US Army Approves M3 Carl Gustav Recoilless Rifle for General Use

Carl_Gustav_M3_Kokonaisturvallisuus_2015

US Army infantry platoons will be getting a little more “boom” very soon. Jane’s, among other news outlets, report that the US Army has finally approved the M3 Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless rifle for general issue to the infantry platoon. From IHS Jane’s:

US Army light infantry units are to be equipped with the Saab 84 mm Carl Gustaf M3 Multirole Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System (MAAWS) as a standard issue tactical support weapon, following completion of a Conditional Materiel Release (CMR) authorisation by the army in late 2015. In parallel, the army continues planning and tasking efforts to achieve Full Material Release (FMR) to the service in late 2016.

With the CMR complete, the M3 is now officially an organic weapon system within each army combat platoon, and will initially be fielded within selected Infantry Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs), which will now train, maintain, and sustain the M3 as part of the IBCT organisational structure. Going forward, all brigade combat teams will receive 27 Carl Gustaf launchers, about one per platoon.

“The CMR allowed the system to be quickly fielded to operational units before the more exhaustive Type Classification [TC] FMR process is completed. This allows IBCT commanders to train and deploy with the M3 MAAWS, pending finalisation of the TC FMR progress,” Jack Seymour, marketing director for Saab North America, told IHS Jane’s.

Select army active duty and National Guard components have already begun receiving the M3 MAAWS, and beginning this year units equipped with the system will be able to train and qualify on the weapon system in their home bases. The US Army’s Standards in Training Commissions (STRAC) allocations, outlined in the DA PAM 350-38, will authorise M3 MAAWS gunners and assistant gunners to qualify and maintain combat proficiency annually with live-fire exercises.

The 84mm recoilless rifles fire a wide variety of warheads, including high explosive rounds for both personnel and structures, high explosive anti tank (HEAT), smoke, illumination, and high explosive dual purpose (HEDP) rounds. It has an effective range of 1,200 meters and very high accuracy, making it an ideal weapon to counter long-range ambushes by entrenched enemy machine guns, while reducing engagement time and the potential for collateral damage versus light mortars. Versus long-range inert-projectile small arms concepts like the General Dynamics LWMMG .338 Norma medium MG, the Carl Gustav offers high explosive firepower and greater versatility.

Recoilless rifles operate by exploiting the principle of conservation of momentum; the weapons essentially eliminate recoil by ejecting propellant mass at high velocity from the rear of the gun, which allows the rifle itself to remain stationary. This allows an infantryman to use a weapon that would otherwise be far too large for a human to manage, at the cost of using propellant far less efficiently than a conventional artillery piece. Recoilless rifles provide higher accuracy and greater range than most rocket launching anti-tank weapons like the M72 LAW, while being far less expensive than more sophisticated systems like the Javelin missile.

Fielding of the M3 CG to regular units has been in the works since at least 2013.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • SF

    I know Rangers have been using them for a while, as well as most of SOCOM. you see a lot of beat up boost-avs in Afghanistan getting used quite frequently.

  • Rusty S.

    I wonder why not the M4 model, which has a few more features such as the integrated shot counter as well as weighing 6lbs less than the M3. Most likely cost. Hopefully the army ordered the new 655 CS rounds as well.

    • I think possibly because the M3 was already type classified and in limited use by Rangers and such?

  • 2wheels

    “Recoilless rifles provide higher accuracy and greater range than most rocket launching anti-tank weapons like the AT4”
    Fun fact, the AT-4 is not a rocket launcher. Think of it as a disposable Carl Gustav. It’s cheaper, smooth bore, can’t be reloaded. It’s also made by the same company.

    • iksnilol

      I wan’t to load one of those tubes with blackpowder and buckshot.

      UPCYCLING DAMNIT!

      • Phillip Cooper

        Only if you want to pick plastic and buckshot out of your cranium…..

        Well, have someone else do it, so your corpse will be somewhat presentable…

        • iksnilol

          We’ll reinforce it with some plumbing pipe and JB weld 😛

          Besides, if we do it right we will get some low pressure buckshot so should work fine. Trust me, I am from Jugoslavia. We got this crap down to an art.

          Maybe I should do a POTD on improvised firearms from Bosnia? Would anybody liek that?

