal is the Polyvalent Grenade developed and manufactured by Losfeld of France. The Polyvant combines three weapons into one. It can be used as an offensive hand grenade (blast), a defensive hand grenade (fragmentation), or as an anti-personnel rifle grenade. The pieces include the explosive body, a fragmentation sleeve, and a tail assembly. The nose-mounted fuze has three settings; impact, 5-second fuze, or both. Three different tail assemblies are made to tailor the Polyvalent Grenade to the particular weapon issued. The F1 tail is intended for use with conventional grenade launching blank cartridges. The F556 is a bullet-trap style for use with 5.56mm (.223) rifles and the heavier, stouter F762 model for 7.62x51mm (.308) rifles. It was used by France and several other countries until the last 10 years or so. The listed data is for a Polyvalent fitted with the F762 tail assembly. Polyvalent Length: 14.17in (360mm) Weight: 1.14 pounds Muzzle velocity: 310 fps Range: 225 meters |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 7:58:31 AM EDT
[#1]
things like the M-79 and M-203 probably made them obsolete. I don't know what all is involved to change from firing a cartridge to a rifle grenade but I imagine its more of a hassle than slinging your rifle and picking up the M79 or reaching under the barrel of your rifle for the M203
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:00:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Those fuckers were everywhere in Bosnia when I was there (2003-2004)... seriously, throw a rock and you'd probably hit somebody that would try to sell you some.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:00:33 AM EDT
[#3]
High recoil and the bulky-ness made them less useful.
Why carry 2 rifle grenades when you can carry 6 or 8 40mm shells? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:02:07 AM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:02:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Probably easier to carry more M203 rounds than several bulkier rifle grenades.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:04:08 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know what all is involved to change from firing a cartridge to a rifle grenade but I imagine its more of a hassle than slinging your rifle and picking up the M79 or reaching under the barrel of your rifle for the M203 Bullet through grenade like I posted above solved that problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:05:37 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
High recoil and the bulky-ness made them less useful. Why carry 2 rifle grenades when you can carry 6 or 8 40mm shells? There were some pretty compact RGs like I posted above. Recoil is due to backpressue. 40mm are low pressure munitions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:07:12 AM EDT
[#8]
Some of those grenades look considerably bigger than the 40mm, but they probably also have a terrific kill radius. Do you think it is simply overkill to fire grenades that large for what is typically a close quarters weapon?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:11:20 AM EDT
[#9]
Increased recoil vs. useful payload. Not worth it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:25:32 AM EDT
[#10]
Todays infantrymen are already too heavy. Those things are huge, hence the photo with the guy carrying a pack of the grenades. Todays Marine rifle squad, has 3 team leaders/ 203 gunners. They each have 6 rounds. 4 HE, 1 lume, 1 smoke (that was the SOP for me, I granted myself 1 willy peet
 ). My last deployment, our loadout had gotten so cumbersome that everyone, including the squad leader was carrying something extra. Not 1 extra thing, but an assault pack full of stuff or a dedicated pack for a piece of equipment.
Plus try shooting that pistol piece 250 yds! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:30:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of those grenades look considerably bigger than the 40mm, but they probably also have a terrific kill radius. Do you think it is simply overkill to fire grenades that large for what is typically a close quarters weapon? The bigger ones are anti tank grenades.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 9:20:25 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Plus try shooting that pistol piece 250 yds! You gotta admit, its cool, I bet the thing worked great for MOUT. 
I could even through the potato masher warhead.
