Marines to replace M203 with H&K M320

Recent news coverage has made it explicitly clear that the U.S. Marine Corps is finally going to upgrade legacy 40x46mm low-velocity M203 under-barrel grenade launchers to the much more mobile and versatile Heckler & Koch M320s that the U.S. Army has successfully been using for a number of years to date. Current numbers indicate that 7,000 are wanted by at least 2019, and at the latest in the year of 2022 for a force-wide issue among both the Active Component in the Fleet Marine Force and in the Reserves as well. Currently an article on is showcasing elements from 2nd Combat Engineering Battalion at Camp Lejeune working with M320s as a test case.

The M203 as it currently stands never really had any major issues that lead directly to an urgent need to upgrade the system and this is probably why there really isn’t a rush in getting the M320 into the Fleet. That, and little brother budget issues of course. Most of the M203s I encountered while in the service worked very reliably, and were very simple to maintain and clean. Although the ammunition length issue is absolutely true, we never had 40x46mm grenades that went over that length. But I can see baton rounds becoming useful for civil disturbances within some units overseas, and the M320 opening that opportunity up. In addition, having a mobile grenade launcher will most likely be the largest asset that this change brings into play. This means that instead of switching out 203s within a squad, or even just requiring a rifle to be armed with a 203, the M320 can now be a mobile unit, leaving it on post for example.


Infantry Marine, based in the Midwest. Specifically interested in small arms history, development, and usage within the MENA region and Central Asia. To that end, I run Silah Report, a website dedicated to analyzing small arms history and news out of MENA and Central Asia.

Please feel free to get in touch with me about something I can add to a post, an error I’ve made, or if you just want to talk guns. I can be reached at


  • Giolli Joker

    Compatibility with Raytheon Pike?

    • LCON
      assuming they buy the pike yes. The Pike was modeled with M320 and FN Mk13

      • The_Champ

        That is some fancy, man portable, laser guided, 2 km ranging goodness.

        Can’t imagine what it costs per pull of the trigger.

        • FactChecker90803

          Bet it will be a lot cheaper then utilizing a Hellfire, Griffin, TOW, Javelin or Excalibur.

          • Gary Kirk

            Or A10, B1, Ah64…

          • FactChecker90803

            Yeah, man hours on an AH-64 are eye opening, the unit cost of the Pike is unknown, but a comparisons of a similar system the NAWC/DRS Spike ( not to be confused with the Rafael Spike ATM ), is said to be around $ 5,000 for a mini optically guided 5lb missile that has a range of 2200 meters.

      • Giolli Joker

        Yep, what I was implying, and the article wasn’t mentioning, was this added capability as a possible advantage.

    • MeaCulpa

      The H&K has a barrel that swings out so the length of the grenade doesn’t mater unlike the 203 that is somewhat limited in what lengths of ammunition it will accept.

    • Back after the first Gulf war around 1992 or 93 I came up with the idea of a cheap self contained mortar/ rocket round that they would launch in the air at a 45 deg angle and it would home in on laser designated target via steerable fins. The idea was to be more portable than the 50 cal rifles they were using to destroy Scuds by poking holes in them. A small shaped charge would do more damage and the firer could be behind cover. With a mortar it would have been quieter given terrain shielding. I was told that it was not a worthwhile idea at the time but it seems Raytheon pretty much came up with a similar idea. Too bad I did not have resources at the time to push the idea. Now days the design would be fairly simple from a control unit design.

      • Giolli Joker

        Like a Japanese knee mortar with added laser guidance of the ammunition?

        • I was thinking at the time of a disposable tube system. to make it light and portable.

      • jono102

        I guess kind of a mesh up of a guided loiter round with an M-72/66 mm and and blue toothed to a FCU….makes some sense.

        The Pike system would make more sense paired to a 60mm commando mortar system. The 40mm tube is always going to limited the payload and also make the munition longer, at 16+ inches its already well longer than most 60mm HE mortar rounds and would come with its own carriage issues. The 60mm tube diameter would offer a lot more payload, range and target end effect. If a Pike type system was to ever make it into service with conventional forces (due to cost and capability) it would be controlled at Company level as a minimum anyway, Squad grenadier Smith isn’t going to be running around with a quiver of them.

        • If you are laser guided there is no ancillary items to carry like sights , stakes and such not. You could get away with a disposable tube if you had rocket assist.

          • jono102

            It would still need a device like an FCU or CLU to paint a target and the device would need to be able to be linked with the device to ensure the correct rocket is following the correct laser.

