Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/16/2012 7:29:08 PM EDT
| im curious as to what made the military decide to drop the M203 and go with the M320, what does it do different? |
As someone who carried an M320 in Afghanistan, its nothing to get excited about. The safety levers had issues with breaking off the weapon during hard use, and the sights were totally ass-backward.  The Day/Night sight that came with the M320 package sucked too. It was also heavy. The only advantage the M320 has was its side-loading mechanism. Other than that, after 4 months, we threw the M320s in the connex, and stuck with our M203s. For me, and numerous other guys, M203 + leaf sight = accurate as hell, because its what we know.
|
|
M203 + leaf sight = accurate as hell, because its what we know.
Exactly. The military has the ability, and duty, to find things that work, and screw with them so bad that the common Infantry Soldier gets pissed off. I see no reason to take the M203 out of service over any other launcher. It does exactly what it is intended to do. Launch a small grenade, farther than someone could throw one... and it does it very well. The M203 will handle all present inventory 40mm grenades designed for the 40mm weapons system. The longer CS/red smoke rounds are no longer used, so the "being able to handle longer munitions" point is moot. GROG |
|
Quoted:
M203 + leaf sight = accurate as hell, because its what we know.
Exactly. The military has the ability, and duty, to find things that work, and screw with them so bad that the common Infantry Soldier gets pissed off. I see no reason to take the M203 out of service over any other launcher. It does exactly what it is intended to do. Launch a small grenade, farther than someone could throw one... and it does it very well. The M203 will handle all present inventory 40mm grenades designed for the 40mm weapons system. The longer CS/red smoke rounds are no longer used, so the "being able to handle longer munitions" point is moot. GROG they keep talking about that idea because of the non-lethal crap that companies keep coming up with, no idea why the normal 40mm rubber or foam round isn't good enough.... oh, probably cause it's old and less than $5 a round. Also on top of that the military is just sucking off H&K thinking they will eventually get something good. or the way higher-ups are playing too much Call Of Duty. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
M203 + leaf sight = accurate as hell, because its what we know.
Exactly. The military has the ability, and duty, to find things that work, and screw with them so bad that the common Infantry Soldier gets pissed off. I see no reason to take the M203 out of service over any other launcher. It does exactly what it is intended to do. Launch a small grenade, farther than someone could throw one... and it does it very well. The M203 will handle all present inventory 40mm grenades designed for the 40mm weapons system. The longer CS/red smoke rounds are no longer used, so the "being able to handle longer munitions" point is moot. GROG they keep talking about that idea because of the non-lethal crap that companies keep coming up with, no idea why the normal 40mm rubber or foam round isn't good enough.... oh, probably cause it's old and less than $5 a round. Also on top of that the military is just sucking off H&K thinking they will eventually get something good. or the way higher-ups are playing too much Call Of Duty. It sucks in COD as well. :) |
|
Quoted:
LMT also makes a standalone m203 mount. It appears to be much lighter than that knights(I assume) chassis yep thats the knights, didnt realize LMT made one for it as well. seems like that would have been a better purchase, but i guess like mentioned people love new things |
|
Quoted:
Seems to me like this woulda been easier and cheaper http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/aznriptide859/Airsoft/KAC%20M203%20Standalone%20Launcher/kacsastocka.jpg Seems over-complex and unweildy...Id rather have a M79, at least for a stand alone system. Ive had zero problems with a standard M203, although the foam baton less lethal rounds were a bit of a pain to load due to their length. HE were a non issue. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems to me like this woulda been easier and cheaper http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a1/aznriptide859/Airsoft/KAC%20M203%20Standalone%20Launcher/kacsastocka.jpg Seems over-complex and unweildy...Id rather have a M79, at least for a stand alone system. Ive had zero problems with a standard M203, although the foam baton less lethal rounds were a bit of a pain to load due to their length. HE were a non issue. they make more streamlined ones, that was just the first one i was able to locate for a stand alone system. thanks for all the input guys, i had a feeling this was just a way to get something new that doesnt offer anything over what we have |
I saw the M320 in Astan but didn't shoot them and did see some of my brother SF guys using the stand alone M203 (don't remember who made the stock). During the First Gulf War used my M203/M16A2 both effectively. Later in Iraq 03-06' choose to carry a M79 instead.
CD |
| I've heard that another advertised benefit of the M320 is that it is double action, so you can pull the trigger again if needed without the sliding the barrel forward and back thing. I have no idea how often 40 mm grenades misfire, so I don't how useful that feature actually is. |
| With reloading and testing new casing designs, sometimes I run across times this feature would help. Firing live, factory ammo from the 60s-90s, never had an occasion to have to recock the launcher. Most factory 40mm use special primers, softer than normal, to avoid misfires. GROG |
Armory Sponsor