Polish Companies Working to Produce Automatic Grenade Launcher

Defense Blog and a Polish defense website have published details about an automatic 40x53mm High Velocity grenade launcher that two Polish companies have been collaborating on, called the LGA-40. The overall intent is to offer an alternative to replace aging U.S. 40x53mm Mk.19 grenade launchers currently in service (since the early 2000s) with the Polish Armed Forces while being both lighter at 21 kilograms (a 14-kilogram difference) and with a higher rate of fire of 450 rounds per minute (an 80 RPM difference). The two companies producing the grenade launcher are the Polish Institute of Precision Mechanics (Instytut Mechaniki Precyzjnej), known for being a research and design firm, and the Jakusz company, specializing in such fields as ordnance and hazardous material. Unfortunately, the only photograph we have released to us thus far is the title one of the grenade launcher being mounted on a remote-controlled vehicle. This is really only an option for the weapon system, and not a true depiction of the platform by itself.

From the Polish article (Google Translated)-

Thanks to their cooperation with Jakusz of Kościerzyna, a Polish automatic grenade launcher has been created. The LGA-40 built by them passed fire tests and tests at one of the training grounds at the end of last year. Weapons were tested both on the stand and on the chassis of the little robot. “We decided that we wanted to develop a complementary fire system. So not only the grenade itself, but also the automatic platform on which it can move automatically when controlled by the computer, or manually, when all the activities correspond to the operator – explains Bogdan Jakusz, president of the Jakuszy carnival. New design tests were positive.

Replacing legacy systems is an important task, especially when working with such force multipliers as automatic grenade launchers. The weight reduction of this LGA-40 alone isn’t something to be scuffed at. However, I am curious to see exactly how the weight came down to this significant reduction. If it involved removing key safety features that were probably necessary in the Mk.19, then the weight could probably have been retained and the launcher just manufactured locally.





Miles

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 miles@tfb.tv


Advertisement

  • noob

    Where’s the ammo box?

    • Major Tom

      Six shots is all you get. Make em count.

      =3

      • noob

        phew. For a minute there I was worried that they’s assign each of these tin can glory boys a human “assistant gunner” who crawls beside it with an ammo belt.

  • John John Slade

    What a strange design….

  • Brett baker

    How many Poles does- I’M SORRY,I’M SORRY! Seriously, wasn’t there a lightweight 40mm gal adopted by SOCOM several heart ago, the mk47 I think it is designated?

    • Yes, that was the General Dynamics Mk 47 Mod 0 “Striker.”

      • Samuel Millwright

        It’s all the stuff we didn’t adopt that’s the really cool stuff…

        Hell good old Russ got his original 50 mg’s to run at 1100 rpm and still live as long as ANM2’s in 50 lasted while still keeping peak trunnion forces and receiver length small enough that existing 30 cal anm2 in wing gun mounts could hold them and not be overstressed…

        Yet all those years later the 307 312 320’s can’t get past what 350-450 rpm?

  • PK

    “The weight reduction of this LGA-40 alone isn’t something to be scuffed
    at. However, I am curious to see exactly how the weight came down to
    this significant reduction. If it involved removing key safety features
    that were probably necessary in the Mk.19, then the weight could
    probably have been retained and the launcher just manufactured locally.”

    By not being 1960s tech. By not having a straight blowback system. By having the design be thought out by modern methods and simulated, instead of a “build and test” sort of process.

    The Mk19 always seems like it’s too heavy for how it functions, that it’s always on the ragged edge of failure. Institutional inertia has kept it from being replaced everywhere, but it’s far past time for such a rethink and upgrade.

    • SP mclaughlin

      I think the problem with other lightweight AGLs is that the recoil becomes a lot more severe than it is on the Mark 19.

