Why has the M204 Under slung Grenade Launcher been such a big success, while rifle grenades are almost a foot note in small arm's history?

I appreciate that the older designs of rifle grenades required special blanks to launch them, but with the advent of bullet trap designs, thats no longer the case...

So why has the UGL proved more popular than a rifle launched grenade?

Quicker, easier to use, rifle can still be used even when GL is loaded.

Just overall less stuffing around.

Just my HO.

.

It's also easier to use from the prone position, and they are very accurate.

M204?

There are a variety of reasons the underbarrel grenade launchers are a success vice rifle grenades, or spigot type grenades.
Using the 203 as an example (there are others, such as the Russian GP series which fires a caseless grenade) the grenades are smaller and easier to transport. They also have a higher degree of accuracy and as mentioned, easier to fire in the prone or in confined areas. It also has a higher degree of safety considering it is all too possible to actually fire a spigot style grenade with ball ammunition, rather than the correct high pressure blank.
Spigot grenades were a great advancement in their day, it could essentially turn your rifle into a portable mortar as the doctrine states, to place the buttstock firmly into the ground as a rest.
The modern under barrel design adds compactness, accuracy and ease of use. The trials the military tested were simply amazing back in it's development. I believe it was china lake who crafted a triple barrel M203 variant around the Vietnam era.
Modern designs coming up still show the trend of using an underbarrel, unless it's a stand alone design.

The M203 and variants underslung also mean more fire power per section as opposed to the M79 which was a PITA to carry.

.

A lot of the European rifle gernades are designed to be fired off the rifle with regular NATO 223 duty ammo.

You do not use a blank round.

Yes, Europeans still adapt this, this is true. I was referring to the early spigot style grenade attachments prior to the development of the cartridge style grenade, that we used over here in the early years.
It does depend on the grenade however. The bullet trap and blow through designs, yes, is used with standard ball ammunition to provide the launch.
I was mainly referring to the American development and history prior to the adaptation of the M203.

quote:

Originally posted by The Metalsmith:
Yes, Europeans still adapt this, this is true. I was referring to the early spigot style grenade attachments prior to the development of the cartridge style grenade, that we used over here in the early years.

So was I, particularly the 303 and FN / SLR one's.

My brother - I was two years too young so it was 'out of service' - fired the Energa AT graenade in the SLR (FN FAL to our American friends).

The Energa has an interesting footnote in that it was designed originally for the 303 No4 and was reatined for the 7.62mm SLR.

Not exactly sure why the M79 is a PITA to carry but it was the weapon of the dedicated grenadier. His job in the squad was strictly to use the M79 to launch grenades at enemy ledrs, automatic weapons and other crew served weapons. The M79 was/is a very accurate weapon, much more so than the M203. It's rate of accurate fire is actually greater than that of the M203. The Grenadier also carried a M1911A1 as a personal side arm. In SEA our grenadiers also carried a claymore bag with 6 M26 hand grenades so that when the action was under the arming distance of the M79 round (we only had the HE round at that time) they were still grenadiers and would chuck hand grenades with astonishing accuracy (they practiced with dummy grenades a lot). They took pride in being good grenadiers.

Nowdays if a grenadier (are they even assigning anyone to that job anymore?) who just happens to have been issued the rifle with that M203 (the answer I got from a lot of Soldiers and Marines the last 4 years) attached fires one grenade he most often then just reverts back to being just a rifleman. It takes a lot of dedication and training to get those carrying the M203 to use it and more importantly, to use it correctly and effectively. There are numerous reasons for the ineffectiveness of grenediers; lack of training ammo, most often requires a differnt range, no blanks so most mout or other tactical training they are just riflemen so thats what they get used to doing, SMU leaders aren't trained to deploy and use them corectly etc, etc, etc,......However, in a squad with a trained grenadier(s) the increase in firepower and lethality is much greater. The ability to use the direct and indirect fire of the M79/M203 greatly increases the area of influence the squad has.

The M203 is useful in todays limited wars but most often I've observed it is not used when it should be, how it should be and with enough skill. That is too bad. Perhaps there might be something said to going back to the M79 and dedicated trained grenadiers.

Larry Gibson

Personally I can say I would NOT want to be armed with ONLY a M 79 in todays fighting.

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Personally I can say I would NOT want to be armed with ONLY a M 79 in todays fighting.

