Comments on: 40mm M320 grenade launcher will be replace M203 next year http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/ Firearms not Politics Fri, 10 Feb 2012 23:24:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Advanced Electrolysis Paddington http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-83260 Advanced Electrolysis Paddington Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:17:52 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-83260 Hi my family member! I wish to say that this post is awesome, nice written and come with approximately all significant infos. I would like to peer more posts like this . Hi my family member! I wish to say that this post is awesome, nice written and come with approximately all significant infos. I would like to peer more posts like this .

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: SPC Howes http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-77193 SPC Howes Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:10:49 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-77193 That sight is gold.... If your soldiers don't use them they are stupid... Have them have a real pmi on the sight and maybe they will change their mind when they actually learn how to use it... That sight is gold…. If your soldiers don’t use them they are stupid… Have them have a real pmi on the sight and maybe they will change their mind when they actually learn how to use it…

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: SPC Howes http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-77192 SPC Howes Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:03:04 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-77192 I will tell you right now as a current infantry 11b, you are completely wrong about this sight. The laser level sight is the best thing ever invented for the 203/320 40mm grenadier systems. You were probably just not trained on it properly, but it is the easiest most accurate sight in existence for these weapons.... And one clear advantage to them is the extreme improved usability during night fire/engagements... I will tell you right now as a current infantry 11b, you are completely wrong about this sight. The laser level sight is the best thing ever invented for the 203/320 40mm grenadier systems. You were probably just not trained on it properly, but it is the easiest most accurate sight in existence for these weapons…. And one clear advantage to them is the extreme improved usability during night fire/engagements…

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: AC434 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-58213 AC434 Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:53:15 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-58213 I'm hearing too many opinions. It's been too many moons since I humped a 203, but please correct me or update me: Mounting: I remember only an armorer were the only ones who could remove and mount a 203. Still true? No wire? And the M320 mounts on standard rails? Sites: Leaf sights interfere with the optics, that is why, the M320 has sites on it and not on the main weapon? Right or Wrong? Lefties Righties: The grenadiers in my squad who were left handed just fired the weapon righthanded or did the hand suffle firing left. So the M320 is only LEFT side only for loading? That seems like a poor choice, why didn't the USA just buy the FN version for the SCAR, it swings both left and right for loading. I’m hearing too many opinions. It’s been too many moons since I humped a 203, but please correct me or update me:

Mounting:
I remember only an armorer were the only ones who could remove and mount a 203. Still true? No wire? And the M320 mounts on standard rails?

Sites:
Leaf sights interfere with the optics, that is why, the M320 has sites on it and not on the main weapon? Right or Wrong?

Lefties Righties:
The grenadiers in my squad who were left handed just fired the weapon righthanded or did the hand suffle firing left. So the M320 is only LEFT side only for loading? That seems like a poor choice, why didn’t the USA just buy the FN version for the SCAR, it swings both left and right for loading.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: AC434 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-58209 AC434 Fri, 18 Mar 2011 19:26:42 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-58209 HL Sales: M320 Related to the HK’s AG-C/EGLM and AG36 grenade launcher modules, the HK M320 GLM is a 40mm single-shot add-on grenade launcher selected to replace the U.S Army’s current issue M203. The M320 can fire all of the high explosive (HE), armour piercing (AP), irritant gas, smoke, and illuminating rounds previously fired from the M203. However, because its breech opens to the side, instead of the pump-style of the M203, the M320 can also fire a variety of newer rounds that are longer, specifically certain non-lethal rounds. The M320 program takes full advantage of existing Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) technology and rapid acquisition procurement. The M320 was envisioned, tested, and selected with operator involvement in a full and open competition in 2005—without the need to invest U.S. government R&D funds or employ a lengthy and costly development process. The U.S. Army “type-classified” the M320/M320 grenade launcher system with National Stock Numbers (NSN) and it is now in the current Army logistics support network. First units were fielded in the summer of 2009 for operational deployment with U.S. forces in Southwest Asia. Like the related HK AG-C/EGLM, the mechanical ladder sights on the M320 are located on the side of the grenade launcher, not the host weapon, so they do not require re-zeroing every time the launcher is reattached to the rifle or carbine. An optional Day/Night Sight (DNS) provides first round hit probability in 5 meter increments out to 400 meters and the DNS can be tandem mounted with the mechanical sights. The M320 operates in double action mode, with an ambidextrous safety and ambidextrous barrel release lever. In case of misfire, the M320 user merely has to pull the trigger again, versus the M203 operator who has to cycle the breech to re-cock the firing pin, then pull the trigger again. The M320’s side-loading, rifled barrel is constructed of aluminum for lightweight and is spring actuated for quick loading and unloading. The M320 barrel measures 8.46 inches (215 mm), shorter that the 11 inch (279 mm) barrels found on the AG-C/EGLM and AG36, but considered the optimum for saving weight and projectile velocity. With the addition on a retractable buttstock, the M320 can be used as a stand-alone launcher. An integral MIL-STD (Picatinny) rail also allows a folding vertical foregrip to be added. In this configuration, M320 can be used effectively as a “grenade pistol” in confined spaces without the buttstock attached. Like the M203, the M320 attaches to the M16 rifle and M4 carbine, and can also be mounted on the HK416, HK417, and a variety of other weapons equipped with under-swung Picatinny rail systems. HL Sales:

