Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 9/16/2009 6:24:33 PM EST
Do both generally have the same boom and range?

I see advantage of Rifle Grenades is that once you have expended all of your grenades, you dont have a the wieght of the now useless launcher to hump around.

This might be inspired by the "Taliban Hillfighter" thread
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 6:52:06 PM EST
Big advantage goes to the underbarrel grenade launcher,
If you don't know whether the muzzle launched rifle grenade is a bullet through or bullet trap design and aren't sure if you should use a regular cartridge or a blank cartridge, you won't blow yourself up by guessing!

Most muzzle launched rifle grenades will penetrate thin steel and the explosive charge is more destructive with a kill pattern of about 10 meters, the underbarrel launchers kill pattern is about 3-5 meters.
However newer armors are now much harder to penetrate anyway and you really need specialized launchers firing penetrating rockets capable of defeating this new stuff such as the AT-4 launcher anyway so the muzzle launched grenades are really at the point of being obsolete.

Underbarrel launchers are actually fairly light, the individual grenades are usually heavier, or as heavy, as the launcher so it isn't a big deal to leave it on the gun once out of grenades, the launchers are just bulky.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 7:08:58 PM EST
Seems like there's more explosive in your average rifle grenade.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 7:12:27 PM EST
I don't know, but I would think that having under barrel would be nicer for the simple fact you could have both a grenade and a regular rifle round loaded at the same time.

If you need the grenade just move your hand to the second trigger and fire. If you need rifle rounds just pull the trigger on the rifle.

Plus, is it possible to have both a suppressor mount attached and the mount for the rifle grenade? (Your average soldier probably wouldn't have a suppressor, but spec ops and stuff I suppose)
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 7:13:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/16/2009 9:40:36 PM EST by MonkTx]
Originally Posted By Milo5:
Big advantage goes to the underbarrel grenade launcher,
If you don't know whether the muzzle launched rifle grenade is a bullet through or bullet trap design and aren't sure if you should use a regular cartridge or a blank cartridge, you won't blow yourself up by guessing!



How many militaries are handing both types out at once? Would kinda suck to get them mixed up.

Link Posted: 9/16/2009 7:36:50 PM EST
The under barrel type looks like it would be more accurate.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 7:41:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By MikeSSS:
The under barrel type looks like it would be more accurate.

This is the truth. Bullet trap and through bullet types don't have good sights, unlike those of the M203 variants. Because the "barrel" of these bullet trap/through bullet is only a few inches and there is a rather imprecise fit, accuracy suffers. And the velocity is very low.

Recoil is the major problem. And recoil starts the instant the grenade moves.
Link Posted: 9/16/2009 7:47:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By penguinslider009:
Do both generally have the same boom and range?

I see advantage of Rifle Grenades is that once you have expended all of your grenades, you dont have a the wieght of the now useless launcher to hump around.

This might be inspired by the "Taliban Hillfighter" thread

The rifle grenade generally has a bigger frag radius...

However, the under-barrel launcher can fire a much wider variety of ordnance, including such things as HEAP (shaped charge) rounds, that you don't find with muzzle-launched grenades...

Further, with the underbarrel launcher you have a much higher rate of fire, and can have both weapons ready & loaded at the same time, rather than having to choose...

The underbarrel launcher may also be used as a direct-fire weapon, whereas muzzle-launched grenades are often indirect-fire only....
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 5:40:41 AM EST
Originally Posted By MonkTx:
Originally Posted By Milo5:
Big advantage goes to the underbarrel grenade launcher,
If you don't know whether the muzzle launched rifle grenade is a bullet through or bullet trap design and aren't sure if you should use a regular cartridge or a blank cartridge, you won't blow yourself up by guessing!



How many militaries are handing both types out at once? Would kinda suck to get them mixed up.



I know its Arfcom SOP to have both but why do some militaries do it? One is cheaper than the other?
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 5:53:06 AM EST
A rifle grenade can be launched by any infantryman on the squad, while the underbarrel launchers are only carried by a select few.

Kharn
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:03:32 AM EST
I really like the soviet grenade launcher.

Its about the only soviet thing I like better than western stuff.

Its really quick and easy to load, has no casing, you just pop the round in the front shoot, pop in another round.

Easy easy.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:05:15 AM EST
Underbarrel grenade launcher hands down.

Firing rifle grenades means to wear your rifle prematurely and say bye bye to accuracy.

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:10:20 AM EST
Originally Posted By Dave_A:

Originally Posted By penguinslider009:
Do both generally have the same boom and range?

I see advantage of Rifle Grenades is that once you have expended all of your grenades, you dont have a the wieght of the now useless launcher to hump around.

