New Grenade Launcher for USMC--the 320A-1

#2
Any idea as to what the reason for adopting it is? The article mentions that it can be more readily adapted into a stand alone version, but there was nothing which indicated that this had anything to do with the actual decision to change.
 
#3
Any idea as to what the reason for adopting it is? The article mentions that it can be more readily adapted into a stand alone version, but there was nothing which indicated that this had anything
Any idea as to what the reason for adopting it is? The article mentions that it can be more readily adapted into a stand alone version, but there was nothing which indicated that this had anything to do with the actual decision to change.
It has its roots in the HK stand alone launcher so I suppose that is what is meant in the article.
 
#4
Any idea as to what the reason for adopting it is? The article mentions that it can be more readily adapted into a stand alone version, but there was nothing which indicated that this had anything to do with the actual decision to change.
The M203 is ancient.
The M320 is a side loading weapon which opens up a few more options ammunition wise. It also has better sights.
 
#5
The M203 is ancient.
The M320 is a side loading weapon which opens up a few more options ammunition wise. It also has better sights.
The sights are pants! Ladder sights are better than the over-engineered over-priced optical shite that's being dished out to sit on armoury shelves.
 
#9
The sights are pants! Ladder sights are better than the over-engineered over-priced optical shite that's being dished out to sit on armoury shelves.
They were trialed here as part of our Steyr replacement in 2015ish as well as other incl FN, Colt Canada, CZ. Funny thing was after a bit of firing even the Navy and Air Force who'd never touched a 40mm launcher were maintaining higher accuracy and rates of fire with the launchers based on the M-203 with the basic leaf sights than any of the other launchers with optical or more elaborate sighting systems. The H&K is more like a stand alone pretending to be an underslung launcher.
 
#10
The M203 is ancient.
The M320 is a side loading weapon which opens up a few more options ammunition wise. It also has better sights.
Looks like a AG36 with a forward mounted pistol grip and a shorter barrel, which I believe is what the M320 is.
 
#13
#14
The obvious difference AIUI is that the new M320 is side-loading, and allows the use of longer-profile 40mm rounds than the M203.
That was a bigger issue when the original M-203's had a shorter slide but most now have a longer one which allows the vast majority of 40mm rounds on the market. From memory working with US units some of theirs still appeared to have the shorter slide. Things like the Pike will likely never go on wide spread issue to combat units and more likely fired out of purpose designed stand alone launchers, not to mention the added required sighting and targeting equipment that it would need.
I in general have dislike of stand alone 40mm launchers (single shot) in anything apart from the Less Lethal role. Having carried an M-79 sometime back and then eventually getting getting M-203's for our Steyr's they were a godsend especially in the jungle or operating off vehicles. One of my pet hates is "Handbagging" weapons like the guy in the below video. From about 2:11 you get an idea of what handbagging is with the M320 vs the other grenadier in the video with it under slung
 
#16
Agreed. It's absolutely gopping under a M4 on Ghost Recon: Wild lands.
Heh. Real operators use a HTI uber gun and a MG121. You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling. :D
I mean, it's not as if I don't know how to properly use ANY underbarrel grenade launchers in that game, even if I don't. So there.
 
#17
That was a bigger issue when the original M-203's had a shorter slide but most now have a longer one which allows the vast majority of 40mm rounds on the market. From memory working with US units some of theirs still appeared to have the shorter slide. Things like the Pike will likely never go on wide spread issue to combat units and more likely fired out of purpose designed stand alone launchers, not to mention the added required sighting and targeting equipment that it would need.
I in general have dislike of stand alone 40mm launchers (single shot) in anything apart from the Less Lethal role. Having carried an M-79 sometime back and then eventually getting getting M-203's for our Steyr's they were a godsend especially in the jungle or operating off vehicles. One of my pet hates is "Handbagging" weapons like the guy in the below video. From about 2:11 you get an idea of what handbagging is with the M320 vs the other grenadier in the video with it under slung
It just looks like a miserable way to beat up your kidneys and ribs.
 
#18
What's this trooper have under his rifle at 5:10? It looks like it could be a stubby M203 but it could also be a light mounted on a rail. :?
 
#20
Heh. Real operators use a HTI uber gun and a MG121. You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling. :D
I mean, it's not as if I don't know how to properly use ANY underbarrel grenade launchers in that game, even if I don't. So there.
I'd use the HTI if only Ubisoft would add some bipods to the game!
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top