          • Salty

            LIKE

          • iksnilol

            Sure, I think when I have some free time (or am busy procrastinating) I will send a mail to Phil or something.

          • Salty

            definetely

    • You are absolutely correct, I will correct that error.

      • Jean Luc Picard

        I wonder how a rocket launcher will have shorter range than a recoilless rifle
        I mean the Carl Gustaf is both rocket launcher and recoilless rifle at the same time.
        Also I’m pretty sure the rocket boosted ammuntions have more range than the recoilless shells which makes the weapon be able to outclass many recoilless launchers.

        • Jwedel1231

          I also am wondering about that. Maybe having it’s own propellant makes rockets less accurate at closer distances? Not that the rockets can’t go as far, but they lose their bearing? If not that, then IDK.

          • jcitizen

            I would suspect it is a distance to stability issue – when you fire the rifle, the round is already stable out of the muzzle, where a rocket may take 14 meters or so to catch some air, and stabilize on fins alone. I would think some extra jets blasting upon exit to impart spin would help, if immediately out of the tube – much the way many self targeting MLRS and other similar rockets do.

        • 2wheels

          There’s no rocket motor in a Carl G projectile, how can it be both a rocket launcher and a recoilless rifle?

          • Jean Luc Picard

            Why not ?

          • buzzman1

            Ditto for the main gun on a T-90 tank which can fire an anti tank missile through the main tube.

          • Colin

            yea I got caught out on that as well, in my day it was just a RR, now with the newer ammo it’s a hybrid, as it can launch rocket assisted rounds, making it also a RL.

        • Keep in mind that for the typical man portable rocket launcher, you *must* consume the propellant entirely within the tube or you’ll blow the face off the gunner (unless you add a big, heavy, bulky, shield).

          So, you have to get *all* of your thrust impulse within the tube, just like a “reckless”. That’s why LAWs go “BOOM” instead of “HISS”.

          And adding a delayed sustainer motor (as is generally done with ATGMs) adversely affects accuracy in unguided rockets. However, sustainer motors in spin stabilized recoilless rifle rounds are not as adversely affected by them.

    • buzzman1

      I remember when the AT4’s were first issued. They came with a small manual that said “NOT FOR USE AGAINST TANKS”. Also one of the modifications needed to turn the LAW into a training device made it quickly reloadable if you had a rocket that would fit the tube.

      • jcitizen

        You can actually buy those practice rounds on the market legally, which is surprising what with a dangerous 5 meter back blast – if I remember my LAW correctly. I see them at gun shows, but lost the link to one of the sites that sell them in a computer crash. You’d need an empty LAW and the special reduced inner tube also.

  • iksnilol

    Welcome, almost 70 years after everybody else?

    • Holdfast_II

      No kidding. Does that mean the Canadian Army’s been on the cutting edge for the last 4 decades or so?

      • Colin

        yea, I remember us switching from the 3.5RL to the Carl Gustav in 1977 as a recruit in the Reserves. I got to fire both in training.

    • The Raven

      The US Army has been using The Goose for quite some time, just not with the standard troops. SF & Ranger teams have had it in their kit since Desert Storm…

    • Well, we had recoilless rifles in WWII. We dropped them from Big Army in the early 1970s when we had good wire guided SACLOS ATGMs, because everyone in Ordnance was thinking of them as “tank killers”. And figuring any other direct fire HE missions would be undertaken by said missiles or accompanying tanks.

      Meanwhile, SF (and once stood up, the Rangers) kept issuing recoilless rifles until hey used up the ammo. And infantry officers and NCOs (specifically *light* infantry) have been screaming for recoilless rifles at at least the company level for decades – I remember hearing about the arguments in 1985, before I even enlisted. And i remember multiple Infantry magazine articles begging for a “reckless” from at least 1987.

      But we were going to be fighting Soviet tank hordes, yes sirree! “You grunts don’t need any obsolete recoilless rifles that can’t kill modern Soviet MBTs head on!”

      • Kivaari

        They always forgot about all the other uses.

        • Yup. And we’ve had to kill a Hell of a lot more soft skins and bunkers than we have MBTs since 1945.

          But people could not forget the early days of Korea, where the WWII era 2.75″ bazookas couldn’t stop T-34s…

    • Kivaari

      Not really. We have used it for quite some time. We also had our own 90mm RCL.