Apparently they worked really and the germans tried to produce them as fast as they could but the idea came too late in the war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 11:31:01 AM EDT
[#13]
They seem much larger that a 40mm grenade but how much of that is explosives? They look big and heavy with no easy way to carry them in volume. 40mm are small in comparison.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 11:35:51 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You gotta admit, its cool, I bet the thing worked great for MOUT. http://api.ning.com/files/IdsIk3N*SxU315DGlZM8BXMRMgz0fTUTNU27Kl0Pd1DBqnxmWdqdn4cweHCJMi6EMzte2QxozjXBvB4inzYCtg8CMaw7cGmD/sturmpistole.jpg http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/00023801vj_7-tfb.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Plus try shooting that pistol piece 250 yds! You gotta admit, its cool, I bet the thing worked great for MOUT. http://api.ning.com/files/IdsIk3N*SxU315DGlZM8BXMRMgz0fTUTNU27Kl0Pd1DBqnxmWdqdn4cweHCJMi6EMzte2QxozjXBvB4inzYCtg8CMaw7cGmD/sturmpistole.jpg http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/00023801vj_7-tfb.jpg I can't even imagine how bad the recoil must have been if the "last-ditch" Germans put a recoil pad on it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 3:58:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They seem much larger that a 40mm grenade but how much of that is explosives? They look big and heavy with no easy way to carry them in volume. 40mm are small in comparison. The big ones have shaped charges, I believe, requiring the larger size. Aren't the 40mm smokeless, flakless rounds out of service? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 4:03:09 PM EDT
[#16]
Probably kicked like a mule, but with a good recoil pad and a bag of those grenades a soldier could wreak havoc
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't even imagine how bad the recoil must have been if the "last-ditch" Germans put a recoil pad on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Plus try shooting that pistol piece 250 yds! You gotta admit, its cool, I bet the thing worked great for MOUT. http://api.ning.com/files/IdsIk3N*SxU315DGlZM8BXMRMgz0fTUTNU27Kl0Pd1DBqnxmWdqdn4cweHCJMi6EMzte2QxozjXBvB4inzYCtg8CMaw7cGmD/sturmpistole.jpg http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/00023801vj_7-tfb.jpg I can't even imagine how bad the recoil must have been if the "last-ditch" Germans put a recoil pad on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 4:08:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably easier to carry more M203 rounds than several bulkier rifle grenades. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 4:20:54 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the blank rounds used to fire them off. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Probably easier to carry more M203 rounds than several bulkier rifle grenades. Assuming you're using a RG that requires them (some are shoot through or bullet trap types that don't require special cartridges or gas cutoffs), they are usually stored in the tail of the RG; I think two may actually be carried with some RGs just in case. Some militaries alternatively issued magazines meant just for carrying the blanks, such as 10-round FAL magazines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 4:22:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Correct me if I'm wrong or sort of on track .Its about as big(bigger, I guess?) as a 60mm mortar so about the same kill radius, etc.?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 4:32:12 PM EDT
[#20]
I've seen a bunch of videos of the French fighting in Afghanistan and they use (just googled it) a rifled grenade called a APAV40 ("Anti-Personnel/Anti-Véhicule, 40mm") with the FAMAS. Looks like it has a hell of a lot of kick.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 4:42:04 PM EDT
[#21]
THEM !
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 4:46:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Recoil bordering on detaching your retina is a bad idea
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 4:52:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Part of it was the switch to 5.56. With 7.62 NATO the rifle granade concept worked better. I think that is why the US led the way with the M79 and M203.
Rifle granades had the advantage of anti-tank use. The large diameter has great potential as a HEAT warhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 4:52:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Too bad that the RAG - Ring Airfoil Grenade - didn't catch on. Stable accurate flight and targeting in a we conceived design.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 5:01:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Back in the 70s (I was about 11) in the Cargo Muchacho mountain range I found five M11A1 rifle granades. They were in a line nearly, but a number of yards apart. They are the practice version of the M9A1 HEAT warhead. Up until about 1943 they would have been fired from a 1903, since they didn't have the Garand granade launcher in service. In my late teens I foolishly threw them away.
Given the fact they appeared to be in almost a line, and there were five of them, I assume they were fired by one soldier using a 1903. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 5:18:03 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The big ones have shaped charges, I believe, requiring the larger size. Aren't the 40mm smokeless, flakless rounds out of service? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They seem much larger that a 40mm grenade but how much of that is explosives? They look big and heavy with no easy way to carry them in volume. 40mm are small in comparison. The big ones have shaped charges, I believe, requiring the larger size. Aren't the 40mm smokeless, flakless rounds out of service? Not sure what a smokeless, flakless round is? Training "chalk" rounds? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 5:24:21 PM EDT
[#27]
Some countries still use them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 6:10:58 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure what a smokeless, flakless round is? Training "chalk" rounds? http://i43.tinypic.com/13yi8fp.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They seem much larger that a 40mm grenade but how much of that is explosives? They look big and heavy with no easy way to carry them in volume. 40mm are small in comparison. The big ones have shaped charges, I believe, requiring the larger size. Aren't the 40mm smokeless, flakless rounds out of service? Not sure what a smokeless, flakless round is? Training "chalk" rounds? http://i43.tinypic.com/13yi8fp.jpg I'm pretty sure I'm remembering the name right. It's a dedicated AT 40mm round. Both it and a dedicated HE round were replaced by the DP one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 6:21:12 PM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 7:36:42 PM EDT
[#30]
Didn't the Israeli's design and make one recently that used the inertia from a 5.56 round to blast a door? I thought I saw it on extreme weapons or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 7:54:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Blank/live ammo mixups are *spectacular* from what I understand. A real crowd pleaser.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:16:23 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Rifle granades had the advantage of anti-tank use. The large diameter has great potential as a HEAT warhead. A warhead big enough to pop a cheap tank moving at a velocity that allows it to be some useful distance from the firer with some kind of decently useful trajectory. An equal and opposite reaction in the form of a rifle butt. 
