Comments on: M72 LAW making a comeback http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/ Firearms not Politics Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:24:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Greg http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-65483 Greg Tue, 21 Jun 2011 23:52:49 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-65483 I don't have any problems with bringing back the LAW, although I have to wonder what modifications there are to bring it up to the A7 configuration. The problem I have with it is the $2,000 a shot cost. How much is an AT-4 costing nowadays. Wonder what the cost is of a SMAW nowadays also. Just seems pretty steep. I thought 25 years ago when I was an Army Ammo Officer, they were less than a hundred bucks. But then, maybe my memory is just getting old. I don’t have any problems with bringing back the LAW, although I have to wonder what modifications there are to bring it up to the A7 configuration. The problem I have with it is the $2,000 a shot cost. How much is an AT-4 costing nowadays. Wonder what the cost is of a SMAW nowadays also. Just seems pretty steep. I thought 25 years ago when I was an Army Ammo Officer, they were less than a hundred bucks. But then, maybe my memory is just getting old.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Andy http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-56683 Andy Tue, 01 Mar 2011 04:26:13 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-56683 My Marine unit had LAWs in Iraq, I liked the weight and size compared to the AT4 but I wasn't too impressed with the build quality when I shot one. When I yanked the tube back to arm it and release the spring loaded front and rear sights, the front sight fell off. I aimed high so it wouldn't hit to close to me and hoped for the best. My Marine unit had LAWs in Iraq, I liked the weight and size compared to the AT4 but I wasn’t too impressed with the build quality when I shot one. When I yanked the tube back to arm it and release the spring loaded front and rear sights, the front sight fell off. I aimed high so it wouldn’t hit to close to me and hoped for the best.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Lance http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-56281 Lance Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:55:45 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-56281 @Tom AHem yes its happend befor in the rantic acts of battle a grun useing a AKM or RPG in a sound or flash of his weapon can get some not so friendly fire from others. @Tom

AHem yes its happend befor in the rantic acts of battle a grun useing a AKM or RPG in a sound or flash of his weapon can get some not so friendly fire from others.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Tom Stedham http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-56272 Tom Stedham Wed, 23 Feb 2011 19:36:54 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-56272 Jeff... It's pretty easy to tell who's who in thermal sights nowadays... Between the distinctive MICH, and all that glint-tape, American troops are very recognizable. And NOBODY gets to fire without notifying higher, doing a friendly check, etc. You shoot the guy pointing a weapon AT YOU, not away from you, which is presumably where the RPG would be pointed... Plus we pretty much know where all our guys are. Anybody outside the wire is on a designated patrol, and everybody know it... And anybody firing an RPG at a building has already notified the chain-of-command all up the wazoo... Nobody goes "holy shit, an RPG! Go light that guy up!!!" Or maybe I was just in a very well-trained infantry unit... Jeff…

It’s pretty easy to tell who’s who in thermal sights nowadays… Between the distinctive MICH, and all that glint-tape, American troops are very recognizable.

And NOBODY gets to fire without notifying higher, doing a friendly check, etc. You shoot the guy pointing a weapon AT YOU, not away from you, which is presumably where the RPG would be pointed…

Plus we pretty much know where all our guys are. Anybody outside the wire is on a designated patrol, and everybody know it…

And anybody firing an RPG at a building has already notified the chain-of-command all up the wazoo… Nobody goes “holy shit, an RPG! Go light that guy up!!!”

Or maybe I was just in a very well-trained infantry unit…

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Jeff from CA http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-56271 Jeff from CA Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:18:46 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-56271 Using captured ordinance is risky. US Special Forces slipped in some over-powdered ammunition into enemy ammo stocks during the Vietnam War. It would be hard to do quality control over something where the source, production, and quality are unknown. Also, someone carrying an RPG looks like an enemy combatant through thermal sights. Using captured ordinance is risky. US Special Forces slipped in some over-powdered ammunition into enemy ammo stocks during the Vietnam War. It would be hard to do quality control over something where the source, production, and quality are unknown.

Also, someone carrying an RPG looks like an enemy combatant through thermal sights.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Tom Stedham http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-56039 Tom Stedham Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:39:27 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-56039 Geez, for 2 grand a pop, why not use CAPTURED RPGs??? You get a great weapon for much less cost. You shoot a LAW and you have to hump the empty. I'd rather have a longer range, bigger warhead RPG. Just my opinion... Geez, for 2 grand a pop, why not use CAPTURED RPGs??? You get a great weapon for much less cost.