      • CapeMorgan

        You mean like the UK Merlin mortar round that was underdevelopment by BAC that proved too expensive to be fielded and was terminated in the mid-eighties?

        • Never heard of it, I will have to look it up. thanks.

        • jono102

          It was basically the 80’s predecessor to the likes of the 155mm Excalibur and 120mm Styx. It was designed to kill tanks. An example of a good concept but at the time wasn’t practical due to technology, cost etc. Knowing the Brits it would have had a mouse drinking brandy running on a wheel for power. It never quite worked properly and was as almost a meter long. The Israeli’s went down a better route with their Spike NLOS hidden inside old M-48’s for killing a lot of tanks fast at distance. They’ve had it for over 30yrs

  • Bert

    The primary benefit of using m320’s over m203’s is the stand alone configuration. If your grenadier is wounded or otherwise put out of the fight, you neither lose a major casualty producing weapon, nor a zeroed rifle in a handoff. It also simplifies training of all soldiers with identical handling of rifles, and prevents the grenadier from having a heavier rifle. Finally, it means the grenadier will not always treat his grenade launcher like a rifle first, instead using the rifle when needed, and the grenade launcher when needed.

    the M203 was a fine grenade launcher, and has served us well for a long time. The M320 has been doing so as well for a few years now, and will serve the Marines just as well.

    • I hope it’s used as a stand alone unit- ideally with FN’s 40mm Fire Control Sight, which is a computerized smart sight that uses a built in laser range finder and then shifts the reticle to compensate for drop.

      Mounted under the rifle, the M320 looks like a complete albatross.

      • Bert

        Me too. When leaders trusted the grenadiers come up with a plan, that is what we did. I even removed the mounting hardware to save weight (well the m16 hardware, I can’t remember if we took off the m4 hardware).

        • Bert

          Correction: we used them standalone with the provided sight and handheld rangefinder. The fn model sounds nice.

        • jono102

          We used to have an SOP that gave the grenadier in each fire team the first 3 rds to employ on contact and the rest belonged to the Section commander. Mind you that was when we got time to develop guys to the point they could be trusted to do so and safely. With high turn over, attrition and movement through roles its a lot harder to develop now.

    • 11b

      The 320 is better used standalone in my experience. It’s heavier than a 203 and makes unsupported shooting that much harder, especially when fatigued. Far better to hump it strapped to a ruck/assault pack and pull it out when needed

      • Bert

        I 100% agree. Standalone 320=great. Hanging off a rifle=NOPE.

        • int19h

          Is this just for 320, or is it true of underbarrel GLs in general? It seems that 203 is about the same weight when you count the sight. Russian GP series grenade launchers are also similar, in the ballpark of 3 lbs.

          • Bert

            What is your question? The forward dangling weight that is lower and farther forward on the 320 is decidedly more awkward than the m203 which is in and of itself awkward. Do I think stand alone is better than UBGL”s? Yes. Do I think m320’s are better than m203’s? Also yes. Do I think we should have stuck with the m79? I don’t know.

          • jono102

            I’ve never had any issues with the weight of an M-203 on a rifle be they a Steyr or an AR platform. We carried M-79’s prior and all our grenadiers was pretty happy when they got swapped out for M-203’s. M-79’s were good to shoot but a to carry especially if your in a dismounted Light Inf role.

            The M-320 is another story, being under slung seems to be designed as an after thought to being stand alone given its bulk how far forward it is mounted much like the Colt Canada Eagle. The side opening isn’t such a big selling point now that a lot of M-203’s have extended slides to accommodate longer rounds and the likely hood of Pike and longer rounds ever becoming a wide spread munition type is highly unlikely.

            The Marines need to decide what they want. If its a stand alone, ignore the Army and go with an H&K 169 Its centralized rail is better for optics/sights especially for accurate aiming/employment of less Lethal natures for left or right handers. If they want it to be under slung as well get one of the domestic M-203 producers to update the 203 design with better sights and add a pivot point to the barrel slide to allow it to tip left or right after sliding opening (like the FN 40mm underslung) as well as a stand alone set like what LMT produce. Leaving minimal to no retraining and maintained commonality of kit and more importantly no 200% mark up for having H&K written on it.

          • LCON

            M320 is already in the inventory has a training program and spare parts and all the other systems management and the Marines have the M32A1 to boot adding yet another 40mm to the Inventory would be hard to justify.

