Rifle grenades

#1
Why have rifle grenades fallen out of popularity in modern arsenals?

Their main disadvantage over 40mm grenades is that they have poorer accuracy, but surely RGs could replace hand grenades carried by soldiers, whilst retaining the option of also carrying dedicated 40mm grenade launchers? As RGs don't have spent casings compared to 40mm grenades, they should also be lighter for the infantryman (i.e. better explosive payload:encumbrance ratio)

There are already RGs out there that don't need a blank to fire based on the 'bullet trap' system, e.g. the Israeli "Simon" door breach grenade. So it shouldn't be an issue that soldiers need to fiddle with blank cartridges to fire their RGs.
 
#2
Don't use the Simon as an example, it's a shocking item, inherently unsafe and was only accepted for use in Iraq. I, and many other Ammo Techs, hate the things.

Rifle Grenades are larger and more cumbersome than 40mm grenades. Essentially it is down to user requirements, the user in this case prefers 40mm grenades to RGs. Hand grenades will always be required for fighting in the urban environment.
 
#3
Boffin.

You have a string of really strange topics, what sort of information are you fishing for with all these really random questions?

We don't need Rifle grenades as the UGL does the job so much easier ever so slightly more accurate.

And our RG worked on the bullet trap system?
Don't have spent cases but have a dirty great chunk of metal with the fins?
 
#4
Interesting. What was wrong with the Simon RG? Was it a matter of the bullet overpenetrating the bullet trap, the thing liable to blow up accidentally or something else?

Yeah, I can see how there would be times in an urban environment when neither a RG or 40mm are suitable, and hand grenades retain their niche.
 
#5
Boffin.

Your have a string of really strange topics, what sort of information are you fishing for with all these reallly random questions?

We don't need Rifle grenades as the UGL does the job so much easier everso slightly more accurate.

And our RG worked on the bullet trap system?
Don't have spent cases but have a dirty great chunk of metal with the fins?
Hes trying to invent weapons systems to fill imaginary gaps in capability that hes identifying from asking on here. In a nutshell.
 
#6
Why have rifle grenades fallen out of popularity in modern arsenals?

Their main disadvantage over 40mm grenades is that they have poorer accuracy, but surely RGs could replace hand grenades carried by soldiers, whilst retaining the option of also carrying dedicated 40mm grenade launchers? As RGs don't have spent casings compared to 40mm grenades, they should also be lighter for the infantryman (i.e. better explosive payload:encumbrance ratio)

There are already RGs out there that don't need a blank to fire based on the 'bullet trap' system, e.g. the Israeli "Simon" door breach grenade. So it shouldn't be an issue that soldiers need to fiddle with blank cartridges to fire their RGs.
A rifle grenade can't be thrown around a corner, a hand grenade can!

A grenade launcher (eg M203) means you can very quickly switch between firing a grenade out to 150 metres and taking on an enemy that is 1 metre away!
 
#9
Your have a string of really strange topics, what sort of information are you fishing for with all these reallly random questions?
Anything you guys can talk about to a member of the public with a fascination in military technology; past present and future.

And our RG worked on the bullet trap system?
Don't have spent cases but have a dirty great chunk of metal with the fins?
I didn't understand that at all.

Hes trying to invent weapons systems to fill imaginary gaps in capability that hes identifying from asking on here. In a nutshell.
Close, but some of my reasons are to:
1) Figure out how the end user thinks and what they deem to be good weapons/armour/etc. technologies.
2) Learn about the practicalities of various existing weapons/armour/etc. technologies...perspectives which are hard to get without actual soldiering experience.
3) Filter out ideas which may not be appropriate for various reasons, e.g. too much overlap with existing tech.
4) Network with people I would not otherwise meet.
 
#10
Close, but some of my reasons are to:
1) Figure out how the end user thinks and what they deem to be good weapons/armour/etc. technologies.
2) Learn about the practicalities of various existing weapons/armour/etc. technologies...perspectives which are hard to get without actual soldiering experience.
3) Filter out ideas which may not be appropriate for various reasons, e.g. too much overlap with existing tech.
4) Network with people I would not otherwise meet.
Do you not just think it's a bit odd that usually the progression for independent kit builders goes:

• Be Born.
• Join Trade (in this case, Army)
• Do Job.
• Leave.
• Start building kit based on experience.

Where yours is:

• Born
• Learn another trade.
• Ask some people on ARRSE what their favourite weapons are.
• Start building kit based on their answers.

It strikes me as odd, anyway.
 
#11
Sorry it must have cut and pasted in the wrong place.