  • Lance

    Good news. Proves too for heavy firepower sometimes you don’t need a over priced computer controled missile but a proven none guided tank/bunker killer.

  • kuma

    excellent choice, a truly versatile and potent weapon system,
    quite accurate if you have it dialed in right.
    The support thing doesnt look as practical as the tripod model ive used though.

  • Ron

    It is a good call to add a assault weapon back into the TO/E of infantry units.

  • Patriot Gunner

    Take that Russian RPG’s!

    • It’s a trade-off. The Carl Gustav is a better weapon, except in terms of weight. I’d be hard pressed to choose between a Carl Gustav, the American made version of the RPG7, and a German Panzerfaust 3 (all presuming I could get the best available rounds for each) as a support weapon for dismounted rifle companies and platoons.

      Especially when you cnsider the latter two are more *squad* level weapons, so it isn’t a 1:1 comparison, it’s more realistically 1:3. Would I rather have 1 M3 or 3 RPGs with modern ammo, if I have to hump them and their ammo?

  • iowaclass

    NFA destructive device?

    • Kivaari

      Yep!!! It is unlawful to make recoiless rifles. I was going to make a black powder one, and read in one of the ATF books that it is really a no-no. From memory it couldn’t even be a black powder affair, since the round is “self-contained”, not loose like a muzzle lading rifle or cannon.

      • Logic Rules

        Could you not build it such that the projectile and charge (and counterweight if so desired) were loaded as separate components? It wouldn’t be as handy that way, but it would function.

        Also, isn’t the non-modern ignition system one of the reasons that old cannons are not regulated while cartridge firing ones are? I know that aspect (non-modern ignition) is used to determine the legal status of some muzzleloading firearms, because a few years ago the ATF lived up to their short bus reputation and tried to regulate a muzzle loader as a conventional firearm because it used shotgun primers for ignition instead of older style percussion caps. To help keep your design legal (assuming I’m not mistaken on this issue), you could potentially ignite it with a fuse instead of a primer or electric ignition system. Again, not as handy, but it would function and also permit you to test the other components of your design.

        • Kivaari

          You could be correct Naturally I can’t find that ATF book. Having to take it apart and using a burning fuse probably is lawful, it just isn’t as much fun.

          • jcitizen

            You’r better off looking up GCA ’68 and ’86 to cover most laws regulated by the BATFE. Many firearms dealers also get the ‘twixes’ or bulletins between manuals, that cover declarations by the ATF on regulatory decisions. Those are more important than the usual book, because they are really the only deviation from the original laws.

        • jcitizen

          Don’t use black powder – trust me, I played with all this when I was a kid – the lowest form of explosive I’d use is the aluminum based firecracker powder. I successfully launched model rockets with 2 lb booster engines made by Century, and had a lot of fun doing that. I’d wager, that in the US, that is not even illegal, as that is building a class C or B firework. It is not illegal to do that, but driving down the road or trying to sell that stuff requires a HAZMAT and/or explosive sales and storage license. Putting explosive in the rocket or warhead gets you into having special occupational taxes on destructive devices.

      • jcitizen

        There is a poorly understood but exclusive industry in building ammo for registered destructive devices; as I read the omnibus bill part the GCA’68, this required the ‘bazooka’ rocket be made of plastic and no metal allowed. Does this impact the performance of the rocket? Not really. That is part of why regulations are stupid. A recoilless rifle would be in the same class as an artillery piece, and as many have seen on cable television, there are many privately held weapons being enjoyed by legally registered owners. Now I’m sure the cost of building and registering the ammo, or the paperwork involved, would curl even a good lawyers hair, but they are doing this all the time. I’m not sure you have to pay a $200 tax for each round, just the laucher – the ammo has taxes levied for each transfer, but I’m not as familiar with how that is implemented by the BATFE.

        • Kivaari

          Exploding warheads are regulated and taxed. NO plastic rocket motor can replicate the motor on the 3.5 inch RL. Just lift a 3.5 inch round and you quickly realize the motor weighs several pounds. That’s because when the motor is ignited, it doesn’t simply fly like a sky rocket. It goes BANG, and the fuel load is gone right now. It is like a bomb going off, only the gasses are directed in one direction. It is why the better RLs didn’t need the face shield. It does pay to have goggles on. Especially in sub-freezing weather. Like rifle powder the extreme cold slows the burn rate. It would be a kick to have practice rounds and not simply fireworks. Recently the ATF ruled the “exploding” chalk marking 40mm rounds are now DDs. They are far from being exploding rounds that can cause damage.