"Personal" is not a choice available to the infantryman. Wasn't in yesteryore and isn't today. The grenadiers armed with the M79 were also armed with the M1911A1 for "personal" armament. The nice thing about that was the grenadier knew what the primary weapon was and used it. Today the primary weapon is the M4/M16 with the M203 most often an after thought. Should the situation arise where the grenadier was out of M203 ammo and still capable of fighting there should be plenty of high speed low drag M4s available from casualties eh?....perhaps yours?

The grenadiers should not be a door kicker or building clearer (I see it all the time). Doing so with those armed with the M203 negates the firepower of the M203 entirely and removes that part of the firepower the squad has from it. Better to use the grenadiers as outer perimeter security where their primary weapon (the M203, not the M4/M16 above it) can be used if need be. What I see most often is the Solier/Marine with the M203 is well ensconsed in the bowels of a building when the security guys are getting waxed by a sniper/rifleman outside. The sniper/rifleman could be far easier eliminated with the M203 in most cases than with rifle fire. That is an example I see all the time of grenadiers being poorly used and small unit ldrs not deploying them correctly. Hell, I even see the guys with the anti tank weapons go charging into buildings to clear them with the anti tank weapon! My insurgents usually kill 2 -5 of the Soldiers/Marines charging around inside the buildings before I have my insurgent get "killed". The trade of 3-5 Soldiers/Marines for one insurgent is a very poor trade.

The point is an infantry man assigned to a weapon must use that weapon to his best ability. He can not be afforded his "personal" choice. That would result in anarchy on the battlefield and sure defeat. All weapons systems must be used in a combined arms attack on the "modern battlefield " of today to win. It wasn't any different on the battlefield of yesteryore either and won't be any different in the future either.

Larry Gibson

Rifle grenades went away for several reasons:
1. They make the rifle a foot longer when attached making movement difficult and damage to the round possible.
2. They either use a special grenade blank (enter Murphy) -or-
3. They use a shoot thru grenade round (which means HEDP rounds loose the benefit of a full shaped charge).
4. The rifle's gas system may have to be shut off or additional sights set up to fire them. (See the R1).
3. Extra rg rounds are more difficult to carry than extra 40mm rounds.
4. There are no buckshot or less lethal (spigot type) rifle grenades (unless you count the inert practice rounds - that would hurt!) yet 40mm has many different types of loads available.
5. Rifle grenades evolved with an emphasis on AT not AP. They got heavier and produced more recoil while rocket launchers like the LAW, SMAW, AT4,and MAAW simply outclassed them in the AT role.

As far as 40mm launchers:
I thought the M79 was easier to carry and easier to shoot accurately simply because the LOP is more traditional and you can get your eye directly over the bore. I think that is why they are still being deployed today - instinctive accuracy. Second, as Larry mentioned, it's a dedicated tool. It makes life easier for Joe and Joe's squad leader. Additionally, the M4/M16-M203 combo makes for a heavy rifle, especially when you add a scope, laser and light. Not the end of the world, but a 12 lb rifle is not exactly handy, either.

All in all, about the worst thing you can say about the M203 or the M79 is they are slow to reload (compared a soldier's other weapons). Maybe that is why the Corps adopted the M32 (Milkor mgl). An M32 weighs a bit more than a fully dressed M16/M203 but will sling 6 golden BB's as fast as you can pull the trigger and come out of recoil. No doubt, this means the role of the dedicated grenadier is alive and well, at least as far as the Corps is concerned.
On the flip side, the new M320 which is replacing the M203 may have a few new advantages. It's a side breach loader and the trigger is double action (not that I have ever seen a 40mm round misfire on the first strike though). The most interesting aspect (to me) is that it can be detached and used as a stand alone weapon. At 3 lbs, I bet a lot of guys do just that. A 3lb 40mm launcher would be a a handy tool for a squad leader and it could be passed around as required.
Of course, soldiers have to field test this new lite launcher before they will trust it.


However, a short, lite 40mm launcher with reduced range is not exactly a new idea either:


I am a gun nerd and I endorsed this message.

In the British Army they were made obsolete - at least in the AP role - by the 2" Mortar. For which every man in the platoon carried two rounds and which, also, had a smoke and illuminating flare capability.

I would think that also the rod down the barrel didn't really do the rifle any good. That and as ChetNC rightly says the very real danger of firing a ball cartridge behind one.

I also would speculate as to the actual real life obtained accuracy with these things against say sniper targets, light vehicles or MG nests.