M320
Related to the HK’s AG-C/EGLM and AG36 grenade launcher modules, the HK M320 GLM is a 40mm single-shot add-on grenade launcher selected to replace the U.S Army’s current issue M203. The M320 can fire all of the high explosive (HE), armour piercing (AP), irritant gas, smoke, and illuminating rounds previously fired from the M203. However, because its breech opens to the side, instead of the pump-style of the M203, the M320 can also fire a variety of newer rounds that are longer, specifically certain non-lethal rounds.

The M320 program takes full advantage of existing Commercial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) technology and rapid acquisition procurement. The M320 was envisioned, tested, and selected with operator involvement in a full and open competition in 2005—without the need to invest U.S. government R&D funds or employ a lengthy and costly development process.

The U.S. Army “type-classified” the M320/M320 grenade launcher system with National Stock Numbers (NSN) and it is now in the current Army logistics support network. First units were fielded in the summer of 2009 for operational deployment with U.S. forces in Southwest Asia.

Like the related HK AG-C/EGLM, the mechanical ladder sights on the M320 are located on the side of the grenade launcher, not the host weapon, so they do not require re-zeroing every time the launcher is reattached to the rifle or carbine. An optional Day/Night Sight (DNS) provides first round hit probability in 5 meter increments out to 400 meters and the DNS can be tandem mounted with the mechanical sights.

The M320 operates in double action mode, with an ambidextrous safety and ambidextrous barrel release lever. In case of misfire, the M320 user merely has to pull the trigger again, versus the M203 operator who has to cycle the breech to re-cock the firing pin, then pull the trigger again.

The M320’s side-loading, rifled barrel is constructed of aluminum for lightweight and is spring actuated for quick loading and unloading. The M320 barrel measures 8.46 inches (215 mm), shorter that the 11 inch (279 mm) barrels found on the AG-C/EGLM and AG36, but considered the optimum for saving weight and projectile velocity.

With the addition on a retractable buttstock, the M320 can be used as a stand-alone launcher. An integral MIL-STD (Picatinny) rail also allows a folding vertical foregrip to be added. In this configuration, M320 can be used effectively as a “grenade pistol” in confined spaces without the buttstock attached.

