One misunderstood, the other; wish we had?

08-04-2005, 21:11

I have been a student of small arms now for a long time, however, my "trigger time" with them is sometimes either limited and/or non existant. This holds true with the explosive kind especially (READ: non existant). I do collect INERT grenades as allot of you all know, showed them here, quizzed you guys and as TS said, "You won't be able to fool them", everybody ID'd them to a "T". Real quickly I might add.

My readings about SOG have always made me think of to two weapons. One, as I stated in the title of this thread I really believe is misunderstood, not so much as what its purpose is but how it is used and how it could be used. This is the ordinary Rifle Grenade. I have spent years researching this "Poorman's Mortar" for a long time and have come to the conclusion that we as a military should have kept it in some form or another. There are a number of other countries out there that still use this device because of one reason or another. Israel being one. I understand (maybe I am wrong, if so please tell me so) that the 40mm was developed to replace the RG. IMHO, I feel that there is only so much "Bang-for-your-buck" that you can achieve in a 40mm projectile to make it effective, whereas, with an RG you have unlimited possibilities and uses. The advantages of the 40mm that I see are: accuracy at short and long ranges, and its ability to be rapidly fired through a crew served weapon such as the Mk19. Side note here: AM, you might be happy to hear this or you might not be but my sources have hinted to me that the pump action 40mm you used/seen in Vietnam has been resurrected and is going through T&E as I type this. Of course their are changes being made with the design. I am just not sure what she will look like or if they can get her "reliability" up to better percentages. I am being told however, and this is third hand info, that she is not going to look too much different on the outside than the original. AM, good or bad? Jeeez, come to think of it, TR probably already has the 411 on it. Anyways, all I am saying is I firmly believe that the RG, with the right design(s) and with modern technology (ie, Polymers) the way it is, that it would be a better choice on the battlefield. I really want to hear opinions on this weapon from everybody, especially the QP's who have either used them and/or were on the recieving end.

The other weapon is the RPG. Again, I believe that this weapon has unlimited possibilites for uses. It is cheap, just like RG's, and like RG's you are not restricted in the warhead size so much as you are with the AT4/6/8. I have always felt that the military may have dropped the ball in infantry anti-tank weapons when it keeps trying to design a better, disposable AT/Bunker Buster. Again, what does everybody here think of the RPG and should we go with it and drop the AT's and their equivalents?

Guys, I have no "actual" experience with any of the above as I stated before. Never fired an RPG though I have an INERT rocket for one. I have only held the launcher and looked throught its sight(s).

With RG's, I occassionally launch them off of the end of my Garand for fun and for freindly competition. These RG's are all INERT of course and allot fun, especially, when you get a few friends together and try and see who'll be the first one to land one in a 12 foot circle at 200+ yards. It doesn't take much practice to achieve bullseyes either on the ground (using indirect or direct fire) or hitting a tree trunk at the same distance to test your direct fire acbilities.

Let me know what you all think and share your opinions.

lksteve · 08-04-2005, 21:19

i never fired a rifle grenade...my father did during WWII and Korea...he was not a big fan...he passed 10 years ago, so i can't revisit the conversation (besides, i recall Jack and / or Jim were present, as well)...

with a 40mm grenade, i had a WP round, HE, and shot round...i could launch a smoke greande to mark a target...i thought it was a versatile weapon, probably more in the M203 configuration than the M79/M1911 combo i was first issued in the 82nd...i confess, i was a better grenadier with the M79...

my $0.02...

12B4S · 08-05-2005, 03:09

Kinda weird Steve.......... I shot expert with all types of weapons, ours and foreign. Thing was I seemed to have a 'special' relationship with the Thumper. Never knew why. Just adjusted the sights for elevation. The first round was always on or close, from there it was just an adjustment in my head. The rest were dead on. That weapon was great from 30 some yards, to close to 400 plus yds. Now give me a break you guys........ it's been awhile. Damn!

PS,
Could whack the hell out of scheisse with the 3.5 too.

Seems to me, with both and some others........ 'Kentucky Windage' was a HUGE part of the equation.

lksteve · 08-05-2005, 07:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12B4S

Kinda weird Steve.......... I shot expert with all types of weapons, ours and foreign. Thing was I seemed to have a 'special' relationship with the Thumper. Never knew why. Just adjusted the sights for elevation. The first round was always on or close, from there it was just an adjustment in my head. The rest were dead on. That weapon was great from 30 some yards, to close to 400 plus yds.

as a grenade launcher, i believe the M79 was superior to the 203...but having that M16 attached made gave me a warmer and fuzzier than a 1911...but when it came to launching a 40mm grenade, yup, i'm all for the M79...