          • jcitizen

            I wrote a rebuttal, but my comments don’t stick.

  • MechanizedSwede

    Ive fired a couple hundreds of grenades through the M2 variant, bulky and heavy as f*ck. But that bang makes it all worth while.

    I remember goin through the weapons training school, and being split up as battle buddies. And the one with the highest hit percentage after the three weeks would be the shooter and the other one the loader. needless to say i became the shooter, and the other guy had to carry my grenades. Life was good back then.

    • iksnilol

      Yikes, that’s good motivation to shoot well.

    • jcitizen

      One good thing about carrying heavy ordinance in the field is the warm fuzzy feeling, when you realize you have the best portable “insurance” going. That is how I felt humping my Ma Deuce in the mountains.

  • Joey JoJo Jr.

    Good to see DoD adopting a combat-proven, off-the shelf system with a minimum of thrashing around and hand-wringing over “competitions” and “shoot-offs”.
    Now, if only they could repeat the process with a frigging pistol… naw, that’s just the booze talking.

    • HPoster

      For just a second there I was happily thinking about a pistol version of the M3. Maybe like a 12GA pistol with HE, AP, Smoke…rounds. Then I realized you were talking about the ‘other thing’.

    • john shirley

      ODA had them when I was deployed in 2006…

    • Colin

      your not alone, we failed miserable to replace the Hi-Power, because we wanted the companies to give their intellectual property rights to Colt Canada.

  • MrEllis

    But can you rocket jump with it?

    • Jean Luc Picard

      hah normally you can’t because launchers like this have a timer before the shell becomes active. Without that you would rocket jump in pieces for sure 😐

    • Rock or Something

      Sure…once.

  • UnrepentantLib

    About damned time. When I was on active duty in the early 70’s we still had the 90mm recoilless rifle, though I only handled them in training. In my rifle company they never left the arms room. It’s a shame no one had the foresight to continue developing them. They fill a serious gap in capability.

    • gunsandrockets

      Yep, a decision which should have been made 15 years ago.

      The problem is ever since WWII, the focus has been too much on the anti-tank job. Even though since WWII infantry anti-tank weapons have been used much more often against non-armored targets than against tanks.

      That’s why perfectly useful support weapons like the ancient M18a1 57mm RCL gun were cast aside. It did stellar work during the fighting in the Korean War, and would have been perfect for Afghanistan too.

    • Ray Delaney

      I remember those, also. From the post, it appears these RRs have almost three times the effective range our 90mm RRs had, more on a par for range with the 106mm RRs of the anti-armor platoon of the combat support company of the light weapons infantry battalion circa 1975.

    • n0truscotsman

      I like that they’re cheap and their ammunition is cheap, with a dizzying array of types available. They also work in very nasty conditions.

      For counter-insurgency, they’re excellent.

      • UnrepentantLib

        If I recall correctly, when the Argentinians took over the Falkland Islands, a Royal Marine punched a hole in an Argentinian frigate with a Carl Gustav. Didn’t change the outcome, but I’m sure it was a very satisfying experience.

        • n0truscotsman

          I would be satisfied with that outcome, and would buy the alcohol for whoever accomplished such a task.

          • William Elliott

            I used to “know” one of those guys [internet buddies, he lived in Brazil till he passed]
            I miss Anthony.

        • Kivaari

          It hit short in the water, then continued on like a torpedo and hit below the waterline. It couldn’t have been better. Well, I guess if it had been 10 of them that would be better. It is written up in Max Hastings great book.

          • UnrepentantLib

            Pretty sure that’s where I read about it. Couldn’t remember the name of the book or author.

  • The Sergeant

    Served in the Swedish army as a squad leader in an armored infantry company (Pansarskytte). The Carl-Gustav was a sweet resource to have with us in the CV90 IFV but man was I lucky not having to carry it or its grenades, but just ordering the usage if it! It is heavy and bulky as I don’t know what and crawling long distance with that thing is a pain in the a**. Though nothing like lying in a ditch by a field close to it when they start firing a sequence of grenades. Cleans out whatever snot you have in your nose, that’s for sure!