      • Samuel Millwright

        That’s totally not true / doesn’t have to be true. Otherwise the russians and chinese wouldn’t both be capable of making man portable HVGL’S in 30&35mm…

        And Russell s Robinson wouldn’t have been able to do his stuff / the xm312 xm320 xm307 dover devil and a bunch of other things wouldn’t have existed and worked quite well…

        We’ve been purposefully handicapping ourselves for 80+ years (really more than a century but yeah…)

        • SP mclaughlin

          I’m no expert but the 30/35mm Russian/Chinese are firing smaller rounds at a lower velocity versus the 40x53mm round.
          Not that I’m trying to say that any of those systems are inferior, just different.

          • PK

            Fair point. It may be that the trade-off of a larger payload and higher recoil isn’t the best choice if the system firing it ends up being extremely heavy.

            40x53mm 350g @ 242m/s
            35x32mm 225g @ 200m/s
            30x29mm 275g @ 185m/s

          • Samuel Millwright

            Are you sure on the lower velocities?

            They’re using rounds that come out pretty damn fast and the weight difference between 40×53 30mm Russian and 35mm chinese of each loaded round are fairly comparable from what i understand…

            Whereas the russians ags-17 ags-30 and tkb-0249 are absolutely insanely light compared to anything we have, even if you’re talking a 10%-15% lower total muzzle energy in joules for these systems versus a 40×53 hv grenade launched from a mk19/47… That still in no way would explain just how much lighter their systems are!

            The same can be said for the qlz-87 and qlb-06 or whatever which both become one man systems if you aren’t running the tripod and large drums and the 06 is even shoulder fire safe!

            The tkb-0249 is also lighter empty than at least some m240 variants, and afaik is designed to be used from the bipod but apparently may also be shoulder fire safe as well!

            Besides that though, i am in no way joking about the capabilities of russ Robinson’s early work done during the first half of ww2!

            His model 11 machine pistol design, most of the work done during second half of ww2 and late 40′ s including much of the work to bring it to model16 standards is still so much beyond any production pdw or machine pistols still today!

            Also, his work is completely absent from chinn’s 5 volume machine gun magnum opus because it was still classified when chinn wrote them…

            Guess what?

            Still classified EVEN NOW

            Yet in presentations at dtic from navsea and navspecwar etc you’ll see references to a future area of research they intend to pursue title. Firing Out Of Battery weapons…

            Robinson coined the FOOB term in the forties….

          • PK

            “Are you sure on the lower velocities?”

            Pretty sure…

            40x53mm 350g @ 242m/s
            35x32mm 225g @ 200m/s
            30x29mm 275g @ 185m/s

            A lot of Robinson’s stuff is classified not because it’s crazy unorthodox or hard to puzzle out, but simply because that’s how war-related things go in the UK. If you’re looking for information on them, it’s out there – complete with photos of the stripped firearms and full descriptions of how they function.

            FOOB is just API, with very little difference between the system. Clever stuff, but hardly top-secret… N. R. Parker wrote a pair of articles about them in Fighting Firearms in spring/summer 1996.

            We just can’t do anything about it outside of holding a manufacturing FFL and SOT, because all of his guns were open bolt.

          • Samuel Millwright

            Oh i know, i have copies of the information that’s out there

          • Samuel Millwright

            And btw, i didn’t realize there was that much of a difference between the three. Unfortunately from a practicality standpoint I’d still much rather have the Russian ags-17/30 rounds. Mostly because everything I’ve read on the subject says that they pack the same or better lethality into a smaller package.

            I’ve also seen it claimed that they have less of an issue with their CEP being much greater than blast radius at long ranges.

            Which i tend to believe since you’re basically shooting humpty dumpty at people with 40×53.

      • PK

        It’s really not bad with a locked system, as the recoil peak has been smoothed out. Total recoil is slightly lower, thanks to a substantially smaller reciprocating mass, and the peak recoil is quite a bit lower thanks to the reduction in velocity of the bolt/carrier.

        Open bolt for big stuff makes sense only if it’s fixed, and you’re on a crazy tight budget. When you need a lot of cannons quickly and inexpensively, it makes great sense. When you want a good platform, however…

  • gunsandrockets

    Worlds smallest SPG!

  • Gary Kirk

    Hmm.. DPD could’ve used one of those things in the picture awhile back..