          • Bert

            I’ve never had too much issue with the 203’s weight either, and I believe I pointed out it is much lighter than the m320. It is somewhat awkward to carry and use the rifle portion, and over time people stopped treating it as a gl and started treating it as just a heavier rifle. I like standalone gls because that is all they are. It would certainly be better if the 320 didn’t have all that superfluous mounting equipment and provisions, but that’s what it is. I don’t know if there is a better place to put the laser/level/quadrant sight than the side (maybe not so far out). I don’t know why everyone is focusing on the pike and not the handful of long rounds already in the inventory. I also can’t imagine a government weapons improvement program that doesn’t end up costing as much as this fielding will. This choice also means spare parts from army inventories will be available in theater for the Marines to draw on if necessary.

          • int19h

            You’ve answered all the follow-up questions that I had, thank you.

          • Bert

            According to tm3-22.31 the m320 weighs 5 lbs (7 with stock), the m203 3lbs. They are not in the ballpark of each other.

    • snmp

      There are manies standalone stocks for M203 : airtronic-usa, FAB Defence, RM Equipment ….

      • Bert

        Those are not general issue items. The armorer will never let line guys cut the bailing wire on their rifle mounted weapons and mount them to those stocks either. The ground service branches both purchased a mature system with a number of benefits (and deficits) over a separate stock for the legacy UBGL.
        In the context of issued grenade launchers for service members on a general issue basis, those are irrelevant. Besides, the M320 has more positives than just this, I just focused on the one the author of the article will most likely find immediately useful.

  • mosinman

    the 320 looks like a kludge when mounted below a rifle

  • Frank

    So does this mean they’ll dump the M203 cuts?

    • SP mclaughlin

      Probably not, just in case of SHTF and M203s have to be brought back out of storage.

      • LCON

        also not as they use the M203 cut to fit it to the M4.

  • The_Champ

    ****Hunkers down and waits for this comment thread to somehow devolve into yet another cyclical argument over M4 vs HK416****

    As for the topic at hand, seems like a reasonable upgrade to someone who knows very little on the topic. Of the history I’ve read on the Vietnam war, the stand alone M79’s sure seemed to be highly regarded, and this seems like a step back in that direction.

    • Sianmink

      The standalone 320 is also highly regarded.
      I know I’d prefer to have it on a sling on its own as opposed to hanging awkwardly off the end of my rifle.

      • snmp

        You could have standalone stock for M203 (FAB Defense, airtronic-usa, ….)

        • LCON

          but you would be limited to short rounds.

      • valorius

        So basically, they should’ve never went away from the M79 to begin with.

  • Jon Fox

    So is the key in getting picked by the military is that you have to be an European based company with a product that has 320 in the name?

    • burningwar

      The new Glock 320.

      Or Turkey could probably get away with the MKE 320. It fires 32 ACP out of a rifle, but it will get accepted by the US Armed Forces.

      • LCON

        Turkey makes M203’s but also has some AG36. M320 is a more evolved shortened M320 with some other modifications

    • some other joe

      Is this a dig at the NH-based SIG Sauer? They immigrated years ago. But immigrants can’t play, I guess.

  • Mhh

    Sure the loading is better but man it looks – heavy, fat, and akward…

    • valorius

      That’s what i was thinking myself.

  • codfilet

    A relative of mine was on a Marine team in Iraq. He carried his M4, with the M203, plus a Benelli shotgun, and his pistol on patrols. I special-ordered a broomstick handle for his M203, that made it easier to handle for him. That grenade launcher saved his life, when their outpost was attacked-a massive suicide truck bomb first got close and blew itself up when it started taking fire, and deafened my relative as he was emerging from the bunker, and filled his eyes with dust and dirt. He couldn’t hear, and could barely see, but he held off the attackers who were circling in cars and trucks like a “Mad Max” scenario with all the grenades he had. He was calling for support on the radio, but couldn’t hear anything. As he was just about out of ammo, here comes air support-they could hear him. The next outpost over, manned by Iraqis, got overrun, and the defenders beheaded.

  • valorius

    I spent time as an M203 gunner while in the infantry. While it was bulky and not particularly ergonomic, it actually did work quite well (if used as a crew served weapon with a loader feeding it, it is actually capable of an astoundingly high ROF) Having never used one, what’s better about the HK system besides the little pistol grip?

    • Mhh

      The one big pro is how it angles to the side, so you can insert longer things – like the Pike.

      But it looks quite bulky, and the tiny extra grip technically just increases weight.

