The M203 and M320 Grenade Launcher (a comparison)

bigcountryexpatoriginal.blogspot.com ^ | 12-5-20 | The Intrepid Reporter

[dynachrome]

Greetings Me Droogs and Droogettes! Time for another round of Sergeant's Time Saturday! Because of my birfday gift, we'll go over one of the more common small arms in the military's arsenal. The older M203 and the newer replacement, the M320 40mm Grenade Launcher. The M203 is a rifled, single-shot 40 mm under-barrel grenade launcher designed to attach to a rifle. Thusly:

[dynachrome]

Some bad language at the site. I want one!

Bill Murray coulda used these in Caddyshack.

[NFHale]

I want either one of them under the Christmas Tree this year.

[dp0622]

I’m just hoping for a set of new tires for my Challenger :)

Then we can meet up and with my new tires I can floor it while you give me a 30 second head start and then attempt to blow my car to smithereens :)

That actually sounds more fun for you than me :)

[TexasGator]

[where's_the_Outrage?]

On 8 and 9 Sept 2001 I took my reserve unit to the ranges, since it was the end of the fiscal year we were able to get lots of ammo. We got 600 rounds of 40mm Target Practice. So I went to firing line with 30 rounds and rapid fired the M203.

After 24 years of service I discovered the M203 is a great final protective fires weapon, it took me less than 2 minutes to fire the 30 rounds.

[TexasGator]

“I’m just hoping for a set of new tires for my Challenger :)”

I like my Continental Extreme Contact Sport 275/375 ZR20’S.

[fidelis]

Dang, we were issued M203’s in the Air Force back in the late 70’s. Kind of shocked they’re still around. Then again, so are M16’s so there’s that.

[Psycho_Runner]

I loved my M203. While in the Army, I was a M577 Track Driver and was issued the M203. Cool thing is that it doesn’t have to accurate, just close.

[centurion316]

I have extended experience with the M-79 and the M-203, including in combat. The M-79 was simple and lightweight, but dangerous due to the inadequate safety. Most experienced grenadiers kept the action broken and usually did not carry a round in the chamber. The other drawback was that the secondary weapon with the .45. The M-203 was safer and the M-16 was the secondary weapon. It was a little clumsy and took longer to load. Grenadiers needed longer to become accurate with the M-203.

I have never fired the M-320, but I have dry fired it and have had extensive discussions with current gredadiers. I like it. I think that in most situations, I would sling my M-4 across my chest and use the M-320 as the primary weapon in a stand alone mode.

[Don W]

ICH MAG SIE!!

[Chainmail]

Not a huge fan of the 40mm: tiny little golf-ball shaped warhead enclosed within its aerodynamic ogive. Throws itty-bitty fragments, so it's maybe a wounder instead of a killer. It also has a high rainbow ballistic arc and requires the firer to expose head and shoulders above cover to aim and fire it - and a loong wait to see where it hit.

If somebody's shooting at you, it seems like forever for the round to finally get there.

Proposed using a modern, US-made version of the Japanese Type 89 Grenade Projector ("Knee Mortar") which weighs 10 pounds, is fired from the prone, and is quite accurate out to 670 meters meters. It fires a one pound HE/steel warhead and reputedly accounted for a high proportion of our casualties during the Pacific War.

Imagine how great it would have been for engaging Hajis in Iraq and Afghanistan!

Proposed the idea years ago to the Marine Corps Lab and Dahlgren an I had two Type 89s for firing but while we were building US-safe projectiles, my project was shut down.

By the way, FN showed us a 40mm grenade launcher that fired the higher horsepower Mk19 rounds - beat the living crap out of those few of us who would try the thing out!

[redcatcherb412]

ahhhhhh anyone missing the lonely sound of the thumper probing the perimeter in the middle of the night? lolol

[Chainmail]

See my Post #11. I have used the M79 in combat - never considered any less safe than a normal single-shot shotgun; just made sure that the safety was on.

Per my post, I never considered it anything close to being an adequate killer. I have also used the prehistoric M76 grenade launcher firing the M26 frag grenade: now THAT was a killer!

[laplata]

They’re much better than the old M-79’s we had in Nam.

[mylife]

Give me 2, the old one and the new one, Jeeze, I’m an old softie..

[M-cubed]

I had some experience with the M-79 when I flew LOH loaches as a door gunner in VN....we would duct tape long nails to incendiary grenades and drop them on Hooch roofs to get the fire started and shoot a few rounds thru the 1st hole that became visible.....it was all well and good till we discovered we were catching some shrapnel in our ships if we were too close so we moved on to Willie pete to fill the hole..but still carried the 79 for special occasions..,

oh..and the M-79 would spray a bag of rice quite well....but the willie pete would cook it to a crisp.....

[DugwayDuke]

centurion316 wrote: “I have extended experience with the M-79 and the M-203, including in combat. The M-79 was simple and lightweight, but dangerous due to the inadequate safety.”

I’ve known several Vietnam company commanders who refused to issue the M203 to their troops. They preferred the M79 since it was their experience that their gunners would fire the one round in the M203 and then go full rock and roll with their M16. Refusing to issue the M203 ensured their gunners would continue to provide grenade fire.

[NFHale]

Toys for us big boys... :^)

Santa ain’t getting THAT down the chimney with his fat ass for sure... :^)

For the Record, the Challenger/Sebring were two of my favorite vehicles back when I was a kid. LOVED the 68-70 Charger too.

[NFHale]

I’d STILL take an M79 Bloop gun if you handed one to me and said “Here! G0 have a Blast!”...

I think I could make a LOT of noise with one of those...

[laplata]

They were fun.