DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech examines the intersection of technology and defense from every angle and provides analysis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Af-Cam
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Crazy Ivan
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Bubble with Joe Buff
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • PEO Soldier
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Guns » Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower

Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower

So, while we’re waiting around for the XM-​​25 to make it into the armory, why not just strap this bad boy onto your M4 and rip out the 40 mike-​​mike?

Hope you all have a ‘blast’ this weekend…

– Christian

Share |

November 6th, 2009 | Guns | 492541 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2009/11/06/semi-auto-grenade-thrower/Semi-auto+Grenade+Thrower2009-11-06+21%3A52%3A41christian You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up | What 60 Minutes Got Right (Thanks to Us) » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Valcan says:
    November 6, 2009 at 10:41 pm

    OOOOOO i want i want!!

    Reply
  2. Anthony says:
    November 7, 2009 at 4:03 am

    i bought stock in this company back in 2006 and it kinda went downhill, but they have a great technology and have all the weapons and ammunition ready to go into production. Take a look at their Redback defense system, the robotic sentry turrent equipped with 4x4GL’s … thats 16 grenades per turrent . Go to to their website and check out their work on anti-​​rpg defenses. After future weapons showed them on Discovery, MetalStorm has yet to hit the main stream media again. WHY ?? A 3 shot grenade launcher bring a huge firepower advantage. Metal Storm is a great company, keep you eyes on them!

    Reply
  3. Anon says:
    November 7, 2009 at 4:49 am

    To bad the only likely buyer of this type of weaponry does not like to buy from foreign company’s.

    Reply
  4. Steve says:
    November 7, 2009 at 5:50 am

    I discussed it with one of the MetalStorm’s armorers. It is a very cool device. I also posted photos of the new bullpup model:

    http://​www​.thefirearmblog​.com/​b​l​o​g​/​2​0​0​9​/​1​0​/​0​2​/​met...

    Reply
  5. DC2 Jennings says:
    November 7, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    something about stacking 40mm grenades behind each other that makes me cringe.

    DC2

    Reply
  6. TheBoogyMan says:
    November 7, 2009 at 4:12 pm

    These guys seem to have had the right idea for a while, without knowing where to put that idea.

    So many good uses to this tech, but we have still been left without a usable product.

    I wonder why they cant get something to market that will usher in the rest of the tech on the basis of that success… it feels like a long time we have been talking about them, even before future weapons i was keeping a eye on what they were doing.

    Reply
  7. Zandor says:
    November 8, 2009 at 2:07 am

    It is quite an experience to see fat bellied old men shooting ” Pseudo” macho weapons, while someone takes their picture.____This photo is another joke!____This Heroically black shirt clad lard assed hero fart phonies posing as exp____Failure.____Total Failure.____________

    Reply
    • bdwilcox says:
      November 8, 2009 at 3:43 am

      Zandor,

      Don’t you have to go play in traffic or play bobbing for french-​​fries now?

      Reply
    • Brandon says:
      November 9, 2009 at 4:58 pm

      Do you hate everything that has ever existed? seems like it.

      Reply
      • ProjectThor says:
        November 9, 2009 at 6:13 pm

        TROLL! Gots to luv dem Trolls… all balls & bullshit when sitting behind a keyboard.

        Reply
  8. Zandor says:
    November 8, 2009 at 4:57 am

    I sure as hell don’t need to have someone take pictures of me dressed up in a black shirt pretending to shoot a macho killer weapon.

    This pathetic dork, just might qualify to be the Defense Tech Hero of the week.

    A ” Macho ” puss gutted old man, poising with a ridiculous M-​​16 replica plastic squirt gun.

    And all the ” tech” experts on this super site swallow it.

    Hook, line, and sinker.

    Just like dogs at an unattended meat counter.

    It is fun to look at the photo shop hoaxes that pass across the net.

    This is however, one of the best sites for that, primarily because almost everyone here thinks that the pictures are genuine.

    Reply
    • a1189 says:
      November 8, 2009 at 6:10 am

      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do comment a lot on these stories.

      And it IS a member of the company that’s developing a weapon. God forbid they ever actually shoot the system they’re designing. And god forbid a 40 year old engineer would have a bit of a beer gut.

      Reply
    • DualityOfMan says:
      November 8, 2009 at 9:07 am

      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher firing. I don’t see any squirt guns.

      Also, it’s not a ‘picture.’

      Reply
  9. WJS says:
    November 8, 2009 at 5:51 am

    So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-​​16? You’ll have to clarify on your ranting.

    Reply
    • Zandor says:
      November 8, 2009 at 6:40 am

      No.