    Happy that the US is buying it from us and hope the weapon system contributes to the elimination of a lot of terrorists in the future!

    • The Sergeant

      Should add that in the Swedish armored/mechanized infantry we have one Carl-Gustav per squad where the deputy squad leader leads the fire team that has the Carl-Gustav.

      • MeaCulpa

        Works wonders as poor mans mortars as well.

    • Bjørn Vermo

      In Norway we were not so soft on squad leaders. Every man in the weapons squad had to carry ammo, at least in the Home Guards. We had no vehicles.
      One nice thing about the 84mm was the variety of ammo, some times it is very useful to be able to lay smoke at a distance.

  • TheNotoriousIUD

    Does it come with t-shirt rounds?

    • ChierDuChien

      Not a bad idea for riots, it could spread a brightly colored gooey stinking sticky mess over everything within 30 feet of impact.

      • HPoster

        ” brightly colored gooey stinking sticky mess”? Kind of redundant at any ‘progressive’ demo-riot, no? Low-friction coefficient slip-and-slide goo might be a good way to go. Fun to watch, anyway.

        • Phillip Cooper

          I think it might be much more well-advised to load the rounds with soap and job applications.

          MUCH more effective at crowd dispersal.

          • HPoster

            I like. But by suggesting they get jobs might get you branded ‘racist’. Doncha know, the only pc source of income is ‘gov’t handouts’. True for both individuals and Green swindles…sorry, ‘Green Investments’.

        • idahoguy101

          If it fired job applications it’d repel Progressive demonstrators

          • Phillip Cooper

            Two days late. Try to keep up… 🙂

        • jcitizen

          HA! You guys are a riot!!

    • Giolli Joker

      Texas Tornado!

    • politicsbyothermeans

      Naw, they shoot 10 pairs of Ranger panties at a time. Ballistic Comfort Rounds.

      • HPoster

        Ranger panties? Is that a ‘thing’? (big thumbs up to both of you for t-shirt and intimate apparel launcher.)

        • politicsbyothermeans

          Absolutely. Pic related. There is a bizarre soft spot for fruity short shorts in a few SOF communities and the Marines too.

          • SP mclaughlin

            Rhodesian tastes live on!

          • Kivaari

            Some soldier don’t like going to war in underwear. The grass can cut the crap out of you, I guess that’s not a big deal where green doesn’t happen naturally.

          • Ron

            Silkies are awesome, they are one of the best things ever invented.

  • 40mmCattleDog

    Best decision made by the brass in a while. Powerful and very versatile weapon system that will add some good capabilities to the platoon. Just wish they would have went with the improved M4 version but you cant have everything I guess.

  • M C

    That’s considered to be a rifle? It’s huge! Calling that a rifle is like calling my penis a penis.

    • The Sergeant

      Well, since it has a rifled barrel it is technically a rifle…

      • HPoster

        And mc’s penis is technically a penis. Only technically. (Sorry, couldn’t resist. No offense intended. I have no first had knowledge if it technically is, or is not a penis.)

      • Just like the 16″ battleship guns are technically “naval rifles”.

  • Suppressed

    Muh ambidextrous version tho.

    • Holdfast_II

      Yeah, that’s kind of a pain. I made an improv eye patch to cover my dominant eye when using. It worked.

  • Alex Agius

    So the question on my mind is are there and registered m2 or m3 dds?

    • SF

      there can be. the only restriction against getting one is that it would have to e US made, cuz imported DDs are still dealer samples only. But if you ordered the parts from overseas, then you could assemble it on a Form 1. Good luck getting ammo though

  • RealitiCzech

    I still want the .338 LWMMG, though. It’s only a matter of time before our enemies attack with war elephants, and 5.56 isn’t going to cut it there.

    • SP mclaughlin

      Hannibal 2.0

      • RealitiCzech

        Every minute I stay in this room, I get weaker, and every minute the Carthaginians squat in the Rockies, they get stronger. I needed a mission… and for my sins, they gave me one.

  • HenryV

    Cheap portable direct fire had to come at some point, how much is a Javelin a bang?