You shoot a LAW and you have to hump the empty. I’d rather have a longer range, bigger warhead RPG.

Just my opinion…

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Infidel Tababa http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-12092 Infidel Tababa Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:08:40 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-12092 Good to see this excellent piece of kit making a comeback. I agree with Dino. The LAW was never the best anti tank weapon to begin with. Since they are building them from scratch, versus pulling them from war stockpiles, they should consider a simple re-purposing of the round to focus on obstacle reduction/anti materiel/anti personnel. It should be easy enough to trade the shaped charge for a bit of HE and an incendiary frag sleeve without too much impact on the overall profile. The US arsenal has the disposable AT4, it's reusable parent, the Carl Gustav in some SpecOps weapons lockers, and the Marine Corps has the SMAW all with highly effective anti-armor capabilities. There is no reason an infantry squad facing no armor threat should be without a few of these LAW rockets to fill the gap rather than carrying the heavier much more expensive AT4. Interestingly, I just read an article that hundreds of these rockets, serial traced back to Vietnam stocks, and early South American "unofficial activities" have been making their way onto the market and are the current popular choice for initiating ambushes among the mexican drug cartel. Good to see this excellent piece of kit making a comeback. I agree with Dino. The LAW was never the best anti tank weapon to begin with. Since they are building them from scratch, versus pulling them from war stockpiles, they should consider a simple re-purposing of the round to focus on obstacle reduction/anti materiel/anti personnel. It should be easy enough to trade the shaped charge for a bit of HE and an incendiary frag sleeve without too much impact on the overall profile. The US arsenal has the disposable AT4, it’s reusable parent, the Carl Gustav in some SpecOps weapons lockers, and the Marine Corps has the SMAW all with highly effective anti-armor capabilities. There is no reason an infantry squad facing no armor threat should be without a few of these LAW rockets to fill the gap rather than carrying the heavier much more expensive AT4. Interestingly, I just read an article that hundreds of these rockets, serial traced back to Vietnam stocks, and early South American “unofficial activities” have been making their way onto the market and are the current popular choice for initiating ambushes among the mexican drug cartel.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Lance http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-11821 Lance Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:56:14 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-11821 The AT-4, and Carl Gustov are better in anti-armor use. But in Afghanistain theres no armor threat so a light M-72 will do the job well aginst infantry or shall I say terrorist targets. The AT-4, and Carl Gustov are better in anti-armor use. But in Afghanistain theres no armor threat so a light M-72 will do the job well aginst infantry or shall I say terrorist targets.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Dino http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-6276 Dino Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:30:52 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-6276 This is the same weapon that earned the nickname "Ranger Key" in Panama? Kind of like giving our guys a one-shot RPG capability. Any mods to warhead or fusing to improve effectiveness vs. fortifications rather than armored vehicles? This is the same weapon that earned the nickname “Ranger Key” in Panama? Kind of like giving our guys a one-shot RPG capability. Any mods to warhead or fusing to improve effectiveness vs. fortifications rather than armored vehicles?

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: AC434 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-5754 AC434 Thu, 29 Jan 2009 01:09:32 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-5754 <> I believe the Marines are thinking that the LAW cost less and is lighter than that AT4 (2 kg vs 6 kg). <>

I believe the Marines are thinking that the LAW cost less and is lighter than that AT4 (2 kg vs 6 kg).

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: jdun http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-3665 jdun Wed, 26 Nov 2008 23:33:01 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-3665 They got rid of it because the SMAW and AT4 do a better job on all category except weight and length. The Marines probably want it because they won't be facing tanks in Afghanistan. It's much lighter then the SMAW and can be ditched once fired. I bet the primary use for it is to take down fortification. They got rid of it because the SMAW and AT4 do a better job on all category except weight and length.

The Marines probably want it because they won’t be facing tanks in Afghanistan. It’s much lighter then the SMAW and can be ditched once fired. I bet the primary use for it is to take down fortification.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: thebronze http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/11/25/m72-law-making-a-comeback/comment-page-1/#comment-3657 thebronze Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:55:48 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3393#comment-3657 SWEET!!!!! I don't know why the DOD ever got rid of it in the first place... SWEET!!!!! I don’t know why the DOD ever got rid of it in the first place…

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]>