Give it even more range than some little rifle cartridge can provide, and give it a clear path for backblast instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:35:42 PM EDT
[#33]
The M16 and M4 are compatible with NATO rifle grenades, right? I think they told us that in Infantry OSUT... I could be wrong though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:39:59 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The M16 and M4 are compatible with NATO rifle grenades, right? I think they told us that in Infantry OSUT... I could be wrong though. They use the NATO standard grenade spigot diametre. I'm not sure if they can be used with grenade blanks. While the AR-10 had a cutoff, I don't believe the AR-15 in any form ever did, and certainly the M-16 doesn't. I've seen some odd RG designs for the M-16 that might look odd because of what has to be done to allow their usage with the M-16. I'd imagine shoot-through and bullet trap RGs would work alright. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:42:23 PM EDT
[#35]
I've asked this question myself as there are some advantages with RGs:
*Every member of a squad or platoon can launch a grenade if need be. Increased and massed firepower. *Easier logistics. You could spread load these in your platoon and everyone can use them too. If you wanted just your designated grenadiers to have them then redistribute them at your assault position or ORP. *Once you shoot all your RGs you have nothing to carry; the M203 you are still lugging around the launcher and it becomes dead weight. Disadvantages: *Accuracy perhaps? IDK, never fired one or seen one fired. You can (and should) zero an M203 as you would a rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:46:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They use the NATO standard grenade spigot diametre. I'm not sure if they can be used with grenade blanks. While the AR-10 had a cutoff, I don't believe the AR-15 in any form ever did, and certainly the M-16 doesn't. I've seen some odd RG designs for the M-16 that might look odd because of what has to be done to allow their usage with the M-16. I'd imagine shoot-through and bullet trap RGs would work alright. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The M16 and M4 are compatible with NATO rifle grenades, right? I think they told us that in Infantry OSUT... I could be wrong though. They use the NATO standard grenade spigot diametre. I'm not sure if they can be used with grenade blanks. While the AR-10 had a cutoff, I don't believe the AR-15 in any form ever did, and certainly the M-16 doesn't. I've seen some odd RG designs for the M-16 that might look odd because of what has to be done to allow their usage with the M-16. I'd imagine shoot-through and bullet trap RGs would work alright. I suppose shoot through or trap RG's would work as well. 22mm (?) NATO spec flash hider and all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:47:51 PM EDT
[#37]
Too much stuff to do.
I like the soviet GP25/30. Shove in round. fire. Not even a shell to eject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 8:50:03 PM EDT
[#38]
does 5.56 have enough power to launch a rifle grenade far?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 9:05:07 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A warhead big enough to pop a cheap tank moving at a velocity that allows it to be some useful distance from the firer with some kind of decently useful trajectory. An equal and opposite reaction in the form of a rifle butt.
Give it even more range than some little rifle cartridge can provide, and give it a clear path for backblast instead. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Rifle granades had the advantage of anti-tank use. The large diameter has great potential as a HEAT warhead. A warhead big enough to pop a cheap tank moving at a velocity that allows it to be some useful distance from the firer with some kind of decently useful trajectory. An equal and opposite reaction in the form of a rifle butt.
Give it even more range than some little rifle cartridge can provide, and give it a clear path for backblast instead. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so this might be completely out of the outhouse but weren't the AT rifle grenades designed to be fired with the butt of the rifle in the ground and designed to explode on the thinner top armor? I never thought they were intended to be a bazooka - more like a mortar with a shaped charge warhead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 9:09:40 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so this might be completely out of the outhouse but weren't the AT rifle grenades designed to be fired with the butt of the rifle in the ground and designed to explode on the thinner top armor? I never thought they were intended to be a bazooka - more like a mortar with a shaped charge warhead. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rifle granades had the advantage of anti-tank use. The large diameter has great potential as a HEAT warhead. A warhead big enough to pop a cheap tank moving at a velocity that allows it to be some useful distance from the firer with some kind of decently useful trajectory. An equal and opposite reaction in the form of a rifle butt.