    • Jean Luc Picard

      Too much in comparison 500$ up to 3000$ for a gustav round while the javelin is more or less than 84 000 per missile (I dont know the exact price for that one)
      Also the javelin is about 153 000$ per launcher while the gustav is about 20 000$ …

      • HenryV

        Frightening costs aren’t they? But it is a gap that has needed filling. Our great and great, great grandfathers knew the value of direct fire guns to support infantry. I bet more than a few munitions have been dropped from fast air for want of something cheap and ubiquitous like the Charlie G,

  • Tritro29

    Oh well there goes my rant about 10kg launchers in the Russian army. America you’re making too much sense. I don’t like this.

  • politicsbyothermeans

    It will be cool when Daesh starts griefing Goose gunners for using a newb tube.

  • HPoster

    When can I have one?
    It’s single-shot, not-black, no bayonet mount, no-flash-hider, and no evil ‘hi-capacity magazine. So, surely it’s not an ‘assault rifle’. Nothing there for Libs to complain about. Layaway?

    • Ron

      By military definition it is an assault weapon

      • HPoster

        Party pooper. Don’t you know irony when you hear it?

      • Bjørn Vermo

        In Norway it is a defensive weapon. At least it was back in my service days. Norway ONLY does defense. 😉

    • TJbrena

      I just want an IKEA Armored store so I can build my own CV90 wrong and then be embarrassed when my friend points out I made a stupid mistake putting it together.

  • iksnilol

    Is that sucker launching buckshot?

    Sweet mother of God.

    • J.T.

      Probably an ADM 401 round, which contains 1100 flechettes.

      • iksnilol

        That’s… that’s beautiful.

      • CountryBoy

        Ouch.

  • Colin

    Why not the much lighter up to date m4 in these days of grunt overload. What personal weapons also carried by m3 squad ( Not just a pistol ?). How much heavy ammo carried by squad because too little for actual battles ie two man team or too much spread through section breaks grunt back !! And of what type ?. any rangers users out there please comment. M4 yes great , M3 NO step backwards (Weight). Walking under fire up/ down mountains in heat / cold lumping that M3 around which could solve problems real quick without air/ artillery/mortars getting involved great idea except for the grunt who’s got it ! Sniperbait….machine gun magnet…. brits use them to attack apc’s and ships in Falklands good results. So you will carry your rifle ,belt rnds mg , 60mm mortar rnds, 40mm grenades, M3 ammo clip (2rnds ),etc SO MUCH for cutting grunts load ???

  • Fruitbat44

    It’s possible that the Charlie G had one major flaw which delayed it’s adoption by the US Army: It wasn’t invented here!

    Which is sadly true of a lot of armed services . . .

    • SP mclaughlin

      Well, the M240 and 249 are Belgian and the Army has had them for some time now.

      • Fruitbat44

        Hmmm . . . fair enough point, although the M60, with all it’s “quirks,” was around for a good long while before the M240 (Ghimpy) was adopted.

      • That’s because the US equivalents sucked *so* bad (remember, the M240 entered the inventory because the M73, M219, and M60E2 were *so* unreliable as tank MGs, and the various 5.56mm belt feds made in the US were similarly cranky as LMGs) the US ended up being forced to buy the FN guns because of reliability. And it only took almost TWENTY years before the Army admitted the FN MAG58 (M240) was a better ground gun than the offered M60 variants (the M60E3 has serious durability issues, which is why they came out with the M60E4 and -E6 for the SEALs).

  • gusto

    We (Sweden) is totally not a member of NATO. we just use the same calibres (and magazines) you do
    We are not members of nato we just happen to have troops in several NATO missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo
    wait why aren’t we a member?

    • Martin Grønsdal

      Putin said no. And because IKEA meatballs aren’t that good either.

      • gusto

        you take that back

        and it is not the taste that makes them great, it is that you get alot of them!

        • Martin Grønsdal

          1. Putin said “no”
          2. IKEA meatballs aren’t that good
          3. IKEA is of low quality. We don’t shop there, really.

          • Martin Grønsdal

            war?

    • Rock or Something

      Because it’s easier to put “boots on the ground” when claiming you have no “boots on the ground”.

  • Phillip Cooper

    About damn time!

  • Goody

    That is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. Anyone got load data?