This might be inspired by the "Taliban Hillfighter" thread

The rifle grenade generally has a bigger frag radius...

However, the under-barrel launcher can fire a much wider variety of ordnance, including such things as HEAP (shaped charge) rounds, that you don't find with muzzle-launched grenades...

Further, with the underbarrel launcher you have a much higher rate of fire, and can have both weapons ready & loaded at the same time, rather than having to choose...

The underbarrel launcher may also be used as a direct-fire weapon, whereas muzzle-launched grenades are often indirect-fire only....


There are shaped charge muzzle-launched grenades. There's even a version with a tandem charge.

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:33:09 AM EST
Good grief, plenty of mis-information in this place. Have any of you ever handled or launched any rifle grenades?

They are two different animals. A muzzle launch grenade can carry a much larger package. The M31 HEAT has a shaped charge much like an RPG, and several times the explosive charge of a 40mm blooper.

Launching grenades does not damage the bore - they launch from the OD of the flash hider or launcher.

An M203 is a handy weapon, and has a variety of ammo available. Great anti-personnel device. The rifle grenade predates things like the LAW, and was intended to fill that role, as well as others.

Rifle grenades have been around a long time, and still work as well as ever. They have a place, and do not replace the M203.



Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:37:48 AM EST
I think the Israeli's use a mix of both. I know they have some nasty anti-ambush beehive type Rifle grenades.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 6:39:00 AM EST
Personally, my vote would be for a dedicated Grenade Launcher like the M79 over either.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 7:39:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By MonkTx:
Originally Posted By Milo5:
Big advantage goes to the underbarrel grenade launcher,
If you don't know whether the muzzle launched rifle grenade is a bullet through or bullet trap design and aren't sure if you should use a regular cartridge or a blank cartridge, you won't blow yourself up by guessing!



How many militaries are handing both types out at once? Would kinda suck to get them mixed up.



Uh, Afghanistan is a good place to start, where an ecclectic mix of weaponry from over sixty countries can be encountered.
Examples, Chinese, Polish, and Pakistani rifle grenades use crimp blank,(ballistite), cartridges while Spanish, Belgian, and South African rifle grenades can be fired using regular cartridges and many rifle grenades now include additional fins to adapt the grenades to various muzzle devices and flash hiders.

This problem of wrong grenade with wrong launching cartridge occurs with rifle grenades in many countries where the Military arsenal is a mixed bag and training is extremely lacking.

+1 on a seperate launcher, especially the newest versions which can be employed with the longer and more effective 40X53mm fin stabalized grenades.
No wear and tear on the Infantry rifle such as broken gas blocks and certainly no less portable than a combat "Breecher" shotgun.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:11:16 AM EST
Don't know either way.
But I'm looking for a place to test the grenade launcher on my Yugo SKS....RSO's get a gawdawful look on their faces when they have a peek in my range bag and ask If I really intend to use "that thing"....
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:26:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/17/2009 8:26:56 AM EST by bloodsport2885]
Is there any way to increase the effective frag range of the M203? Several military members have described it as anemic at best.

I assume there is a maximum overall length that can be used due to the loading gate of the launcher barrel, but is there any way to give it more punch for he anti-personnel role??
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:26:24 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:38:15 AM EST
RIfles ones pack more explosive...but rate of fire is higher with underbarrel.

Rustedace, can you tell us more about the rusky launchers?
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:42:18 AM EST
Originally Posted By RustedAce:
I really like the soviet grenade launcher.

Its about the only soviet thing I like better than western stuff.

Its really quick and easy to load, has no casing, you just pop the round in the front shoot, pop in another round.

Easy easy.


I'm assuming that there's more than just gravity holding it in the barrel....could be interesting if the rifle is tilted too far downward & it fell out...

The WWII Japanese "knee" mortar was a pretty cool idea also.
In a past issue of Small Arms Review they had an article about an WWII era Italian rifle grenade launcher...IIRC it was mounted to the side of a Carcano & had a gas diverter to launch the grenade. Not sure if it took a specially loaded blank to launch or if a regular round of ammo would work (sending a bullet off to ???? as the grenade flew downrange). Didn't work as good as they wanted & all the converted rifles were converted back

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 8:59:57 AM EST
Originally Posted By bloodsport2885:
Is there any way to increase the effective frag range of the M203? Several military members have described it as anemic at best.

I assume there is a maximum overall length that can be used due to the loading gate of the launcher barrel, but is there any way to give it more punch for he anti-personnel role??




Regarding the M-203, there was a 40mm HE type round available, but IIRC they have been mostly superceeded by the 40mm High Explosive Dual purpose round that has both a fragmenting and shaped charge component that gives it somewhat of an anti-armor capability. The trade off is that the frag component isn't as powerful as the dedicated HE grenade.