      I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax.

      I carried an xm 203 on my Car 15 for a long time.

      And, I fired it more often than I wanted to.

      How about you, did you ever fire anything off, other than your keyboard?

      Reply
    • Zandor says:
      November 8, 2009 at 4:08 pm

      What I am saying is that there is something wrong with the picture

      Please just look at the picture for a few moments. The picture has been worked on.

      Are the barrels in alignment with the receiver?

      Also during the exciting video, we see the shooter being moved by the recoil of a 5.56mm round.

      Then we see someone shooting the 40mm at a turkey silloutte target, however we don’t see an explosion.

      Reply
      • fabianw says:
        November 8, 2009 at 4:49 pm

        Even the most basic redneck could work out they used dummy grenades in the video. Congrats on your gun history, pity you don’t appear to have the common sense to go along with it.

        Reply
  10. Big Daddy says:
    November 8, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    OK I see these guys on every forum. Sports forums especially. It’s obvious this guy Zandor was never in the service of any country and never fired a military weapon if any at all.

    Ignore him.

    To fire HE grenades requires a lot of government okay both local and federal and inspectors if done in the USA. Those are dummy rounds.….duh.

    Reply
  11. Txzen says:
    November 8, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    I wonder how much the fire characteristics change as more and more barrel is available every time you fire off one round in the stack. Plus weight is that huge issue for soldiers and now you have a marksman using his m16 with 2 more 40mm rounds under the barrel.

    Good things thought is that it looks easy to zero in on a target and could fix the problem with the ml32 that I saw a marine complaining that it was hard to aim compared to his 203. (in a video of a firefight.)

    Reply
  12. awrobocop@yahoo.com says:
    November 8, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    Not buying it.
    One of the advantages of the M203 is your ability to transition between rounds. Don’t need H.E.D.P? Load up a smoke. Doing room clearing? put in buckshot. The problem with this is when you have 3 rounds stacked on top of each other, if your situation changes, you have to take out all three rounds, put them up and slide the fresh set in. That takes up whatever time you might have gained by having three shots ready to go. At least with the XM25 you could color code the magazines or something.
    I’m not going to comment on whether i consider Metalstorm is the wave of the future, my words have a tendency to come back and bite me in the butt on on these sort of things. But i’m with Zandor in agreeing this aint it.
    Also if those were training rounds we’d see a thick mist of orange on the firing range where they were landing. They’d probably be blue also, but the fact these are custom rounds could account for that.

    Reply
  13. Max says:
    November 9, 2009 at 2:17 am

    I didn’t see any explosions, so where is the “firepower”? I realize they were probably using inert rounds for safety, but it would have been a lot more meaningful to see and hear some explosions and destruction.

    Reply
    • a123 says:
      November 9, 2009 at 2:24 am

      using actual explosives can be expensive. And its beside the point. We know that the actual 40mm grenades work. The technology is all about the ignition system.

      Reply
  14. Ptsfp says:
    November 9, 2009 at 2:49 am

    I agree that you would be restricted with swapping grenade types, and limited with rounds you could fire.

    But, I like the metalstorm idea more as an area control/​ defense system. Kinda like a claymore on steroids. A millions rounds a minute rate of fire can really ruin someones day…

    Reply
    • Vstress says:
      November 9, 2009 at 7:38 am

      Yeah, I agree with a few above… I think the metal storm concept is good only in a defensive or area control system.

      It’s good as an option instead of say a recoiless rifle, otherwise it’s pointless.

      Why would anybody want to fire 3 grenades at once???

      If you want to take down a brick out-​​house, use a rocket propelled device (i.e. a SMAW).

      If you want to create a smaller explosion, use an M203.

      This seems to be a weapon with no real application, just sheer impressiveness with the rate of fire.

      As always from metal storm… nice idea… just a tad pointless! Plus, adding electronic wiring into a barrel does not bode well for a lengthy in-​​service life. Also… I always wonder what happens if there is a jam… barrel explosion? Or does the breech enter the users shoulder?

      Reply
      • Ptsfp says:
        November 9, 2009 at 12:50 pm

        On their bullet based unit, Metal storm claims that if their is a missfire, the next round will just push the round in front of it out.

        Would it work the same way with the grenade launcher? Or, does the tube become a glorified pipe bomb?

        Reply
  15. WJS says:
    November 9, 2009 at 3:57 am

    Whoa nelly. Ya got me there boy howdy. I guess I’m in good company what with the keyboard firing and all.

