Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/9/2011 8:35:29 PM EDT
|
i hope this is the correct area for this question if not please move it :D
now for the question, why is the design of the m203 like it is? my main issue with it is that in order to use it you have to use the magwell grip if im not mistaken, so why did they decide to make it that way. other GL's, such as the AG36, BS-1, and the GP-25(and im sure there are others) all seem to have in integrated VFG basically on them, so why didnt the designers of the M203 decide to not include one as well? sry if this seems odd its just a question ive always wondered about the weapon |
| it was designed to use the parent rifle as the stock and what not of the M203, they are very comfortable to use. the M203 doesn't get in the way like the others you've mentioned, i am just saying what it looks like to me as i only have personal experience with the M203. the others you mentioned were designed to work as stand alone united without being attached to the rifle. the 203 can do this but requires a separate stock for that, if you want a stand alone get an M-79 |
|
The 203 works great on the M4, not so great on the M16. The collapsible stock makes it a breeze to shoot. Just collapse the stock all the way. Putting the pistol grip even farther forward is just going to bring you right back to the same ergonomics as an M16/203, length of pull is just too long to comfortably use, which makes it that much harder to be accurate with it. |
Armory Sponsor