One misunderstood, the other; wish we had?

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.