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
  • 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
  • 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 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

  • 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​.the​firearm​blog​.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

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

    Today's Hottest Topics
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BREAK-BREAK: Units to Get New Camo Revealed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    Recent Comments
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      The US Military should hold annual fashion shows. The Army...
      Zandor
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
      I'd also like to point out, that soldier systems has been...
      a1189
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Has to do with traverse speed. If the target is close then the...
      Charles
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      Totally forgot about astrogation. Star maps loaded into a...
      Charles
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
      freefalling: -The Germans used beam-riding during WW2 and it...
      Charles
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
      batvette: A lot of JSF money was spent before the meltdown....
      Charles
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
      Phantom Works is Boeing is it not? I dunno what...
      Charles
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
      Senator McCain says, “ Sticks and stones may break my bones...
      Alton
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
      Jimbo thats pretty much all the british government...
      Valcan
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
      I hope so; flexible armor may save lives because...
      Marcase
    Recent Articles
    • Army Launches Examination of Armor Testing
    • New Camo Pattern on the Block
    • BAE to Market Mantis UAV to North America
    • Pinnacle’s New Armor
    • Zapping Drones from a Truck
    • Northrop Invests Own Money In Fire Scout
    • IMINT: French Fashion Mavens Model MultiCam
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • Super Cavitation and the Truth
    • Mantis Begins Search For Prey
    Recent Hot Topics
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • The Osprey has Landed
    • UPDATED: Details on Army's New Afghanistan Duds
    • Iraq Cyber Attack and the DigiSEALs
    • VTOL JSF Arrives at Pax River
    • (Proof) The Osprey Has Landed
    • Pinnacle's New Armor
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    • Grim Wanat Footage
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
  • 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