Could the M-203 be mounted to a FF rail handguard

AR-15 » Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, Barrels, and more

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

TNVC Partners With Envision Technology - MARS Rangefinder Family, MARS-Lc!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Could the M-203 be mounted to a FF rail handguard

Posted: 9/11/2005 9:27:13 AM EDT

like DD, Larue or URX, or would the recoil beat it to shit?

Posted: 9/11/2005 10:14:57 AM EDT

[#1]

37mm.com/

The pic on that page shows a new LMT M203 monted to the bottom rail of a RAS, but it could be mounted in like fashion to a FF RAS. It uses LMT's QD system.

I can't comment on its durability, but if it works on a non-FF RAS, then I see no reason for it not to work, or even work better, on a FF.

Posted: 9/11/2005 4:16:54 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
like DD, Larue or URX, or would the recoil beat it to shit?

The military don't accept any Grenade Launcher attachment to 1913 rails, just not rugged enough. The military only accept two ways for good reason. Either via standard barrel, or via the new methods in free float systems not desclosed yet in the spec ops program. The three chosen candidates with rails that free float and also have the ability to supprt a GL, are KAC, ARMS, and Daniel Defense. Each company got a $16.7 million dollar contract, quantities have not been posted yet. I assume trials are still on going. There is a post under URX2, that shows a possible way that KAC may have approached the M203 attachment. The Larue would be a non starter.

Posted: 9/11/2005 5:57:10 PM EDT

[#3]

DD's method reported failed off the SCAR-L COBB gun...

KAC and ARMS have had their version at SHOT and elsewhere for the last three years.

As 3rdtk mention M1913 rails will not take repeated abuse of 40mm rounds.
IIRC the MILSPEC requirement was 5k rounds.

coldblue allude elsewhere they (KAC) found 1913 rails system could not take more than 2k.

I beleive LMT only guarantees 2.5k rounds with the MRP and their mount - albiet I am not sure if that was warshot or practise. HE rounds are much more violently recoiling (more mass) than the practise chalk rounds to fire.

Posted: 9/11/2005 6:56:48 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
like DD, Larue or URX, or would the recoil beat it to shit?

The military don't accept any Grenade Launcher attachment to 1913 rails, just not rugged enough. The military only accept two ways for good reason. Either via standard barrel, or via the new methods in free float systems not desclosed yet in the spec ops program. The three chosen candidates with rails that free float and also have the ability to supprt a GL, are KAC, ARMS, and Daniel Defense. Each company got a $16.7 million dollar contract, quantities have not been posted yet. I assume trials are still on going. There is a post under URX2, that shows a possible way that KAC may have approached the M203 attachment. The Larue would be a non starter.

It's interesting that you chose to include that statement. Interesting because it was never intended, or even submitted for consideration, for use with the 203.

Posted: 9/11/2005 7:04:39 PM EDT

[#5]

I think since the poster asked about DD, KAC's URX and Larue...

DD, ARMS, and KAC have a system...

I this instance I dont think anyone is trolling.

Posted: 9/11/2005 7:07:36 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
like DD, (Larue) or URX, or would the recoil beat it to shit?

Posted: 9/11/2005 7:17:33 PM EDT

[#7]

Who did I accuse of trolling?? Nobody that I can see. I do stand by my comment above, though.

Posted: 9/11/2005 7:23:49 PM EDT

[#8]

ME TOO

Posted: 9/11/2005 9:09:31 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
I think since the poster asked about DD, KAC's URX and Larue...

DD, ARMS, and KAC have a system...

I this instance I dont think anyone is trolling.

Agreed!

Posted: 9/12/2005 6:48:50 AM EDT

[#10]

The Grenadier ARM-R is reinforced for M203 use but I don't think they've fired 2,500 rounds off one yet.

Posted: 9/12/2005 7:11:35 AM EDT

[#11]

~~I haven't seen a pic of the M203 mounted to a rail, but would it not also be rather low on some rail systems?~~

After seeing the picture in the link above, it looks about the same. Maybe this will result in a new "standardized rail" that is tougher than 1913, and will accept grenade launchers as well as class 3 trailer hitches.

Posted: 9/12/2005 7:28:01 AM EDT

[#12]

Simon - I've asked to see if the URX will accomodate the LW piston...

I do not think any rail with 1913 rail can do it - unless the rail is completely out of STEEL

- there is a reason why URXII is on the table...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Could the M-203 be mounted to a FF rail handguard

AR-15 » Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, Barrels, and more

AR Sponsor:

Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us