The RGGS worked on a bullet trap system, which to the average soldier is a science that’s a little scary on the range,” Here chap place that on the end of your rifle and fire a round through it!”.

You mentioned that firing the RG leaves no empty cases, true but you have to lug a projectile around with you which is 80% just to make it fly, where as a 40mm is the opposite (Percentages may not be correct as I made them up for effect)
 
#12
Do you not just think it's a bit odd that usually the progression for independent kit builders goes:

• Be Born.
• Join Trade (in this case, Army)
• Do Job.
• Leave.
• Start building kit based on experience.

Where yours is:

• Born
• Learn another trade.
• Ask some people on ARRSE what their favourite weapons are.
• Start building kit based on their answers.

It strikes me as odd, anyway.
Actually it is not odd at all. First off I did my doctorate in a related field to my current research interests. Secondly innovation comes from looking at the same problem from a different angle. Even the MoD CDE acknowledges this.

As for your last two comments "Ask some people..." and "Start building kit...", they are straw men.
 
#13
Sorry it must have cut and pasted in the wrong place.

The RGGS worked on a bullet trap system, which to the average soldier is a science that’s a little scary on the range,” Here chap place that on the end of your rifle and fire a round through it!”.

You mentioned that firing the RG leaves no empty cases, true but you have to lug a projectile around with you which is 80% just to make it fly, where as a 40mm is the opposite (Percentages may not be correct as I made them up for effect)
Oh yes, I understand now what you mean, and you make a very good point. Thanks.
 
#14
While the French army are rather keen on them... enough said.





But seriously, they are bulky and heavy and are not enormously good to the rifles that fire them. They had their day, and it is no coincidence that armies that adopted under slung grenade launchers phased them out.
 
#15
IB if you want to design kit we will use, then forget weapons,
If you can design dehydrated water that weighs nothing until mixed with a catalyst for drinking Ill buy it.
If you design batteries that weigh less when empty than full Ill take them.
Or a schemuley that doesnt fall out of the sky every forty seconds Id take it.
 
#16
Actually GLs aren't a replacement for RGs, although cbt conditions over the last decade may make it seem that way. To suggest that they have merely reflects limited experience. GL grenades are impact fuzed, this makes them less that ideal in jungle, they tend to go off in the branches, what's more not having much mass means they don't penetrate vegetation too well either. RG, ie standard handgrenades fitted into a cup and fired using a ballistite cart are actually quite useful because they are not impact fuzed and punch through the vegetation. Of course they are a bit fiddly to use and the grenade on the end of your rifle with the pin out and striker arm held by a clip that moves on firing is less than ideal. Then there's the possibility that in a fire fight incoming hits the grenade causing it to partially detonate and a bit of unhappyness for the user (and it has happened).
 
#18
The thumper seemed to do alright in the jungles of East Asia, and anyone thats seen them skip across afghan desert will know that they take quite a thump to set the buggers of sometimes.

The RG where inpact detonated, your probably talking WW1 the last time RG hand grenades where used.

Also the ranges in a jungle wouldn't justify the use of an RG
 
#19
Actually GLs aren't a replacement for RGs, although cbt conditions over the last decade may make it seem that way. To suggest that they have merely reflects limited experience. GL grenades are impact fuzed, this makes them less that ideal in jungle, they tend to go off in the branches, what's more not having much mass means they don't penetrate vegetation too well either. RG, ie standard handgrenades fitted into a cup and fired using a ballistite cart are actually quite useful because they are not impact fuzed and punch through the vegetation. Of course they are a bit fiddly to use and the grenade on the end of your rifle with the pin out and striker arm held by a clip that moves on firing is less than ideal. Then there's the possibility that in a fire fight incoming hits the grenade causing it to partially detonate and a bit of unhappyness for the user (and it has happened).
What a shit post. Definitely shows your modern inexperience and a distinct lack of munitions knowledge. D minus. Try again. In fact don't bother if you're going to continue to insult members of the thread.
 
R

really?_fascinating

Guest
#20
Pillager - I have invented some dehydrated water, you simply mix it with water to produce a lemony flavoured drink. If you send me a cheque for, lets say, ten thousand quid I will send you twenty packets. Each weighs almost nothing and requires only a litre of water to make a litre of drink.

As for why we do not use rifle grenades much any more - because we have UGL that give you most of the benefits of an RG (range, effect) without the disadvantages (weight, inaccuracy, effect on rifle). Rather like why we do not use plug bayonets any more. And before you ask, no we do not need a large sword that sticks in the muzzle for 0 to 1m engagement ranges at the expense of 0 to 300m.
 

Latest Threads