Like the M203, the M320 attaches to the M16 rifle and M4 carbine, and can also be mounted on the HK416, HK417, and a variety of other weapons equipped with under-swung Picatinny rail systems.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Entropy http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-58085 Entropy Thu, 17 Mar 2011 03:15:02 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-58085 Do any British or German soldiers read this blog? If so, I'd be interested to hear your opinions on the M320/AG36/L17. Is it reliable? Useful? How is it on the L85 and G36? I heard that the L17 'rebalances' the L85 quite nicely by bringing weight forward, but the whole assembly looks very bulky to me. In 5 years with the Cadets I got to use all of the SA80 rifles except the little L22 carbine, and I never thought they were back-heavy to begin with even with a full magazine. I guess it's what you're used to though; maybe I just like the balance of a bullpup. Having the M320 as right-handed only seems like a dick move. If H&K were investigating an ambidextrous opening design with the G3 I wonder why they didn't implement it? The concept seems sound. To me the M320 seems over-designed with a pistol grip and all that. Sure on the L85 you need some kind of foregrip for the grenade launcher unless you're going to go with an EGLM style trigger, but a foregrip for the M16? That's stupid! It already has one in the form of the magazine. Do any British or German soldiers read this blog? If so, I’d be interested to hear your opinions on the M320/AG36/L17. Is it reliable? Useful? How is it on the L85 and G36?

I heard that the L17 ‘rebalances’ the L85 quite nicely by bringing weight forward, but the whole assembly looks very bulky to me. In 5 years with the Cadets I got to use all of the SA80 rifles except the little L22 carbine, and I never thought they were back-heavy to begin with even with a full magazine. I guess it’s what you’re used to though; maybe I just like the balance of a bullpup.

Having the M320 as right-handed only seems like a dick move. If H&K were investigating an ambidextrous opening design with the G3 I wonder why they didn’t implement it? The concept seems sound. To me the M320 seems over-designed with a pistol grip and all that. Sure on the L85 you need some kind of foregrip for the grenade launcher unless you’re going to go with an EGLM style trigger, but a foregrip for the M16? That’s stupid! It already has one in the form of the magazine.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Lance http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-55926 Lance Sun, 20 Feb 2011 04:40:50 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-55926 @Wallace interesting if your right. @Wallace interesting if your right.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Wallace http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-55853 Wallace Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:07:18 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-55853 In Afghanistan we leave the 320s behind, worthless, too heavy/bulky and unrelyable. Bring back the M203 In Afghanistan we leave the 320s behind, worthless, too heavy/bulky and unrelyable. Bring back the M203

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Some Guy http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-55061 Some Guy Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:19:09 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-55061 The weight of this weapon is actually around 3.3 lb, compared to 3 lb for the M203, and is around 13.5 inches long, compared to the 15 inch long M203. So while it's slightly heavier, it's short over all. If you add the weight of the extra sights you have to add to the M203, the entire weight of the M203 "weapons system" is around 3.3 lb, meaning that they are basically the same weight. I admit that the pistol grip on the thing is a little silly, but only because they didn't do it right. A hammer grip or a pistol grip is supposed to make a weapon more accurate; a hammer grip is more natural for a human being than a weird side grip thingy (like with what is used with a normal rifle). Point and case, compared how much force you can exert with your hand "cupped" like you normally would when holding a rifle, and then compare it with how much force you can exert with a hammer grip. There is a reason that swords, axes, clubs, and of course, hammers all use this grip; and a reason why people stab in a similar manner instead of just poking someone with it. It's more natural to use a hammer grip in almost everything you do, and it also generates considerably more power. That kind of power mixed with better ergonomics, for most people, causes the gun to shake around less, increasing the accuracy. I personally think that built in sights that you don't have to align every time you take the weapon off and a side opening breech are all really nifty, but I suppose it's all up to the user. If you're trained to use an M203, I can see why this might seem worse, but it's supposed to be more ergonomic. Then again, going from sludge to clear in crystal pepsi was seen as a bad idea for the actual people who bought it, even though it was supposed to be more "user friendly". Imo... We could starting using this new synthetic DEFCOM XL 79, which is 3 pounds, or around the same weight as an M203, but the same size as an M79, or we could start using the 3GL, which is a 3 round grenade launcher, that would vastly improve our units' abilities. The weight of this weapon is actually around 3.3 lb, compared to 3 lb for the M203, and is around 13.5 inches long, compared to the 15 inch long M203. So while it’s slightly heavier, it’s short over all.