**Peregrino** · 08-05-2005, 08:16

My first unit still had M-79s too (1977 1/38 Inf, 2ID, ROK). In El Sal (mid-80's) we issued them to the ESAF. I still have a soft spot for "Thumper" (where my collarbone used to be

). For launching grenades, I'll take it over the 203 any day. The only rifle grenades I ever saw were foreign. As soon as we had enough M-79s for the ESAF, they disappeared and I never saw them again. Bigger bang but we couldn't carry as many rounds and they were "inconvenient". MAB32 - I would recommend against shooting grenades off of a Garand that I had some feelings/expectations for. Unlike the WWII and Korean War soldiers, you don't have a depot to fix it or an arms room to replace it from when it breaks (and eventually it will). FWIW - Peregrino

**The Reaper** · 08-05-2005, 08:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peregrino

MAB32 - I would recommend against shooting grenades off of a Garand that I had some feelings/expectations for. Unlike the WWII and Korean War soldiers, you don't have a depot to fix it or an arms room to replace it from when it breaks (and eventually it will). FWIW - Peregrino

Good reason to buy a beater and use it just for grenade launching.

TR

jatx · 08-05-2005, 08:55

I can just hear it now...

"Honey, these three guns of yours all look the same. Why do you need three of the same thing?"

"Well, one is for shooting at the range. One is for spare parts. And one is for launching grenades."

::Complete silence::

lksteve · 08-05-2005, 09:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by jatx

I can just hear it now...

"Honey, these three guns of yours all look the same. Why do you need three of the same thing?"

"Well, one is for shooting at the range. One is for spare parts. And one is for launching grenades."

the counter to this argument is "how many pair of shoes do you need...? you only have two feet...."

this is also followed by silence....

jbour13 · 08-05-2005, 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by lksteve

......

this is also followed by silence....

If your lucky!!!

jbour13 · 08-05-2005, 10:11

Looking at MAB32's post spurred a question that I never knew how to ask and receive an answer. Since this board has the knowledge it may not hurt to ask.

The rifle grenade is the poor man's mortar and could also be used in the direct fire mode. But my question is, can a 40mm or 60mm mortar be trigger fired (safely) as a direct fire weapon?

Last duty assignment was in an infantry bn and I was told this, but never found anyone to back up this claim. I just wonder if that is one of those things they teach 11C's in AIT that is not in the book.

One of the funnest things I got to experiance while assigned to the unit was hanging with the bn mortars (81's) and riding the baseplate to settle it.

One way to keep a private occupied is ask him to count the rings on an 81mm mortar until he gets it right.

Bravo1-3 · 08-05-2005, 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbour13

If your lucky!!!

Very lucky!

As for the origional topic: I have no experience with the M-79, but I fired a lot of rifle grenades off of the FAMAS in Tahiti, and from an M-16a1 in the PI with the Phil. Navy. I prefer the M-203. The rifle grenades are big, and it's a lot like running around in the jungle with 60 or 81mm mortar rounds strapped to your chest. With a 203 vest, you can carry far more ammo with the same weight as 5 or 6 rifle grenades.

Like any other platform, once you've gotten enough trigger time to figure it out the M-203 can be extrememly accurate. I could consistantly put HEDP rounds through window-frame targets with one out to about 250 yards. The only M-79 I've ever seen was in the hands of a Phil-Marine SgtMaj, and he wasn't about to let a bunch of American E-3's shoot it.

lksteve · 08-05-2005, 10:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbour13

The rifle grenade is the poor man's mortar and could also be used in the direct fire mode. But my question is, can a 40mm or 60mm mortar be trigger fired (safely) as a direct fire weapon?

nope...they were designed for use with a base plate, not a butt stock...

jbour13 · 08-05-2005, 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by lksteve

nope...they were designed for use with a base plate, not a butt stock...

I'm a 96B, don't know much about them. To say the least, I was skeptical. Thanks for killing that myth. The NCO told me it (60mm) could be trigger fired from the hip. Guess he'd end up like our Afghan soldier with the recoiless rifle.

Still fun to hang one out of an 81. Most powerful one that I've ever got to experience was a charge 3. Hawaii is pretty restrictive on how much distance you can lob indirect. Cool feeling having your insides get knocked around. Worse than that is an AT-4 fired from a bunker. Backblast bouncing off the rear wall 20ft away will still smack you in the back pretty hard.

Bravo1-3 · 08-05-2005, 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbour13

But my question is, can a 40mm or 60mm mortar be trigger fired (safely) as a direct fire weapon?

Not with a 60mm mortar. You can't depress the barrel enough even without the bipod.

**The Reaper** · 08-05-2005, 10:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbour13

my question is, can a 40mm or 60mm mortar be trigger fired (safely) as a direct fire weapon?

Mortars unlikely.

40mm grenades, depends on the range, your tolerance for danger, the threat, and how badly you need to shoot them with that right then.

TR