Give it even more range than some little rifle cartridge can provide, and give it a clear path for backblast instead. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so this might be completely out of the outhouse but weren't the AT rifle grenades designed to be fired with the butt of the rifle in the ground and designed to explode on the thinner top armor? I never thought they were intended to be a bazooka - more like a mortar with a shaped charge warhead. I dunno dude, I fix printers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 9:39:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so this might be completely out of the outhouse but weren't the AT rifle grenades designed to be fired with the butt of the rifle in the ground and designed to explode on the thinner top armor? I never thought they were intended to be a bazooka - more like a mortar with a shaped charge warhead. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rifle granades had the advantage of anti-tank use. The large diameter has great potential as a HEAT warhead. A warhead big enough to pop a cheap tank moving at a velocity that allows it to be some useful distance from the firer with some kind of decently useful trajectory. An equal and opposite reaction in the form of a rifle butt.
Give it even more range than some little rifle cartridge can provide, and give it a clear path for backblast instead. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so this might be completely out of the outhouse but weren't the AT rifle grenades designed to be fired with the butt of the rifle in the ground and designed to explode on the thinner top armor? I never thought they were intended to be a bazooka - more like a mortar with a shaped charge warhead. The Bazooka was actually developed to fire the M10 Rifle Grenade. It was too heavy to fire from any standard infantry weapon - even the M2 .50BMG (an idea tried out of desperation). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 9:48:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryGoddamned incredible terminal effect, thing was a trip to watch flying.....wonder if there's any youtube vids? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 9:53:46 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too much stuff to do. I like the soviet GP25/30. Shove in round. fire. Not even a shell to eject. Yeah, but I bet it's hard as hell to get an accurate shot off from inside of a dumpster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 9:56:33 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Too much stuff to do. I like the soviet GP25/30. Shove in round. fire. Not even a shell to eject. Small enough to toss under a MP5 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 10:01:08 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so this might be completely out of the outhouse but weren't the AT rifle grenades designed to be fired with the butt of the rifle in the ground and designed to explode on the thinner top armor? I never thought they were intended to be a bazooka - more like a mortar with a shaped charge warhead. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rifle granades had the advantage of anti-tank use. The large diameter has great potential as a HEAT warhead. A warhead big enough to pop a cheap tank moving at a velocity that allows it to be some useful distance from the firer with some kind of decently useful trajectory. An equal and opposite reaction in the form of a rifle butt.
Give it even more range than some little rifle cartridge can provide, and give it a clear path for backblast instead. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so this might be completely out of the outhouse but weren't the AT rifle grenades designed to be fired with the butt of the rifle in the ground and designed to explode on the thinner top armor? I never thought they were intended to be a bazooka - more like a mortar with a shaped charge warhead. Depends, I believe using 7.62x51 or stronger the amount of back pressure is too much for you to shoulder, but not so in 5.56 nato. Also if you use the bullet through rifled grenades, you can use regular ball ammo instead of blanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 10:01:15 PM EDT
[#46]
I have a m11a3 practice that my grandapa brought back from WWII
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 10:01:23 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I dunno dude, I fix printers. So do I, but i still lit off a bunch of 40mm HEDP last weekend |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 10:13:40 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depends, I believe using 7.62x51 or stronger the amount of back pressure is too much for you to shoulder, but not so in 5.56 nato. Also if you use the bullet through rifled grenades, you can use regular ball ammo instead of blanks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Rifle granades had the advantage of anti-tank use. The large diameter has great potential as a HEAT warhead. A warhead big enough to pop a cheap tank moving at a velocity that allows it to be some useful distance from the firer with some kind of decently useful trajectory. An equal and opposite reaction in the form of a rifle butt.
Give it even more range than some little rifle cartridge can provide, and give it a clear path for backblast instead. I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, so this might be completely out of the outhouse but weren't the AT rifle grenades designed to be fired with the butt of the rifle in the ground and designed to explode on the thinner top armor? I never thought they were intended to be a bazooka - more like a mortar with a shaped charge warhead. Depends, I believe using 7.62x51 or stronger the amount of back pressure is too much for you to shoulder, but not so in 5.56 nato. Also if you use the bullet through rifled grenades, you can use regular ball ammo instead of blanks. You can shoulder it and it has a decent amount of recoil (7.62 NATO). The original idea was to tuck the butt under your arm or place the butt on the ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 10:31:55 PM EDT
[#49]
As the M16 was designed from the start to fire rifle grenades without modification, I wonder why we don't develop a small light weight rifle grenade in a bullet-trap or bullet-through style that can be launched with standard service rounds. Kinda like a rifle-launched mini-frag, something small and light enough that you can pass one or two out to everybody who doesn't have an M203.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2013 10:34:31 PM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