    Reply
  16. WJS says:
    November 9, 2009 at 4:33 am

    Let’s see. The M203 was brought on line in 1969 and fitted to the M16a1 and then the a2. The only launcher that could be or was fitted to the CAR-​​15 was the XM148 which looks nothing like the 203 and it was experimental and used for only a couple years until the 203 came around and then see above. Now the 203 could be fitted with the M4 but the m4 wasn’t introduced until around 1994. The Car-​​15 and the M4 are not the same weapon. Oopsie. Dontcha just hate facts Mr. Trollenstien?

    Reply
    • Zandor says:
      November 10, 2009 at 8:54 pm

      Dear WJS;

      The XM 203 most certainly was fitted to to the Car 15, the XM 148 was also used, but gave way to the XM203, as the Xm203 was easier to use.

      I had people on my team that carried XM 203s on their Car 15s in1971.

      Reply
  17. Coolhand77 says:
    November 9, 2009 at 3:00 pm

    Why use “practice” rounds instead of live HE? Hmm, lets see, these guys are a civvy company. According to BATF regulations EACH ROUND OF HE or other offensive munition is considered a destructive device, and is assesed appropriate paperwork and $200 tax stamp on top of the expense of the ammo itself. OF COURSE THEY USED DUMMY ROUNDS! Come on guys, till they get a DOD contract for the ammo, the hoops they have to jump through and the cost invovled is very prohibative.

    Oh and every time you touch off an explosive round, you have to fill out a form to and let the BATF know the round was detonated/destroyed…and if there is any paperwork foul-​​up or any of those rounds go missing, you are VERY screwed.

    Reply
  18. Coolhand77 says:
    November 10, 2009 at 2:49 pm

    Anybody see the MAUL shotgun attachment?
    I’d say thats perfect for door breacher ops.
    And you don’t have the issues with explosive projectiles unless you use explosive slugs.

    Reply
  19. defensor fortissimo says:
    November 10, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    easy there coolhand, xandor never said anything about them using HE, that was Big Daddy. As for awrobocop, he merely was asking why the “training rounds” involved left no trace on the range whatsoever. And its a valid question, why would a weapons company that is sporting its new “revolutionary” toy, leave no signature on the range whatsoever, when one of the most important factors of any weapon is accuracy? Where is the mist of cheeto like dust that goes with the 40 mike mike training round of the 203? Something is fishy with this video, even if the technolgy behind it is sound.

    Reply
  20. Big Daddy says:
    November 10, 2009 at 8:52 pm

    Is that you Zandor, are you posting under another name. That would follow the profile of a troll like Zandor who after disrespecting me disappeared when it was shown that he was in no way knowledgeable about what he spoke.

    Reply
  21. Zandor says:
    November 10, 2009 at 10:24 pm

    Dear WJS;

    For your edification, I provide the following information.

    In the book. SOG, A Photo History of the Secret Wars.

    By John L. Plaster

    ISBN 1–58160-058–5

    Paladin Press
    Box 1307
    Boulder, CO

    On page 139 you can read about the XM 203s being attached to Car 15s.

    On pages 254 and 255 you will see pictures of XM 203s fitted to Car 15s.

    On the back of the book’s dust cover is another picture of a XM 203 fitted to a Car 15.

    I hope this helps clarify things for you.

    Sincerely,

    Zandor

    Reply
  22. Big Daddy says:
    November 11, 2009 at 2:10 am

    Hey Zandor did you ever fire one or even hold one, or have to carry one for 10–15 miles with about 100 pounds of gear?.…LMAO.

    Reply
  23. Ontos says:
    November 11, 2009 at 4:07 am

    How HEAVY is this thing? I mean, 40 mike mike is heavy in an of itself, and I never really cared for how a 203 would throw off the balance of an M-​​16 to begin with.

    Also… If 40mm rounds are essentially stacked one on top of each other in the barrel, you must be dealing with some sort of caseless round, right? What happens if the spare barrels you’re humping around get hit by hot frags? I just want to know if I would be carting around something prone to an AD, or sympathetic detonation.

    How about ballistics? Assuming that your dealing with the same powder charge, wouldn’t the trajectory of the second and third rounds be slightly different from the first due to the longer effective barrel length? You could compensate with different powder charges between stages… but has this been done?

    Are the barrels expendable like an old LAW tube, or do you haul them back to reload? Can you reload them yourself or is it a depot-​​level job (ie, are these things getting trucked back to battalion)?