    • Bert

      What Mhh said, plus an integrated switch to activate the laser sight, and mounting hardware for sights directly on the weapon. Further, it has the option of a stock, which most grenadiers I have met, myself included, prefer. You can sling it separately or strap it to a bag, or whatever. It is heavier, but that is somewhat mooted by the standalone option.

      • valorius

        So it’s basically a more expensive m79.

        • Bert

          With a light switch!

        • Bert

          But seriously, it has a few ergonomic features common to modern weapons in the inventory, for example the pistol grip, forward grip, and similar safety location and method of operation to the m4.

          • valorius

            So it’s basically a more expensive m79. 😉

          • CommonSense23

            I’ve got a lot of experience with grenade launchers. The M79 is the most natural shooting. grenade launcher we have in the inventory. The 320 is worse to use until you get the optic for it.

          • Bert

            I’ll take your word for it. I have used the 203 and 320 quite a bit, but never the 79. The 320 was fielded to us complete with sight, which we we kept mounted.

        • DW

          A more expensive M79 sawn off “Pirate gun”
          M79 was quite long in factory configuration

          • valorius

            I suspect hack sawing an M79 and mounting a rail on it would be somewhat cheaper than buying a gold plated HK grenade launcher, but what do i know. 😉

          • jono102

            A US company was marketing an upgraded M79 a couple years back with a shorter barrel, folding stock and a rail. Same result at one tenth the cost of anything from H&K

          • DW

            And it would look majestic as ****

    • int19h

      If you had a choice between M203 and M79, which one would you prefer?

      • valorius

        Speaking purely as a grenadier (and of course not actually ever having used an M79, so im just going by what ive read with regards to it), i think the M79 is clearly superior- but then you’re stuck with a sidearm for those instances when the M79 is inappropriate or you’re out of ammunition. Since im of the opinion that sidearms are virtually useless in modern warfare, i guess the M203 would win by default. The M203 is not a bad weapon per se, it’s just bulky/unwiedly.

        An M79 and something like an HK MP7 would be a nice combo.

        • int19h

          So the main problem with M79 is weight/size? It looks like this M320 thing in its standalone config is just over 1/2 of the weight, and obviously much more compact; probably enough that it’d be feasible to carry it on e.g. a single point sling alongside with M4 or something similar.

          I guess what I’m wondering is whether an underbarrel launcher really has any benefits as such, or if it’s solely a size/weight saving measure that can be done better with modern materials etc.

          • valorius

            The only benefit of the underbarrel is that you can carry two weapons in one. The M203 was bulky and heavy, but it did actually work very well for it’s intended purpose.

          • CommonSense23

            You can always just carry the standalone and a rifle. Its what I did.

          • valorius

            If i’m carrying a second weapon, i think i’d opt for a M72.

          • LCON

            the advantage of the M320 is it’s both the stand alone and the under barrel option. If you get a compatible rail system it can be user mounted although mostly it’s armorer mounted because the US does not issue a compatible rail. so from the bean counter perspective one system 2 jobs.
            When it was first shown off XM320 was mated to the XM8 and later the HK416 where both systems handguards had a quick attach system for the M320.
            Even without that for the End user it still brings some things to the party First is weight. An M79 is 6 pounds Empty, An M203 ( Stand alone without stock) is 3 pounds empty. An M320 (stand alone) is 3.3 pounds empty (4.8 with stock). yet well the M79 is about 29 inches M203 15 inches the M320 is only 14 inches ( with out stock) ( your HK MP7A1 valorius is 16.5 inches with stock retracted)
            The Action of the M320 opens to the side like the break action of the M79 this allows the longer rounds that are prohibited by the M203’s pump action. and the Trigger of the M320 is double action no need to pump open on a round that refused to fire first time.

  • Klaus Von Schmitto

    Heckler & Koch. Because they’re great and they love us.

    • Major Tom

      Said no one ever.

  • FactChecker90803

    MEMO to any and all ” American Infantry and Small Arms Manufacturers “, don’t bother submitting, we the American Military will only consider European and Israeli weapons.

    I have a sinking feeling that all we have to do is, see what former Marine Officer or officers in the Infantry Weapons Selection Boards, have recently retired and have moved to Columbus, Georgia..ya’ll know, down near where H&K’s, new American Factory is located.

    Carefull now, H&K might one day decided that the US military is using an airburst proximity fused grenade, that H&K might find offensive and get a German Court opinion, that said munitions violates some archaic European treaty, then will refuse to honer the contract.