    • jcitizen

      It is actually legal to buy practice round for the old LAW missle, but they are about $800 a round. That was last I checked, I’d hate to speculate how expensive now.

  • jon spencer

    How long before the rounds for this are able to be launched at a high angle and are terminally guided? Something like a mini Israeli Spike, maybe with small pop-out wings for extended range too.

    • I’ve seen sales literature on terminally guided (via laser illuminator) Carl Gustav rounds. Some years ago…

      BTW, I’ve also seen sales literature on the same for RPG rounds…

  • nick

    we had a reserve inf. regiment ‘misplace’ one of these back in the ’80’s in Ottawa, they went off for chow and forgot where they put it….
    to this day, this regiment is still shat on for that move

  • Plus

    What’s the state of use before the news?
    Isn’t US army already adopts M3 long before this?

    • For limited use (basically, Rangers and SF), previously. This is for Big Green.

  • MartinWoodhead

    Triggering and not in a good way hateful useless lump of steel specially designed with no good way of carrying the wretched thing.
    For extra hate the yanks get the lightweight version and the gunner carrys a pistol rather than an SLR. Not bitter or jealous at all 😈

  • Warren Ellis

    When is the M4 variant, aka the “M3A1”, going to be issued? It’s even lighter than the M3 MAAWS.

  • town22

    Main thing here is that the Infantry can punch at barriers; tanks, solid buildings and most important the hard well built bunkers that they will encounter.

  • Hickory Stonewall

    it’s about time dips hits

  • Fb14352

    Welcome to the party! I have seen M2 version being used in Indian army since 1980s. It is extremely effective against enemies hiding in houses, caves and ravines and is used extensively in Kashmir theater against Islamic terrorists. The air-burst mode is a good way to deal with entrenched enemy.

  • piomsian

    I’d like to see six of these mounted on an armored personnel carrier. It will be an A-10 on ground.

    • Kivaari

      Or like the USMC 6 barreled 106mm RCL Amtos, (I think that’s how it is spelled).

      • That would be the M50 Ontos.

        • Kivaari

          Thanks, I was too lazy to google it.

  • piomsian

    It all started late in WW11 with a 57 mm small cannon with a portion of the blast directed to the rear to balance the gun’s recoil. Corollary to this was the bazooka which was a small rocket with a shaped charge. The RR grew into 75 then 104mm the bazooka also grew and modified into other forms from Stinger to other larger and more deadly pieces. They are like apples and oranges, different mode of delivery.

  • piomsian

    Correction, 104mm,and 106mm never went into production they were standardized to 105mm.

    • But the improved 105mm (M40) was *called* the 106mm, to differentiate it from the 105mm M27 (which, while using the same bore size, had incompatible ammo).

  • Geoffry K

    Must be classified as a “Destructive Device”. Can I get one? Form 4, $200, Fingerprints and photos. No CLEO sign-off after the July 13th. And how much cash?

    • Kivaari

      I know where a beautiful M79 is for sale. It is minty and papered. Check you state laws as some outlaw DDs, while they remain legal under federal laws. I actually, can visit it when I like, but I couldn’t buy it in Idaho. It’s over .70 cal, so Idaho wont let me have it.

      • jcitizen

        You can have anything you want in Kansas, in fact they even flaunt the ’86 Federal Law by allowing construction of you own machingun. As long as it is marked “Made in Kansas”, and you don’t try to sell it as a manufacturer, or take it across state lines, they promise you will be immune to Federal prosecution.

    • jcitizen

      I think there are a few recoilless riffles in someones legal armory for sale some where, I see an M18, 57mm come up for auction occasionally.

    • You’ll have to find one made in the US, as I don’t believe the M3 was made before 1968 (thus couldn’t have been imported as a “pre-ban”), because in addition to the 1986 MG Freeze, people forget about the 1968 GCA importation freeze on *all* NFA “firearms”.

  • Ryan

    Yeah it took too long, but the acquisition and deployment deliver a new level of capilities to platoon strength units and above, though I imagine they will be found in smaller units as well on occasion. The variety of munitions described in the article actually pales in comparison to the real variety of rounds available. The Carl Gustav system is a phenomenal piece of kit and I’m just glad our boys will have that new piece in their toolbox.

  • Uniform223

    HOOAH!!