If you add the weight of the extra sights you have to add to the M203, the entire weight of the M203 “weapons system” is around 3.3 lb, meaning that they are basically the same weight.

I admit that the pistol grip on the thing is a little silly, but only because they didn’t do it right. A hammer grip or a pistol grip is supposed to make a weapon more accurate; a hammer grip is more natural for a human being than a weird side grip thingy (like with what is used with a normal rifle). Point and case, compared how much force you can exert with your hand “cupped” like you normally would when holding a rifle, and then compare it with how much force you can exert with a hammer grip. There is a reason that swords, axes, clubs, and of course, hammers all use this grip; and a reason why people stab in a similar manner instead of just poking someone with it.

It’s more natural to use a hammer grip in almost everything you do, and it also generates considerably more power. That kind of power mixed with better ergonomics, for most people, causes the gun to shake around less, increasing the accuracy.

I personally think that built in sights that you don’t have to align every time you take the weapon off and a side opening breech are all really nifty, but I suppose it’s all up to the user. If you’re trained to use an M203, I can see why this might seem worse, but it’s supposed to be more ergonomic.

Then again, going from sludge to clear in crystal pepsi was seen as a bad idea for the actual people who bought it, even though it was supposed to be more “user friendly”.

Imo…

We could starting using this new synthetic DEFCOM XL 79, which is 3 pounds, or around the same weight as an M203, but the same size as an M79, or we could start using the 3GL, which is a 3 round grenade launcher, that would vastly improve our units’ abilities.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Enoctis http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-53661 Enoctis Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:14:45 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-53661 @Daniel E. Watters: The site shown on the HK320 *IS* the AN/PSQ-18A... or at least it looks exactly like it. I have 4 of them in my arms room, and was told they're junk. Never used them, they just collect dust. @Daniel E. Watters:
The site shown on the HK320 *IS* the AN/PSQ-18A… or at least it looks exactly like it. I have 4 of them in my arms room, and was told they’re junk. Never used them, they just collect dust.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: robert t http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-45790 robert t Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:32:03 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-45790 what is wrong with the army. why would they take away the m203 that worked for so many years and doesn't have many problems and replace it with the m320 bulky piece of junk. if its for the side load feature then why not just make a 40 mm grenade launcher tube just as simple and light weight as the m203 but have it open to the side(which hinders left sided shooters). my unit which i have been to combat with has completely replaced the m203 with the piece of junk referred to as the m320. mounting the m320 on the m4 adds too much weight and you will quickly loose accuracy due to the weight. i have my guys slinging their 320's on their side to get the weight off of their guns and give them more accuracy with the m4. unfortunately, in doing this, i have added at least 3 seconds to the time that it takes me to see rounds on target. anyone who has deployed and has been in a fire fight knows that 3 seconds is like a eternity in firefights. two sayings that would alleviate the stupid decisions the army makes such as, ACU's, m320, etc. are KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID and WHY FIX SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BROKE. the army needs to stop the meeting of the good idea clubs that come up with this crap. hopefully someone important in the army reads this. instead of buying a couple thousand of a such item and then testing it out and realizing how much money is invested in the item so we have to go with it. try buy small number of such item and testing it out, getting feed back, and then realize it was a horrible idea and scrap it. what is wrong with the army. why would they take away the m203 that worked for so many years and doesn’t have many problems and replace it with the m320 bulky piece of junk. if its for the side load feature then why not just make a 40 mm grenade launcher tube just as simple and light weight as the m203 but have it open to the side(which hinders left sided shooters). my unit which i have been to combat with has completely replaced the m203 with the piece of junk referred to as the m320. mounting the m320 on the m4 adds too much weight and you will quickly loose accuracy due to the weight. i have my guys slinging their 320′s on their side to get the weight off of their guns and give them more accuracy with the m4. unfortunately, in doing this, i have added at least 3 seconds to the time that it takes me to see rounds on target. anyone who has deployed and has been in a fire fight knows that 3 seconds is like a eternity in firefights. two sayings that would alleviate the stupid decisions the army makes such as, ACU’s, m320, etc. are KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID and WHY FIX SOMETHING THAT’S NOT BROKE. the army needs to stop the meeting of the good idea clubs that come up with this crap. hopefully someone important in the army reads this. instead of buying a couple thousand of a such item and then testing it out and realizing how much money is invested in the item so we have to go with it. try buy small number of such item and testing it out, getting feed back, and then realize it was a horrible idea and scrap it.