    Reply
  24. deffensor fortissimo says:
    November 11, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    no, i am not zandor, i did post previously on here under my email address, but that is a brain fart on my part, sorry about that.
    Also, i went ahead and looked up Metal storm in Wikipedia and it pretty much confirms the conclusion we already came to that the rounds are nonexplosive. It’s possible that the writers on the site are being fed the same bowl of crap we are, but it seems more likely to me now that this video is showing the weapon in it’s conceptual stages. I’m still not sure why they wouldn’t show anything about the weapons accurracy by having the rounds mark the ground–signs that Ontos is onto something about the ballistics, perhaps?

    Reply
  25. Big Daddy says:
    November 11, 2009 at 11:08 pm

    Sorry DF. The M-​​203 is heavy, it’s front heavy and nobody wanted to carry it. Having 3 rounds inside will make it a terrible weapon in real war scenarios. The new M-​​320 looks like exactly what we need(the best looking 40mm single shot out there) as does the M-​​32. One weapon overlaps the other and that is the best way to design any weapons system. The Russians were always good at that, look at their ships, artillery and so on.

    Metal storm might have a use, especially with with remotely operated platforms. But not as a weapon to be carried by an infantrymen.

    Reply
  26. WJS says:
    November 12, 2009 at 3:04 am

    As long as we know where you got your information from. Thanks. :P

    Reply
  27. Zandor says:
    November 12, 2009 at 5:57 am

    Dear WJS;

    I didn’t get my information from the book.

    I used the source to confirm what I had written in an earlier post about having had first hand experience with XM 203s attached to a Car 15s.

    Zandor

    Reply
  28. deffensor fortissimo says:
    November 12, 2009 at 6:43 pm

    No harm no foul, big daddy. Since I’ve only shot cheeto rounds out of the M203, I don’t know about how it compares to the new launchers. I do know that when you compared it’s weight to the 249 and 240 bravo, none of the grenadiers on my tech school team were complaining. Also,for clarification from what i saw of the 320 on online articles, it was shorter than the 203, but also slightly heavier, it’s main advantages being quick loading by the breach opening at the side, not unlike FN’s EGLM, and being able to act as a stand alone.

    Reply
  29. Big Daddy says:
    November 13, 2009 at 3:25 am

    The troops like the M320, they say it’s so much more accurate than the m203. First hit probability is high. In other words there is a tactical difference between the 2 weapons. The M203 is more of a let them know they are under fire causing them to move or keep their heads down, that allows a detachment to move in on their position. The M320 has the ability to hit those troops with the first round fired making it a much more lethal and effective offensive weapon.

    It takes a lot of practice to launch one of those 40mm grenades through a window or into a specific place. The new sighting system allows you a much better chance with less training.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Hot Topics
    • Classified Bomber Under Consideration
    • Naval Academy Flight Evals
    • New Army Camo First Shots and New Brit Pattern
    • Ivan to Launch Asteroid Destroyer
    • MultiCam Sighting
    • UPDATED (The Whole Story): Army to Field New Pack for Afghan Ops
    • New Year's Eve in Afghanistan
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • Interstate Rivalry in Carrier Battle Revived
    • Son of FCS Passes Major Test
    Recent Comments
    • Gimme Some Skin!
      Sad!
      Pete
    • Gimme Some Skin!
      This is a fine defensive concept that will surely find its niche in the US...
      Zandor
    • Interstate Rivalry in Carrier Battle Revived
      I wouldn't expect Senator Webb to put the...
      tjwelsh
    • Gimme Some Skin!
      Monte Banc I have one, the one with a diamond on top and as for your...
      Jamie Mqquire
    • Gimme Some Skin!
      Dear Christian: Spellcheck is your friend, you should use it.
      OrangePlus
    • Gimme Some Skin!
      and if you happen to be like me and are constantly loosing...
      defensor fortissimo
    • Gimme Some Skin!
      I, for one, lie the concept, although I think it is a bit too overt. I carry...
      Matt
    • Gimme Some Skin!
      …but…it HAS a "point"…;-)
      clowe
    • Gimme Some Skin!
      So if i thrust a normal everyday pen deep into someones insides, say...
      JimboJones
    • Interstate Rivalry in Carrier Battle Revived
      Webb has proved completey willing to vote yes on...
      Con
    Recent Articles
    • Banging Trons in The Stan
    • Gimme Some Skin!
    • Interstate Rivalry in Carrier Battle Revived
    • The Time for Preemptive Cyber Strikes Has Come
    • New Year’s Eve in Afghanistan
    • Ivan to Launch Asteroid Destroyer
    • How Was Your First Firefight?
    • Classified Bomber Under Consideration
    • Son of FCS Passes Major Test
    • Camo Delays and Assessment Team Gouge
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage