User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 12:52:25 PM EDT
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.  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.  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.  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  Later in Vietnam we realized that the grenade launcher as a primary weapon was dumb and went with combo weapons. XM149  M203 (what I carried)  and today's M320  There are still stand alone grenade launchers that are small enough to be carried with a rifle as a primary weapon. HK69  Stand alone M320 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  And more modern stuff like the Milkor  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 12:56:43 PM EDT
[#1]
So, from an infantry standpoint, what do you think is the best way to go?
1) Dual purpose weapon combo 2) Small stand alone GL as a secondary weapon, with a rifle normally carried in the hands 3) Larger, heavier firepower GL weapon with pistol backup 4) Back to Rifle grenades 5) What do you care, we'll be bolting it all on to robots soon enough |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 12:58:33 PM EDT
[#2]
Multi-launch capable platform...
when you need to bring the heat.... You need to turn up the oven a little. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:00:40 PM EDT
[#3]
Poll (pole) up
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:07:04 PM EDT
[#4]
Not gonna lie, the M320 is a dang handy way to roll
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:07:41 PM EDT
[#5]
M-79 here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:10:14 PM EDT
[#6]
I desperately want that China Lake pump grenade launcher.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:10:36 PM EDT
[#7]
the older WWII rifle grenades later evolved to be fired with a live round and no blanks were needed. ( cant remember if it caught the bullet or it passed thru, but i think it caught the bullet )
the m203 / m16 grenade launcher is the best variant as far as im concerned, as it gives each soldier more capability. rifle for this, grenade launcher for that, etc. vs just carrying a grenade launcher / pistol, where you have grenade capability and thats all. obviously there are certain situations where the bigger grenade launcher / multi shot might be better utilized where your going to be shooting lots of grenades at something, or where you only might need a single shot spare launcher as you wont be shooting many rounds. maybe riot control. pump shotgun with rubber shot and single shot launcher for tear gas, etc. . " did 17 years in the army as active and guard as 11bravo for half of it other half as a 19delta. i love the m203. engaging targets at 350 meters its not hard to have 3-4 rounds in the air at once before the first one even hits. pop up. boop, boop, boop, boop.... drop down.. crump, crump, crump, crump. all landed in a 5 meter circle too. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:12:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Can't believe that faggot broke the china lake nade launcher.
Should have made him pay to fix it whatever it cost |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:13:50 PM EDT
[#9]
I carried an M4 with M203 a lot in Afghanistan and stateside. Army Infantry. Never used any of the other grenade launchers listed.
I liked the M4/203 setup when it was just the launcher and leaf sight added to the M4. Rifle had optic, laser, and sometimes flashlight. Problem is that the day/night aiming capability of the more casualty producing weapon is limited that way. Once you add a day/night aiming system for the M203 (PSQ-18 i think it was?) the entire package is big, bulky, heavy, and awkward. I think I would have liked a standalone M320 with some sort of weapon catch or holster. Keep the rifle more balanced for when it's used and let you set the M320 up for maximum effectiveness when its time to sling golden eggs. Would also allow the M320 and a bandoleer to be passed off to someone else easier if the mission called for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:18:00 PM EDT
[#10]
How do the effective ranges of these systems stack up?
Is the GL intended to provide supporting fire beyond the range of a rifle, or are other weapons filling that role? Is one system notably more (or less) effective at defeating lightly armored vehicles or other hard cover? Is the intent to simply throw a frag grenade farther that is possible with the human arm, or will the weapon be required to fill other roles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:22:18 PM EDT
[#11]
I used a 203 also as an infantry troop. Peacetime. It seemed pretty cool, until you spent some time on the range with it.
You could be pretty accurate with it out to 200, but the HEDP looked pretty underwhelming unless you were very accurate. I would be watching with binos when I wasn’t on the line, and the impact might look impressive but the reality was you really needed a direct hit or hit within a couple yards to impress the target. Put one thru a window or doorway, I’m sure I wouldn’t want to be in that room. Try and use it against troops behind thick mud/rock walls or dug in, IDK. Have bullets coming your way and trying to get off a perfect single shot? IDK. I would think for a small weight gain over a 203 and ammo a lightweight 60mm mortar and a dozen rounds would be a plus. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:25:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Poll needs more MK18 mod 0.