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: slctamu http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-44721 slctamu Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:40:06 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-44721 So for what it's worth, being a late commenter (so maybe nobody will read this post), and having no experience with said weapon in theater, I would like to waste a couple of minutes to add my two cents. First I would like to state that I am in no way attempting to demonstrate the superiority over the 203, but instead the possible usefulness of the M320. So I completely understand the arguments about the side opening breech being inconvenient and not really practical for a left handed shooter. However, for me, a right handed shooter, my reload time is actually improved seeing as how i can support the weapon and operate the breech release with one hand while preparing the next round with my other. Secondly, the above quoted information about the use of less than lethal rounds is completely false. We used the 40mm sponge rounds in our 203 often as part of our escalation of force. You shoot it into a windshield, it gets your attention. The idea fairy told me that the M320 used as independent weapon system, which is small, and light, might be positioned in a gunners turret, whereby giving the the possibility to employ it as handy tool (again an escalation of force tool, a nice little boom maker, or whatever else one used the M203 for without the necessity of being attached to a host weapon). Someone else also commented on the system being difficult and requiring two people to attach it to a host weapon....ummm, I don't mean to judge, but you might be a mouth breather. Also placing or removing the host weapon mounting accessories, requires one to be able to turn four screws with an allen wrench. Hopefully any individual in the the army is capable of this. I can understand a marine having troubles with such, but that's another story. Just kidding, love you guys. So about the sights...I do agree that the like the centerline mounted leaf sights used the M203 are better. Also I played with the infrared aiming device mounted on the M203 years ago and the only practical use in my opinion was obviously for aiming the 203 with NOD. Anyway, if you don't want to use the sight, don't mount it...in fact take of the leaf sight from the M320 if you want, it can be done, and mount the old 203 leaf sights on your M4. Anyway, if your given a tool, play with it, and not dismiss it immediately. Maybe you'll find it useful for something you didn't think of at first. My unit is not replacing our 203, just adding the 320 to the arsenal. So for what it’s worth, being a late commenter (so maybe nobody will read this post), and having no experience with said weapon in theater, I would like to waste a couple of minutes to add my two cents. First I would like to state that I am in no way attempting to demonstrate the superiority over the 203, but instead the possible usefulness of the M320. So I completely understand the arguments about the side opening breech being inconvenient and not really practical for a left handed shooter. However, for me, a right handed shooter, my reload time is actually improved seeing as how i can support the weapon and operate the breech release with one hand while preparing the next round with my other. Secondly, the above quoted information about the use of less than lethal rounds is completely false. We used the 40mm sponge rounds in our 203 often as part of our escalation of force. You shoot it into a windshield, it gets your attention. The idea fairy told me that the M320 used as independent weapon system, which is small, and light, might be positioned in a gunners turret, whereby giving the the possibility to employ it as handy tool (again an escalation of force tool, a nice little boom maker, or whatever else one used the M203 for without the necessity of being attached to a host weapon). Someone else also commented on the system being difficult and requiring two people to attach it to a host weapon….ummm, I don’t mean to judge, but you might be a mouth breather. Also placing or removing the host weapon mounting accessories, requires one to be able to turn four screws with an allen wrench. Hopefully any individual in the the army is capable of this. I can understand a marine having troubles with such, but that’s another story. Just kidding, love you guys. So about the sights…I do agree that the like the centerline mounted leaf sights used the M203 are better. Also I played with the infrared aiming device mounted on the M203 years ago and the only practical use in my opinion was obviously for aiming the 203 with NOD. Anyway, if you don’t want to use the sight, don’t mount it…in fact take of the leaf sight from the M320 if you want, it can be done, and mount the old 203 leaf sights on your M4. Anyway, if your given a tool, play with it, and not dismiss it immediately. Maybe you’ll find it useful for something you didn’t think of at first. My unit is not replacing our 203, just adding the 320 to the arsenal.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: crow http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-17081 crow Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:48:33 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-17081 im a 203 gunner and my arms room just got these i had a chance to look and hold one on an m4 and it doesnt look good or feel good removing it from your weapon takes two people and the laser range finder and side mounted sight are just more things to become broken im lefty and now i have to get some weapon time to figure out how to cut reload time before we deploy for afganistan im a 203 gunner and my arms room just got these i had a chance to look and hold one on an m4 and it doesnt look good or feel good removing it from your weapon takes two people and the laser range finder and side mounted sight are just more things to become broken im lefty and now i have to get some weapon time to figure out how to cut reload time before we deploy for afganistan

