Why?
- Thread starter A.A.K
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I dunno, easy to produce?
a lot in stock?
you'd have to adapt the whole industry to phase them out of use.
a lot in stock?
you'd have to adapt the whole industry to phase them out of use.
M203 under-slung Grenade Launcher. the type you see in CoD 4, and most other games with under-slung launchers.xmetatr0nx said:
not just CoD 4. He's on about the real-life armed forces.xmetatr0nx said:
it's the standard launcher for American Forces.
They are cheap and proven. Remember, grenades are anti-personnel devices. They are not for destroying equipment. The small ballistic 40mm this device delivers is perfect for this. Compared to the Soviet RPG. That thing can be used on larger targets. The little 40mm the USA uses is anti-personnel only (generally). It is designed to extend the range an infantry person can deliver a grenade by hand of roughly the same size.
From what little I know about grenade launchers most are either to heavy to carry like the Mk 19 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_19_grenade_launcher] or left the soldier vulnerable in close quarters like the M79 [http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl06-e.htm] or Milkor MGL [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkor_MGL]. The M79 because of it's only single shot and the MGL because it is dangerous to fire such a weapon indoors unless you use a 40mm shotgun round which from what I have heard causing horrific damage (my high school history teacher served in Vietnam and said he vomited the first time he saw someone hit with it)and may violate international law.
thats one hell of a turnaround pwnage.xmetatr0nx said:
"i've fired one, HA!"
Same as why the AK is still used today, cheap and reliable.
Thank you everyone. i was just curious.
No it wasnt a COD4 thing, its real-life armed forces.
Ive fired the M16a4 and a2 and the SCAR and for all three they had the M203 under barrel (<-- grenades not inside) and i did some research and a wide selection of rifles are capable of carrying them, and as i havent used one, i was curious.
Thank you everyone =]
No it wasnt a COD4 thing, its real-life armed forces.
Ive fired the M16a4 and a2 and the SCAR and for all three they had the M203 under barrel (<-- grenades not inside) and i did some research and a wide selection of rifles are capable of carrying them, and as i havent used one, i was curious.
Thank you everyone =]
I'm number 2 then lolGreyfox105 said:
On the subject, I believe testing is being done on the M 302 (hmm, just flip the numbers...)
and it is essentially the same system, but instead of bottom feeding the 40mm round like a shotgun, the 'tube' swings left or right for easier access, but the entire system can be un-clipped (includes folding butt-stock!) for separate use. As opposed to most M16A2/M203 systems which cannot be separated quickly in the field. Now why might such a system be useful? Well if either weapon becomes non-functional (m16 or 203' is damaged) or jammed (203 round gets stuck, M16 jams are easy to fix) then you can either give the 203 to someone else so that the broken rifle can be swapped out, or ditch the jammed grenade launcher (with live ordnance!!!) and still use the rifle.
Remember, they came up with these ideas for a reason, and Im guessing more the one solider had to ditch his entire weapon out of fear of a faulty grenade killing him and his fire team, better to have -1 rifle then -1 man.
For Dread Pirate Pete, I agree, Ive been in the Army for six years, I have seen MK-19's on Helicopters and HMMVV's but I have never seen an MGL, now on that subject, the Marines are buying a six barreled grenade launcher system, it comes pre-made with picatinny (i think that's the spelling) rail systems for things like night vision, laser dots etc. (kind of funny if you had an MGL, with a M203 clipped to the side lol!)
mainly because it was popularised by films such as Predator. So film makers just stuck with it and then so too did many game makers.
Thats just for games and films of course, as for the US army, you have to keep things standardised and it is still an effective weapon so no emediate need to change.
Thats just for games and films of course, as for the US army, you have to keep things standardised and it is still an effective weapon so no emediate need to change.