Sage Deuce Grenade Launcher
I first blogged about the 40mm Deuce grenade launcher late last year. I was able to handle it at Sage's SHOT boot and was quite impressed with it. The weight and height is not much more than a single barrel launcher and the width is, of course, the same. According to the company, on average a solider need 1.4 grenades to achieve an objective1 (be that taking out a target, blasting down a wall, etc.), this means that, on average, a reload is needed with a single shot like the M320 or M203. The downside of the system is that is is too bulky to mount under a M4.
Photo by and © Bryan Jones
-
To my mil readers, let use know what you think of the 1.4 average statistic ↩
Single trigger? I wonder how the mechanism works. If it is a DAO style with no ability to manually select which barrel is fired that will reduce the flexibility and usefulness of the weapon. A two trigger system would is best.
With the ability to quickly select barrels, a flechette or buckshot round could be placed in one barrel for instant close range personal defense in urban terrain fighting. That capability would eliminate the primary drawback of the old M-79 GL and allow use of this double barrel GL to replace the typical AR with underbarrel GL setup for the Grenadier job.
A two barrel 40mm GL seems like a winning concept to me. Adding nothing more complicated than an off the shelf handheld laser range finder for engaging targets at longer range would make the weapon system even better.
Rifle grenades also take, you know, riflemen out of the fight and confine them to shorter-ranged weapons with less accuracy than underbarrel ones.
Isn’t this the reason the Milcor MGL was invented?
I saw the comment on a side-by-side two-barrel layout. It occurs to me that if you combine the over-and-under design with a side-by-side, you’d have a four-barrel monster that at least would turn heads.
Grenad launcher bulky & heavy for long foots patrol. Passed trough Rifle grenade are more simple & everybody in squad could launch it.
I’ve known plenty of guys who can nail a target with the first shot off the 203. I knew one who didn’t even need the tangent or leaf sights; he could nail things with just the M4 front sight post.
The new sight makes accuracy with the 203 even easier.
Who counted. In OIF I we shot one or a lot, but no one even counted when we turned in the ammo. How’d did they get that number? But, 2 is always better then 1.
“Small math question: if it takes 1.4 rounds on average to achieve an objective, isn’t it more likely that one round will do it?”
Yes, but offhand it also implies that nearly 1/3rd of the time you need that second grenade. That’s far from negligible, and often enough to make a person say “every damn time grarrr!!! D:”
haven’t checked in for awhile, but it looks like SHOT 2011 theme is who can make the ugliest most useless gun of the year…..YAWN…zzzzzzz
Forget about bulky Steve that would weight a ton on the M-16 or M-4. I do like it by itself thought a SWAT team may buy these guns.
1.4 seems a bit of an odd statistic, though two shots is pretty standard. One shot to get on target, and a follow up to adjust and finish it.
Overall, this does seem like a good compromise between the limits of the old m203 and a weapon like the m32. A lot of soldiers are now carrying the new m320 (the 203′s replacement) as a standalone weapons, so this would fit well in that role.
Love the blog.
Small math question: if it takes 1.4 rounds on average to achieve an objective, isn’t it more likely that one round will do it?
-XC
I wonder that instead of an Over-and-Under design, if they’d gone with a Side-by-Side design, they could have come up with an M203 replacement.
I would imagine any parallax issues would be minimal – we’re talking about shooting exploding grenades here.
I now expect to see a side-by-side double 40mm grenade launcher in an action movie soon! (I mean, we got the double-Deagle already!)
Could it be configured to mount under an M4 forward assembly M203 style but parallel to the deck like a side-by-side shotgun? Looks interesting. I recall from my days in The Corps that an M203 was a slow, tough reload but the rare M79 was a quick reload in the hands of an experienced operator. Maybe that will be the deal with this unit; worn across the back (I know, I know, over that big ole bustle of Battle Rattle) and grabbed as needs be.
Steve,
I have fired the 203 and ran a couple of 203 ranges and I can’t tell you the average to get on target, but if I had to speculate that would be close, the 203 is pretty easy to fire and get on target!
Great post,
Thanks,
C_S
I can imagine what must have been going on in the booth people’s heads that day: “If I have to suffer one more “dropping a deuce”-joke, I’m seriously going to grab a .500 S&W and blow my head off. Or at the very least shoot myself in the eardrums with a .410″
Seriously though, that gun seems like a pretty smart concept.
Perhaps most troops need 40% more training?
one-eyed black scottish demolitionists approve!