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Lance http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-16217 Lance Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:40:55 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-16217 The M-320 is much easier to use on a shorter M-4. The Marince are still going with the M-203 since they use M-16s. It depends on the gun your useing on which gernade launcher is best. M-4/M-320 OR M-16/M-203. The M-320 is much easier to use on a shorter M-4. The Marince are still going with the M-203 since they use M-16s. It depends on the gun your useing on which gernade launcher is best. M-4/M-320 OR M-16/M-203.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Metal Storm Armourer http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-15201 Metal Storm Armourer Tue, 29 Sep 2009 06:50:38 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-15201 Sven, the first blogger mentioned Metal Storm, here is the link to our CEO Bulletin; http://investor.metalstorm.com.au/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1676&PageNa Or more interesting footage for me [& the CEO] shooting 3 shots, semi-auto from our 'Under-slung' model off an M16A1; http://www.metalstorm.com/release/3GL-Assault-Weapon-Integration.html Some more cool high explosive footage in the video library - see Singapore 2008 shoot Sven, the first blogger mentioned Metal Storm, here is the link to our CEO Bulletin;

http://investor.metalstorm.com.au/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx?CPID=1676&PageNa

Or more interesting footage for me [& the CEO] shooting 3 shots, semi-auto from our ‘Under-slung’ model off an M16A1;

http://www.metalstorm.com/release/3GL-Assault-Weapon-Integration.html

Some more cool high explosive footage in the video library – see Singapore 2008 shoot

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-14638 Steve Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:22:28 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-14638 I have not seen a manual online. I have not seen a manual online.

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Daniel E. Watters http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-14637 Daniel E. Watters Thu, 17 Sep 2009 12:21:27 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-14637 Steve: I believe he wants a downloadable Technical Manual. I haven't seen one on a public website, but it might be available through AKO (Army Knowledge Online). Steve: I believe he wants a downloadable Technical Manual. I haven’t seen one on a public website, but it might be available through AKO (Army Knowledge Online).

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: Steve http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-14626 Steve Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:10:11 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-14626 SPC, what is a e-tm? SPC, what is a e-tm?

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: SPC LEFEBVRE http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-14625 SPC LEFEBVRE Thu, 17 Sep 2009 04:09:03 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-14625 how's it going i was woundering if there is an e-tm for the 320a1? i have to give a class tomorrow afternoon on this weapon,and i was hopeing to have power pooint for the lesson any links or help would be greatly appreciated how’s it going i was woundering if there is an e-tm for the 320a1? i have to give a class tomorrow afternoon on this weapon,and i was hopeing to have power pooint for the lesson any links or help would be greatly appreciated

Please rate this comment: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
]]> By: dave alayon http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2008/12/05/40mm-m320-grenade-launcher-will-be-replace-m203-next-year/comment-page-1/#comment-14067 dave alayon Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:47:41 +0000 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/?p=3576#comment-14067 the military should spend an extra $300 per infantry rifle in country to be retrofitted with a gas piston system. increases reliability 80% the military should spend an extra $300 per infantry rifle in country to be retrofitted with a gas piston system. increases reliability 80%

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