M203 under barrel grenade launcher, obsolete?
- Thread starter geologist
- Start date
Mounting a 40mm to a rifle only degrades the usability of the rifle, while it made sense compared to the m79 with rifles being more compact it makes sense now to have it as a separate system that can be slung as is done with the m320. Remember it’s a secondary weapon, you don’t see under barrel pistols, and the master key was damn near dead on arrival.
The recent development points to the resurgence of a a more dedicated grenade launcher that is more "rifle" like in a way.
The Rheinmetall "rifle" like solution specifically speaks of using "mid pressure" round.
The US if they are actually going to follow through with their vision, M320 will be replaced by a grenade rifle as well. It is a whole new world with MBR sized M7 and GPMG sized M250 SAW. Everything goes bigger......nothing gets smaller!
It is still a whole bunch of things to carry along. There is simply no sleek way to carry two poles at the same time. Now they want shotguns for drones too.....they better have robotic dogs to carry all these soon.
The Rheinmetall "rifle" like solution specifically speaks of using "mid pressure" round.
The US if they are actually going to follow through with their vision, M320 will be replaced by a grenade rifle as well. It is a whole new world with MBR sized M7 and GPMG sized M250 SAW. Everything goes bigger......nothing gets smaller!
It is still a whole bunch of things to carry along. There is simply no sleek way to carry two poles at the same time. Now they want shotguns for drones too.....they better have robotic dogs to carry all these soon.
They are way too big and bulky. Can't carry nearly as many. The 40mm fits nicely into a bandolier so a person can carry a whole bunch without much hassle.
40mm low velocity it a fantastic munition, and the platform, like a shotgun is multipurpose. Being able to switch between HE to smoke for target marking (not useable to obstruction) and even illume. It’s just not practical to attach 4 pounds to a rifle and expect it to not have a detrimental impact on primary weapon handling in addition to the m203 system being limited to what can fit in with the sliding barrel.
Work out.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Like people that get issued, LMGs, machine gunners, 84mm or 60mm or guys stuck with having to carry SF kits and 60/84mm ammo. You work out.
I bet everybody has a story of trying to navigate thru the woods with the 84mm slung over your shoulder hitting every tree branch on a night ops.
But slings can catch on gear, get tangled. You might not have your gun slung, so cannot swing your primary away to grab your 40. Real life isnt like COD where stuff is flawless.
LdSH_Tanker
Member
- Location
- Oromocto NB
Currently teaching M203 to students as we speak here in Gagetown.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
If Canada forces wanted to lighten up rifles. They remove the 2.2lb optic, and ditch the 20inch barrel, and the triad system. To make a very front heavy gun. 40mm is lesse of their worries. Only 2 per section only. Not like everybody suffers.
The biggest replacement program will not be the 40mm or even the rifles, well, most european countries are done with replacing rifles already.
Flushing out those aging FN Minimi / C9 and eventually the garden variety of FN MAG58 GPMG ( which the US has already set in motion ) will be the focus. Hence you see FN Evolys, HK 421 and SIG M250 LMG being the focus in the last couple years. Once the LMG is in, the GPMG will have to be replaced too. And there are interests of having LMG and "assault machine guns" in things other than 5.56 outside of the US.
The US is redefining the envelope of their small unit formation because of the extended ranges of the 6.8 SAW and 338 MMG. It is painfully obvious now the 6.8 SAW has more range than the platoon M240 in 7.62, and in less than half the weight. This doesn't make sense, so either M240 will be replaced with a reinforced M250 ( which kinda already exist) or a MMG with a 338. One thing for sure M240 in 7.62 aka C6 makes no sense at all if 6.8 is asted in stone. So the end has begun, but it will take 15 to 20 years.
most likely an interim conversation kit will happen first for all legacy systems.
Flushing out those aging FN Minimi / C9 and eventually the garden variety of FN MAG58 GPMG ( which the US has already set in motion ) will be the focus. Hence you see FN Evolys, HK 421 and SIG M250 LMG being the focus in the last couple years. Once the LMG is in, the GPMG will have to be replaced too. And there are interests of having LMG and "assault machine guns" in things other than 5.56 outside of the US.
The US is redefining the envelope of their small unit formation because of the extended ranges of the 6.8 SAW and 338 MMG. It is painfully obvious now the 6.8 SAW has more range than the platoon M240 in 7.62, and in less than half the weight. This doesn't make sense, so either M240 will be replaced with a reinforced M250 ( which kinda already exist) or a MMG with a 338. One thing for sure M240 in 7.62 aka C6 makes no sense at all if 6.8 is asted in stone. So the end has begun, but it will take 15 to 20 years.
most likely an interim conversation kit will happen first for all legacy systems.
Last edited:
CAF is replacing current issue C7/C8 with new monolithic 11.5” for support trades and 16” for frontline units all outfitted with suppressors. Optics are still be decided on with ether 5X prism or 1-6 LPVO and all fitted with a micro red dot. M203’s will have to be altered in order to be mounted to the new platform. Rollout date is TBD but can confirm they are coming sooner then later as the new C6A1 Flex and COAX GPMG’s are in line units now.
I’ll believe it when I see it. There have been pictures of various C7 “replacements” (all based on CC MRR) floating around for well over a decade. Even once they decide on the configuration they’ll have to put it to tender, and there is more than one manufacturer of monolithic uppers out there. Unless of course they use the “agile procurement” process which just means we’ll get whatever piece of garbage the person in charge of the project wants.
TAPV anyone? LAV 6.0 that did nothing to improve on the performance of the LAV III, other than blast protection, still can’t fit a full section in the rear, etc….
ETA: now that I’m thinking about it, the current CC M203 is a good example. We already had USGI M203 in the system, but because it used screws to mount it “needed” to be installed by a weapons tech (ridiculous), so the CF had Diemaco come out with an easy to install solution that increased the weight by over a third to just over 4lbs. Compared to the US solution that saw virtually no increase in weight and could be fitted to existing stocks of M203s.
Last edited:
Actually many years ago back in the 90s I believe, though i could be off by a few years) I was at Diemaco and talked to one of the engineers there at the time.
He told me that they had originally designed a completely different system with was much lighter. They had it on display at an arms show. It was seen by Reed Knight of Knights Armaments and he pitched a collosal fit, threatening to sue Diemaco for patent infringement due to certain similarities between the 2 systems. The engineer said they came back and immediately redesigned their 40mm attachment system to what became the issue version.
A CGNer from years ago claimed to be one of the persons who was involved in the M203
They needed to come out with a figure for minimal cook off round count. They had no idea so they put down 200 rd in FA.
The distance between the two barrels ( and hence the mounting solution ) was to satisfy that requirement.
They needed to come out with a figure for minimal cook off round count. They had no idea so they put down 200 rd in FA.
The distance between the two barrels ( and hence the mounting solution ) was to satisfy that requirement.
200 rds wouldn't get the barrel hot enough to induce cook-off in 556 ammo. It most certainly would not transfer enough heat to the 40mm primer to induce cook-off there.
Consider the architecture of the 40mm case. It's a huge aluminum heat sink with a massive surface area. The amount of heat the piggy back weapon would have to generate would be enormous, to the point the rifle itself was flirting with failure. Lots of the MIL 40mm ammo also has a plastic case, which would completely insulate the primer from heat. I find the notion of 40mm cook-off from heat generated by the rifle to be ridiculous.
