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

  1. To my mil readers, let use know what you think of the 1.4 average statistic 





Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • Sian

    one-eyed black scottish demolitionists approve!

  • Perhaps most troops need 40% more training?

  • Clodboy

    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.

  • Concerned_Soldier

    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

  • Sean Casey

    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.

  • Dave

    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!)

  • xc

    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

  • Dan

    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.

  • Lance

    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.

  • dt

    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

  • Nanban Jim

    “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:”

  • 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.

  • charles222

    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.

  • snmp

    Grenad launcher bulky & heavy for long foots patrol. Passed trough Rifle grenade are more simple & everybody in squad could launch it.

  • 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. πŸ™‚

  • Zander

    Isn’t this the reason the Milcor MGL was invented?

  • charles222

    Rifle grenades also take, you know, riflemen out of the fight and confine them to shorter-ranged weapons with less accuracy than underbarrel ones.

  • Brad

    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.