AR Sponsor
Posted: 8/17/2010 5:27:58 AM EDT
|
1-How widely were they used, not necessarily launching grenades, but just installed on rifles?
2-Were they used on 602s, or just 601s? 3-Where does the split washer go, between the FH and the spring, or between the spring and the BBL? Couldn't find any info on this topic in TBR... 
|
|
Quoted:
1-How widely were they used, not necessarily launching grenades, but just installed on rifles? 2-Were they used on 602s, or just 601s? 3-Where does the split washer go, between the FH and the spring, or between the spring and the BBL? Couldn't find any info on this topic in TBR... answer to #3 
|
|
Quoted:
Sarco had them too, for like $1.50 year before last. Still got 'em. http://e-sarcoinc.com/m16grenadetensionband.aspx but the price went up quite a bit. |
The grenade springs were actually an item designed for a specific grenade, the Mecar 75mm mfg in Belgium, it was actually a stabilizer as the Mecar or Energa grenade as it's known was long & heavy in the front, they saw very little use w/the M16 series as by the time the rifles were in service the use of rifle grenades was not common in the US Army, they had been replaced by the M79 grnade launcher, the XM148 which led to the M203 & the M72 rocket. That being said the AR15 had originally been designed w/grenade launching capability as part of it's design, the FH served as a base for the grenade (rifle) & generally most of the rifle grenades in use w/the Army at the time did not require a stabilizer if fired w/the AR15/M16. The 601's had clip on grenade sights that appear to have been part of the "rifle package" as delivered to the AirForce at least in the original contracts, these sights are marked Energa right on the sight so the "intent" &/or capability to use these grenades was definitely part of the M16 but they most probably saw very little if any actual use w/them, the "springs" or stabilizers fit in the same, they were in inventory & the capability for their use was there but apparently saw vey little if any use w/the US military. The Mecar (Energa) series grenades, the sight for them & the stabilizer could have been used on any M16 variant (at least rifles) as they'll fit onto any up to the M16A4 but from our "collector" view they'd be most applicable to the 601, 602, & early 604 & XM16E1. That said, they do make an impressive display for a collection!
|
| VAAR, thanks, yes it's mine, the pics & a link to the album have been posted before, it's my 601 replica that I built, the grenade sight I got quite awhile ago on an auction, big $!, the grenade is an inert US trainer of the Mecar/Energa anti-tank grenade the springs/stabilizers were supposed to be used with, I got the grenade from Bill Ricca, the bipod is a Colt marked one, still "desperately" seeking a Colt/Armalite marked bipod for the 601! |
|
Not only that rifle grenade, but also any rifle grenade in our system in the mid-sixties.
One other item. I have it or heard from somebody who knows and is a Marine, that the Marines are trying to get there rifle grenades back? Anybody have anything on this? Besides, rifle grenades have a fairly large kill zone when compared to the M203. More bang for the buck. You can tell that I am "Pro rifle grenades" and am totally not into the 40mm round of any kind. |
|
I wonder what kind of range that Energa grenade would have had off of an M-16?
I think they phased out with the rest of the anti-tank rifle grenades due to short range and poor performance against modern armor. The concept goes back to WW2 at least with the German Schiessbecher and related series of grenades, but I'm not sure how useful they were even then. I understand the move to the M203/M79 type systems as it's probably better at firing grenades over a longer distance when you consider that the launching platform now is a 5.56mm rifle rather than a 7.62x51, 7.92x57, .30-06 etc type rifle. Also, at the time, I think that grenade launching typically required ejecting a live round if one was chambered, chambering a blank round, possibly flipping a gas system switch, firing the rifle grenade, and then flipping the switch back and re chambering live ammunition when finished...Rather more complex compared to simply switching over to a dedicated launcher. However, as the M-16 was designed from the ground up to fire rifle grenades without any special adaptations or switch flipping, I do not understand why we don't procure bullet-trap style grenades for issue to every rifleman who isn't lugging an M203. If cost was not an issue, I would specify streamlined "Arrow" shape grenades (Similar to the Yugoslav/Serbian ones), and if cost were an issue I would specify rifle grenade adapters (Like the WW2 ones) for the current issue grenades. Either way it doesn't seem to be much harder than throwing a modern hand grenade...Slip it on the muzzle, pull the pin, fire the grenade. A bullet-trap grenade could be fired with standard ball ammunition from an unmodified M-16, and any time you needed to launch one or two grenades "Right Now!" you wouldn't have to call the M203 up. |
AR Sponsor