Coolest grenade launcher ever! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:26:04 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do the effective ranges of these systems stack up? Is the GL intended to provide supporting fire beyond the range of a rifle, or are other weapons filling that role? Is one system notably more (or less) effective at defeating lightly armored vehicles or other hard cover? Is the intent to simply throw a frag grenade farther that is possible with the human arm, or will the weapon be required to fill other roles? ( the Milkor might fire the longer range high pressure 40mm) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:26:24 PM EDT
[#14]
The French have, either still or until very recently, stuck with the rifle grenade concept over a UGL or standalone GL.
IIRC they liked that a wider variety of projectiles could be employed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:26:37 PM EDT
[#15]
I carried a m203 on an m16a2 for awhile before deploying to Iraq with M4’s. Moved on from the infantry later a few years later and never carried one again.
You don’t see many ODA guys with grenade launchers mounted to their rifles anymore. Better to have a standalone system that anyone can grab off the truck and use. The m320 works great for that. Edit: From what I understand, after the Blackhawk Down incident, it was mentioned by some participants that the M203 was a standout weapon during that battle. The ability to launch grenades at a distance through windows or into dead space occupied by enemy was invaluable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:29:25 PM EDT
[#16]
The new FN EGLM is pretty cool.
The FN® MK 13 EGLM (Enhanced Grenade Launcher Module) accepts all NATO-standard 40mm low-velocity grenades. Future enhancements to the MK 13 will permit the use of enhanced medium-velocity grenades now in development, offering greater range and larger payloads. The MK 13 may be quickly mounted underneath either the FN® MK 16 or FN® MK 17, or it may be configured as a stand-alone launcher with a telescoping buttstock. The MK 13 EGLM is tested, operational, and currently deployed in harm’s way with elite units of the U.S. Armed Forces.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:30:37 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do the effective ranges of these systems stack up? Is the GL intended to provide supporting fire beyond the range of a rifle, or are other weapons filling that role? Is one system notably more (or less) effective at defeating lightly armored vehicles or other hard cover? Is the intent to simply throw a frag grenade farther that is possible with the human arm, or will the weapon be required to fill other roles? depends. the m203 can be amazingly useful, especially if your a little creative. it damn sure adds a lot of capability , drop high explosive around bad guys at 300+ meters, drop smoke on them to mark them as a target for air support, drop them thru windows, into / under vehicles, drop white phosphorous into bushes with them to blind them with smoke and set their bushes / building on fire around them to kill / force them out, tear gas for blinding them / forcing them out, parachute flares for seeing at night, etc. armored vehicles? its not going to blow a hole thru a btr60 or anything but you could damage shit / set shit on fire thats tied to the outside. the mark19 shoots a totally different round thats much more powerful, and it can punch thru light armor and its got a range of approx 2000 yards vs 400 yards of the m203. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:34:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Lightweight stand-alone for the squad, but also a few of those nice ultralight 60mm tubes at the platoon level
ETA: I could also see niche use of the China Lake. It's an amazing system and way lighter (5lbs or so) than you'd think given it's size. A modernized version with the few design flaws fixed (like the weak trigger guard holding it all together) would be great for small high-speed units. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:44:44 PM EDT
[#19]
My only experience was with M79.
Training only, no combat. USAF. I loved watching those rounds spiraling down range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:55:12 PM EDT
[#20]
So my choice is a small stand alone rig deployed with the squad/platoon.
I would say a heavy weapon at the platoon/company level, but you have the Gustaf, Javelin and 60mm that make something like the Milkor or China Lake moot One per fire team Advantages The primary weapon is less unwieldy (this looks to be a more serious issue with the 320 than the 203) It doesn't need to be carried when doing things like kicking doors (climbing through a window with a m16/m203 is a bitch) Can be swapped around between squad members more easily Can be left behind when doing various things like dog and pony shows, guard duty, show of force I bet its easier to get hits with than having the thing under your rifle Can be left behind if situation calls for other equipment- more AT4s, Gustaf, Javelin rounds (needed in a true armor heavy battlefield) overall a more flexible ability to respond to METT |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 1:55:35 PM EDT
[#21]
I like the Launcher like M320 with a separate pistol/carbine/PDW. All sorts of fun shit a grenadier can throw downrange depending on the situation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:02:42 PM EDT
[#22]
Stand alone 320.
