Comments on: Semi-auto Grenade Thrower

By: Big Daddy

Big Daddy — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 03:25:54 +0000

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.

By: deffensor fortissimo

deffensor fortissimo — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:43:17 +0000

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.

By: Zandor

Zandor — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:57:28 +0000

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

By: WJS

WJS — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:04:31 +0000

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

By: Big Daddy

Big Daddy — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:08:36 +0000

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.

By: deffensor fortissimo

deffensor fortissimo — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:01:03 +0000

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?

By: Ontos

Ontos — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:07:11 +0000

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)?

By: Big Daddy

Big Daddy — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 02:10:50 +0000

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.

By: Zandor

Zandor — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:24:45 +0000

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

By: Zandor

Zandor — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:54:32 +0000

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.