Gun Porn!

The SA 80 A1 was used with these:

http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/3613-British-rifle-grenades-L74A1-L75A1-and-L60A1

During what I call "The Second Gulf War", seeing as it started almost immediately after the end of the "First Gulf War" between the Iraqis and the Iranians.

They were made by the French firm, Luchaire, and were bullet-trap grenades.

You mean all FAMAS models. The more NATO-compliant G1/G2 is not really in service.

What's a bullet trap grenade? I know normal rifle grenades you fix it on the end and use a special blank round to fire it off but with these I guess you don't?

Also why does the FAMAS suck so much? Is it just sheer incompetence or is it just the French being French and not wanting to play nice with the rest of NATO?

edited 15th Dec '14 5:09:00 PM by LeGarcon

Hogwash! Everyone in the US Army and Marine Corps is trained to be a grenadier. Everyone. There's little reason for a good commander to not have everyone outfitted with an underbarrel if he can get away with it.

The M203 is roughly the same cost as an M-16. The only reason why entire squads and platoons aren't equipped with 203's and 320s on everything is because A) doctrinal and B) somebody (or rather at least two somebodies) has to carry the 249/240 so they won't get an underbarrel. (And C: At least two guys in an Army squad will be packing M-14 EBR's.)

Now you say that but all I hear is that we need mount grenade launchers on machine guns and the M14

The rifle grenade simply has a catch on the base. Shoot the regular 5.56/7.62mm round and the catch catches the bullet and the resulting momentum pushes the rifle grenade forward. That Israeli-made door breacher thingy called Simon does just that.

You pretty much answered your own question.

M-14 EBR's I think in theory can mount a 203 or 320, they do have MIL-STD-1913 rails. Though that weapon is better suited to having a foregrip and bipod or gripod underneath.

The M320 has a little grip in it. That kinda works.

Not as good as a dedicated foregrip. The GP-25/30/34 series has the same drawback.

So somebody needs to make an underbarrel with a proper grip then.

I mean joking about putting grenade launchers on things that don't need them aside I can't see why nobody hasn't done that already. Seems like a good idea to me.

edited 15th Dec '14 5:18:35 PM by LeGarcon

So evidently someone doesn't think its a good idea for every guy to have a UGL.

I suspect France and Japan will also face an issue not as often encountered in the US: budget.

Yeah they're the old idiot brass who still think wars will be like Vietnam or Desert Storm.

Japan, not so much. They are building aircraft carriers err rather "helicopter destroyers" and not just for technology demonstrator purposes. Also the F-3 program mentioned in the aviation thread.

They have like the third or fourth largest military budget behind the US, Russia and I think China.

France is just being an idiot like they've been for the past 80 years.

edited 15th Dec '14 6:04:20 PM by MajorTom

Why doesn't every soldier have a M203 or M320? "Ounces equal pounds, pounds equal pain." It's heavy, not every soldier is some meathead spending all free time at the gym. I had an NCO who was a former 11B, he said that, with 210 round (7 mags), water, MRE's, AT-4, assault pack with three days of supplies, water, IOTV (w/plates), ACH and other stuff (multi-tool, lights, gloves)....

...You're reduced to walking. Many soldiers downrange had 100 pounds (50 kg) of stuff. So picking who carries what is a matter of who can move with 100-150+ pounds of stuff.

Someone gets the M240, someone gets a bunch of AT-4's etc.

^ Sounds like we need a serious review of what is considered "essentials" for infantry. Back in the 1940s it was Army regulation that a man be able to march on no more than 40 lbs of gear including his rifle and ammo. Nowadays you might carry 4x that much and yet be no more effective than your (great-)grandfather was in the European front.

Are we even thinking anymore when it comes to military gear? It appears not so much.

Why don't we get one of those little dog robot thingies that's supposed to carry stuff?

It's cute

The Army was closing the barn door long after the horse ran out: a lot of the weight was in response to the losses from OIF 1. All those IED's. Yeah, the IBA and the IOTV that replaced it are lighter than flack jackets. That ends when you add front and back plates, side plates, yoke and collar and the groin protector. Toss in the 210 rounds, rifle, water etc... Yikes!

This is one of the driving forces behind LSAT. LSAT looks to make the job of the PBI (poor bloody infantry) easier. Hopefully newer plates and soft armor will come out.

Well they were really trying to push the XM-25 as stand alone weapon systems. It is heavy and like the M79 is a dedicated platform that displaces a rifle or Carbine in its stead. The accidents didn't help it either. The system is not using a high low pressure system to boot meaning it has a bit more recoil then the 40mm UBGL. The same problem has apparently been bedeviling the XM-109 Payload rifle ie too much recoil and weight for the package.

As for rifle grenades they have their own problems. Tom already mentioned a few of the draw backs such as they are large and heavy, their ballistics are less then ideal at long range, and some use blanks and/or special adapters to fire. Some rifles don't need an adapter to fire but are not as flexible as the older versions did. The adapters had rings to help indicate how far down to seat the grenade for use at varying ranges.

While shoot through and bullet trap models exist that doesn't address the other draw backs. One of the biggest problems with rifle grenades was high recoil. Even the small 22mm American Rifle Grenade had some pretty vicious recoil. When used for long range fire they were hard to aim and usually only had enough accuracy for area targets.

Everyone I have ever talked to who has ever actually fired rifle grenades all said while kinda neat the big draw back is the recoil. The French model apparently has some rather vicious recoil.

Finally if you have a grenade on your rifle you can't shoot the rifle normally.

The one big advantage rifle grenades have they can usually pack a larger warhead that is about it.

I think every soldier should get an underbarrel launcher. Even the machine gunners. This includes any troops who operate Mark 19 launchers. We don't want to give the impression of favoritism by leaving them out.

Even those that only carry pistols and vehicle (including armoured) crew?

No, those with 9mm should fix bayonets...

They should do both

^ Last I recall reading the US Army field manual, you cannot attach an M9 bayonet to an M4 or M16 and retain a safely functional M203. The bayonet is in the way of the grenade launcher.

edited 16th Dec '14 3:18:06 PM by MajorTom

But the Russians can mount bayonets and grenades launchers together on the AN-94.

We have to close the stabby explodey gap

I suppose you could try a side-mounted version of the SKS spike bayonet. If you absolutely have to close the stabby-explody gap of course. Or why not use a giant plug-bayonet in the M203 itself? Then you can fire the bayonet at your enemies!

edited 16th Dec '14 3:53:53 PM by Achaemenid

Or get the CIA to release the AN-94s that they have acquired from their armories in Langley and just plain copy the weapon but rechamber it to 5.56mm NATO and issue that instead of the M4. Simples.