If mounted 203 is better the 320 makes the m4 big heavy(esp front heavy) and awkward. 320 is small enough to throw in an assault pack. Or they even make a drop leg holster for it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:07:49 PM EDT
[#23]
I carried a M16A2/M203 as an 0311 in the Anbar prov. 04-05. It was my best friend. It was my life. I mastered it as I mastered my life.
I’d rather of had a stand alone grenade launcher slung over my shoulder. Clearing rooms took a special finesse with that heavy bitch. Still easier than my SAW gunner stacked with me and his full size M249. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:08:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the older WWII rifle grenades later evolved to be fired with a live round and no blanks were needed. ( cant remember if it caught the bullet or it passed thru, but i think it caught the bullet ) Both 'pass through' and 'bullet trap' types have been used by various countries, but each have their limitations. Pass through types preclude the effective use of shaped charges, and bullet traps are heavy, reducing the effective range. Rifle grenades do have some advantages, including not being limited by major diameter, and greater payload. The only (live) rifle grenades I've fired were Yugoslavian, off of a Yugo SKS. I was shocked at how far they went, and that the mechanical fuzes were sensitive enough to detonate in the canopy of the distant tree line. They could definitely fill the niche between indirect fire weapons and rifles. I've fired a lot of 40mm (HE and other), but never at ambulatory targets. Having said that, I'm all about this thing:  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:13:46 PM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:17:58 PM EDT
[#26]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:18:41 PM EDT
[#27]
I was an airborne grunt in the 82nd from '73-'77. I carried the 203 on an M16A1 for a couple of years. I loved it. 40mm goodness.
With enough practice, you could get pretty accurate with it. Also, your rate of fire improved with practice. At max range, I could have 3 rounds in the air at one time. I loved the 203.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:18:56 PM EDT
[#28]
I would make an appendix carry holster for that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:19:36 PM EDT
[#29]
Ultra Poll Fail...
MK19 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:19:54 PM EDT
[#30]
My uneducated opinion is it depends on the war.
For example fighting a peer or near peer enemy, it may be none in favor of a recoiless rifle or AT4 etc weapons that can do some of the things a GL can while also being anti armor capable. But other than that a small, lightweight standalone launcher carried in addition to a carbine by 1 or 2 squad members seems to be the best compromise between usefulness and "this is too much shit to carry." But I really don't know shit about shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:22:55 PM EDT
[#31]
I voted M203/M320
I toted a M203 on two of my deployments, and in addition to the obvious benefit of having the HEDP rounds I was well-served by the smokes and flares too- especially in the days before lots of squad-level radio comms. Target marking, signalling, etc were great added capabilities if written into unit SOPs and training. MiTT team Gadsden, back more than a few years now...  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:29:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ultra Poll Fail... MK19 You and MK18 guy both ultra post fail by not reading the first fucking sentence if the thread. I've carried a MK19 from an arms room to a vehicle. Have you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:35:00 PM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:38:20 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My uneducated opinion is it depends on the war. For example fighting a peer or near peer enemy, it may be none in favor of a recoiless rifle or AT4 etc weapons that can do some of the things a GL can while also being anti armor capable. But other than that a small, lightweight standalone launcher carried in addition to a carbine by 1 or 2 squad members seems to be the best compromise between usefulness and "this is too much shit to carry." But I really don't know shit about shit. For not knowing shit, you got me to edit my conclusions post |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:42:12 PM EDT
[#35]
I carried a 203 in peace time, 81-85. Its a jack of all trades...and master of none. It harder to be accurate with both weapons when they are attached to each other.
IMO we should re-examine the rifle grenade. They would seem to offer more flexibility. With that said I dont have any experience with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:45:34 PM EDT
[#36]
I have no experience with the 320, but have a bit with the 203 and M32.