    • iksnilol

      Well,if American companies made what the military needs/wants they’d get the contracts.

      • FactChecker90803

        If you have read any if my many comments in this forum, you will see that I lambast American Contractors for there lack of innovation and lack of vision.

        How many American companies have developed any new generation light infantry support Rocket Launcher or Recoiless Rifles, has Raytheon, Lockhead Martin or Northrop developed a new gen Anti Tank Missiles or Replacement for the Stinger.. No they just sit complacent.

        Companies in Israel, China, Russia, Korea, Japan, Singapor and to some degree European companies, especially it seems now Eastern European countries are innovating, with most times 1% of what the DoD spends on Stationary Supplies, way too many American Companies seem to just sit on there laurels and Waite for some tender to solicit then just hook up or contract with a Foreign company mostly Israeli, German, Swedish or Norwegian to offer the latest vapor ware, just Waite.

        Look at the USMC contest for there future Amphibibious Combat Vehicle, it’s a contest between a Singapore design pushed by an American company SAIC that is a tech and engineering, Versus an Italian design being sponsored by a BAE, Our towed Artillery is a British Design build partly in America by a British company with Foreign and domestic parts, our mortars are British Design 81mm American Made, Israeli design 120mm American Made for the Army and French design and made 120mm rifled mortars for USMC, why in the Hell do we use 2 different mortars , what ” F word “, happened to standardized infantry equipment between our 2 Land Services.

        I’ll say it now, the Future American MBT, will be the German-Franco, Next Generation Main Ground Combat System ( MGCS ), our next light anti ship missile will be the Norwegian NSM, our next Heavy High Speed Anti Ship Missile will the the Japanese XASM-3, and the M4 replacement will be the H&K 416 or H &K 433, And the list will go on, because our defence contractors long ago decided to be mostly middlemen between DoD and Foreign companies, well news flash the DoD is cutting out the Middleman, and does Foreign companies are buying out the Middlemen.

        But let’s face it, foreign companies are better at bribes, H&K is notories for there bribes followed by Israeli Firms, then Swedish, Italian and the French are Huge Bribe Whores the Swedes, well Bofors went belly up and was bought out by BAE, after there Fiasco trying to sell Artillery Guns to India, the Koreans are known as hard sellers and do employ bribe money and some of does Hot Korean Women ( love the Korean Race and Car Models, HOTT ), Norwegians ahh relatively offer innovation at a fare price, the Russians offer sound durable products at reasonable price but use bribes and dose Scorching Hott Russian Porn Stars, the Chinese hell they use low prices, economic incentives, outright bribes, Hott Chinese Acrobats, Actresses and extortion. Let’s just be real, every thing is about the bribes, both political and top brass Defence officials take bribes, it’s called Campaign Contributions or Jobs after retirement.

    • some other joe

      So the immigrants can’t play and strive for the American Dream? Got it.

      • FactChecker90803

        Where did I say that??

    • HKfan

      You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

      Most modern, quality, name brand firearm manufacturers that are meant for military applications are European anyways. FN, one of our armed forces biggest suppliers, makes some of the best gear out there P90, SCAR, AR-15s, SAW, grenade launchers. HK, Glock, and SIG are all European and are all hands down the top 3 go to brands for a combat sidearms.

      You should be happy that these European companies have invested millions of dollars in building or adding U.S. factories and employing thousands of American workers. Meanwhile Springfield, an American company purchased the rights to a Croatian pistol and still makes it in Croatia. Beretta, SIG, H&K, Walther have all either relocated or are building additional factories in the US (mainly the South) within the last 5 years and employing hundreds.

      US armed forces use barely any to no Israeli weapons. They are mediocre at best. If they are so good, why does Israel’s finest prefer American ARs and Austrian Glocks and even Sigs? And please don’t mention an Uzi, Jericho or another gun of yesteryear. Most of them don’t even carry one in the chamber because of their mediocre, archaic training. I never understood why Israelis get so much talk. A SEAL, Delta, or SAS would defeat them every single time. Maybe they are the best in their Middle East region, but not even in the top 3 in the global scale. Their weapons are mostly used in 3rd world countries that don’t know any better.

      Now lets look at the American companies: Colt can’t decide whether to go bankrupt or keep living off of its name. Ruger hasn’t made a quality, reliable, military-grade semi-auto since EVER. S&W M&P failed the military trials and the 1911’s glory days are over.