The M-203 is going away anyway, being replaced by the M-230. The M-230 can be used on it's own, and opens sideways instead of forward. This allows longer rounds to be used that won't fit in an M-203.

Personally, I like the concept of rifle grenades. They have a huge variety of rounds available, can pack much more punch than a 40mm because they are less constrained by thier size, and allow everyone in the unit to have a grenade launching capability.





-K
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 9:13:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By Ryderhard:
Don't know either way.
But I'm looking for a place to test the grenade launcher on my Yugo SKS....RSO's get a gawdawful look on their faces when they have a peek in my range bag and ask If I really intend to use "that thing"....

Since the Yugo SKSs have NATO type launchers on them... here you go!

http://www.serviceofsupply.com/ReproWeaponsAmmo.htm Rubber reenacting rifle grenades!
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 9:23:15 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 9:31:22 AM EST
Doesn't France still use rifle grenades too?





Circa WWI technology, a bolt-action carbine with a full-auto Pederson Device-style insert and rifle grenades would be one versatile motherfucker.
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 9:45:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 10:18:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:
The rifle grenade has the ability to have a larger explosve package. That, however, is where the good points end.

A M203 type launcher is faster to employ, as it can be carried loaded. You can't carry a rifle grenade loaded for many reasons- one is that it locks you only in to firing a grenade as your first shot, another is that it makes your weapon longer and more unwieldy, this can be a huge problem when mounted or in MOUT.

Many rifle grenades can't effectively be used in a direct fire mode. This gives the underbarrel the advantage in MOUT where you can pop one in a window.

If you are about to fire a rifle grenade, and suddenly a high profile important target pops up 10m in front you you, you can't engage that target. Uhh oh. With an underbarrel you simply move your hand to the primary weapons trigger. Until you fire that rifle grenade, your are locked into that- even worse if it is not a bulklet trap design and you also had to load a blank.

You can't fire buckshot from a rifle grenade





I'm not sure what you mean about using a muzzle launched grenade in the direct fire role. Direct fire means you see the targety ou are fireing on, indirect fire meaning you can't see your target. There may be different trajectories for a 40mm round vs a muzzle launched grenade - especially the larger ones - but direct fire should be perfectly doable. Am I wrong in my understanding of what you mean by that?

Regarding the buckshot issue, the Israelis developed a very effective muzzle grenade for use in ambushes that launches several hundred flechetted from the muzzle of the weapon. Think of it as a sort of muzzle mounted Claymore that works off the force of the bullet or blank.

Also, I don't think the advantage of allowing every soldier in the unit to have a grenade launcher should be overlooked. If nothing else, it goves more options.

I say get both.




-K

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 11:04:23 AM EST
Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
Doesn't France still use rifle grenades too?





Circa WWI technology, a bolt-action carbine with a full-auto Pederson Device-style insert and rifle grenades would be one versatile motherfucker.


WW1 was when the rifle grenade really developed. They started out using models like this:


It was quickly shown that the rod types ruined bores quickly and occasionally blew barrels. Rifles with already poor accuracy were frequently turned into dedicated grenade launchers and wrapped with wire to reinforce them for that use like this:


Not too long down the road, the Brits switched to screwing baseplates onto their mills bombs instead of launching rods, and firing them from Cup Dischargers as shown here:


Those cup dischargers fit a tennis ball perfectly
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 11:28:05 AM EST
Originally Posted By WinstonSmith:
Originally Posted By Swindle1984:
Doesn't France still use rifle grenades too?



Circa WWI technology, a bolt-action carbine with a full-auto Pederson Device-style insert and rifle grenades would be one versatile motherfucker.


WW1 was when the rifle grenade really developed. They started out using models like this:
http://www.inert-ord.net/rod02h/grenade2.jpg

It was quickly shown that the rod types ruined bores quickly and occasionally blew barrels. Rifles with already poor accuracy were frequently turned into dedicated grenade launchers and wrapped with wire to reinforce them for that use like this:
http://oldrifles.com/enfield-gren-1.jpg

Not too long down the road, the Brits switched to screwing baseplates onto their mills bombs instead of launching rods, and firing them from Cup Dischargers as shown here:
http://www.inert-ord.net/brit/mills/cup.jpg

Those cup dischargers fit a tennis ball perfectly


Swindle1984 probably already knows this being a Star Wars geek but the rod grenade in the top center of the pic was the basis for Obi Wan's llightsaber in A New Hope
Link Posted: 9/17/2009 11:30:24 AM EST
MK-19 FTW

Link Posted: 9/17/2009 11:34:53 AM EST
I would like to shoot a Brunswick Rifleman's Assault Weapon (RAW).
Top Top