For basic line platoons, the 203 brings a ton of options and capability in a relatively simple package. HEDP, star clusters, less lethal need rounds, and the Ammo is relatively simple to carry as well (for most of them) you just need to understand that it’s relatively anemic when it comes to actual kill radius, but is very effective at moving people around. As for it being m4 mounted, I never thought it was the end of the world. It certainly makes the rifle front heavy, and clearing rooms and general manual of arms feels different, but it’s not hugely detrimental. The M16/203 combo is atrocious tho, and I feel for you guys doing MOUT with that in Iraq. The M32 is a fuking pig. It’s cool to have six rounds in the air at a time, but with enough time on a 203, you can get 3 or so flying before the first impacts. It’s complicated ish to reload (break the gun open 45 degree, twist in one turn all six tubes, load, snap back together, and fire) It took all the good parts of the 203 and made them worse. For a defensive op. Road block, post duty, I could see it having some merit. But I don’t think I’ve ever spoken to anyone who ever humped it anywhere. Ours sat in the corner for 7 months until we turned it over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:46:40 PM EDT
[#37]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:49:48 PM EDT
[#38]
I think a handheld (all in one like a law or panzerfaust) disposable is the way to go . Imagine being able to fire one with a penflare like mechanism and aim like a roman candle .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:52:30 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can't believe that faggot broke the china lake nade launcher. Should have made him pay to fix it whatever it cost |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:53:49 PM EDT
[#40]
I'd like to here from anyone that has shot both stand alone and under-barrel GLs
Is it (noticeably) easier to get hits with the stand alone? I know it's way easier to get hits with a stand alone rifle, in anything other than prone or foxhole supported |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:55:15 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'd like to here from anyone that has shot both stand alone and under-barrel GLs Is it (noticeably) easier to get hits with the stand alone? I know it's way easier to get hits with a stand alone rifle, in anything other than prone or foxhole supported I have used both. Stand alone launchers are easy to use at the range. But I would rather have it mounted on the rifle in a combat scenario. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 2:56:21 PM EDT
[#42]
PAW-20 Inkunzi is the answer.
Mag-fed 20mm grenade rifle.  NEOPUP PAW20.wmv Best, JBR |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:04:10 PM EDT
[#43]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:05:20 PM EDT
[#44]
I'm gonna be that guy and say they all have their own niche and uses.
Picking just one is degrading your readiness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:05:49 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have used both. Stand alone launchers are easy to use at the range. But I would rather have it mounted on the rifle in a combat scenario. This. For a normal infantryman, the transition from holding a pistol grip, to holding the magazine and having rounds down range is way, way faster then getting one out of the holster, sling, pack, where ever you have it stowed. Beyond that, I can’t image having that thing strapped to your thigh for any period of time, much less moving in and out of vehicles with it there 03’s have a very wide range of tasks they need to accomplish, and an even wider range of places they might need to accomplish them. The 203 isn’t perfect, but I think it’s about as close as you can get. Personal opinions will vary, and I do think the versatility of being able to pass a 320 around, take it or not, etc, are valid. But it’s also not armorer level Work to take your 203 off and put the bottom hand guard back on to make it just an M4. You mentioned that you don’t see door kickers with them, and that’s because those special forces WIth their specialized jobs, don’t necessitate that Tool. But you can bet their QRF has GL’s and belt feds. Same reason 31’s and 41’s don’t have 203’s. Those guys have a direct job to be doing, where as 11’s are meant to be a dynamic force that can do whatever you need. Which is where the 203 becomes a multiplier with little to no down side. Unless you hang a pesq 18 off the side, then you become a liability
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:08:39 PM EDT
[#46]
I’ve never launched a Grenade but super cool thread and pictures.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:09:12 PM EDT
[#47]
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. M72 is a kick ass weapon, but is way more of a niche then launching a grenade. Rockets have a much smaller envelope of places you can shoot them, and I can carry 12 HEDP 203 rounds for your one LAW. You get one shot, I get 11 more misses. I do agree tho, if we ever see another army fighting another army war, I would like to see a resurgence in laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:09:43 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have used both. Stand alone launchers are easy to use at the range. But I would rather have it mounted on the rifle in a combat scenario. I'm trying to think of the downside of a separate weapon. Do you see any besides transition time? What is worth the somewhat degrade capabilities of both weapons? There's the problem of keeping track of two weapons cards
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:15:06 PM EDT
[#49]
Chopped down m79 pistol
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/7/2021 3:19:20 PM EDT
[#50]
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. |
|
|
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.
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File
Attached File