      If the Army wanted a revolver or 1911, then they would 100% go with an American company like Ruger or S&W, but when they want durable weapon systems for 2017 standards, FN Glock Sig and HK are the go-to companies. Even with U.S. LE agencies, Glock and SIG are the go to brands. 25 years ago, it was S&W and Ruger. Times change

      Like iksnilol said, “Well, if American companies made what the military needs/wants they’d get the contracts.

      Could not have said it better.

  • USMC03Vet

    Corps is on a buying spree because Daddy increased their budget after years of lowering their allowance. I”m not sure if this is the best way to use those funds.

    Looks like another heavy piece of niche equipment that will rarely be used by the poor schmucks having to carry them.

    • crackedlenses

      And this is why we can’t have nice things. Sigh.

    • LCON

      It’s goal would be to replace the M203 or M79 which have a limitation in what rounds can be loaded due to length. Can be mounted to M4 or carried as a pistol. This is actually a pretty smart piece of kit. It weighs in at about 3.3 pounds which is just .3 pounds more than the M203. but 3 pounds less than the stand alone FN40GL.

  • Big Daddy

    There’s more stuff coming. Longer rounds, all kinds of fuses for them and sighting systems now that the XM25 is no more. Also there is a medium velocity round, I think it’s 40×51. The M320 might need a recoil absorbing stock for it. Which all means the M320 will probably become a stand alone unit only.

    Everybody hated the M203 in my platoon, it’s was heavy and terrible for mech troops.

    I think the idea for the M203 was to keep as many rifles in the squad without losing the 40mm GL or a rifle. Now that we have improved technology do we really need a combined weapon like that? I don’t think so. I think better fuses and sights as well as airburst rounds with bigger payloads and/or greater range will allow the next step for the M320 and keep it separated from the rifle as it should be.

    Now the Army should start using the M32 or the newer version by Milkor with longer tubes for the rounds.

    • Kinetics

      I doubt that the Army will ever adopt the M32/M32A1…gotta keep the dream of the XM25 alive. But then again…with that being said, the USMC will probably never dump the SMAW for the M4 Carl Gustaf.

      • Warren Ellis

        Well the XM25 works, you just need to take or steal the plans from H&K, and build them yourself instead of trusting perfidious H&K.

        That way, they can’t screw you over like they did with Orbital ATK.

        • kyphe

          The XM25 is not wanted. They made it too heavy after procurement insisting that the receiver could resist an out of battery detonation. The housing is now thick walled steel and the system is a dead duck.

    • CommonSense23

      The HK320 can’t fire the medium velocity round in the works. The only single shot grenade launcher in the inventory is the FN MK13.

      • LCON

        I think the M320 should be able to fire the extended rage rounds, If not the 40x51mm Then the Chemring Mercury, 40mm Extended Range rounds. The M320 was designed to fire longer length 40mm rounds.

        • CommonSense23

          It still fires the low velocity 40mm.

          • LCON

            So does FN Mk 13 or FN40GL and the M32.

          • CommonSense23

            The FN Mk13/40GL is capable of firing the medium velocity rounds. in addition to low velocity rounds thanks to its locking lugs. Which the HK 320 and M203 cannot do. The upgraded M32 is also capable of firing medium velocity rounds. But only the upgraded version.

          • LCON

            okay I think see what I am getting wrong now.
            There is not 1 but two families of MV 40mm rounds. Family 1 is Chemring formerly Martin Electronics. There Data indicates that it is compatible with conventional 40mm underbarrel launchers including M320 and M203 with a Range of 600 M these are the Hellhound and Mercury rounds in 40x46mm

            The other family is Rheinmetall/Ripple Effect/Mlkor 40x51mm the Rheinmetall rounds need a special modification and are aimed at heavier launchers. because the FN40GL is heavier and normally fitted to the even heavier FN SCAR it probably just eaks in the right weight to take the rounds. these are advertized as 7-800 m

          • CommonSense23

            The hellhound is definitely not a 600m round. I used them a lot on my last deployment. They are far superior to other 40mm in terms of use. But there range is still limited. Same for the other Chemring rounds I used.

  • Rey

    Time to put missiles in that tube…

  • Doc

    So much for “Buy American”, right? Make Germany great again. Make Sweden great again. Every weapon the US uses is now from foreign countries. When China gets in our face can we count on the foreign manufacturers keeping their American facilities open: or might they decide to jump on the communist bandwagon and turn against us? Every one of us needs to be writing and calling our Congresspeople (you know, the ones that rigged and approved this travesty) and demand they buy American. Sadly I know none of you will.