Rifle Launched Grenades

tankee1981 SG

I wonder why is such a mode of launching grenades no longer popular? Looks like a good way to me as this way doesn't need an additional attachment of launcher such as the M203 which can be quite heavy. Any any soldier can be a 'grenadier'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle_grenade

wonderamazement SG

Need to switch from live ammo to blanks, tedious on the battlefield, also be disastrous if you forgot to change. Laughing

spartan6 SG

Rifle launched grenades use live rds not blanks 2 fire, tat is a bullet catch at e rear end of e grenades tat catches e bullet, it is e force of e bullet tat launches it Neutral

zenden9 SG

I think due to those pure grenade launcher gun with rounds drum available that makes having an attached grenade launcher on rirles not popular.

Those one can fire many rds without reloading. An modern warfare prefer very light and dedicated weapon. Carbine seems to be highly prefer in Iraq insurgent war.....

wonderamazement SG

For both these methods, a blank cartridge was required; in the former case, it propelled both the stick and the grenade. It was found that repeated use of a rifle for launching grenades by this method caused damage to the barrel, which is what lead to the cup/adapter technique. The need to load a blank cartridge at the same time as the rifle grenade proved difficult in combat. Attempting to use a live round with either a stick or cup grenade launcher would have disastrous results.

Diff type of ammo for diff type of grenade bah... Some use live some use blanks. Anyways, this makes it like some sort of RPG or something eh? Wink

storywolf SG

launcer such as M203 - are more acurate !!! that it why !!!

I seen in documentaries showing a well train soldier with M203 demo- shoot a grenade into a window from 100-200 meters away.

also the size of the ammo for M203 type is more compact ... thuse easiler to carry and handle.

chino65 SG

Many years ago, there was a grenade for the M-16 that looks like a bowling ball and look nearly as large. If I remember correctly it was for demolishing walls or something.

Anyone else remember this?

Rifle grenades were the original way of launching grenades with a rifle.

The M-79 (grandfather of M203) was a more recent development - Vietnam War.

Even then, some armies continued to develop rifle-launched grenades including - if I'm not wrong - the IDF with the Galils. And yes, you need to load a blank.

The preference for M203-type over a rifle-launched grenaded is obvious:

If after attaching a grenade to the rifle muzzle, the grenadier cannot shoot if an enemy soldier suddenly appear 2m near him. With a M203-type weapon, no problem. You can load the grenade, put M203 to safe, and continue engaging with 5.56.

THis is the reason why most armies switched over to the GL underslung like the M203.

The next reason is that having to load a blank round or change mags after you have already wasted time attaching a grenade to the muzzle is just too time-consuming. And the nightmare scenario is firing a live round into the grenade instead of a blank one.

Yes there are those where you don't have to change ammo. But by the time these were developed most armies have lost interest.

spartan6 SG

Maybe it e problem of carrying them as they tend 2 be much longer due 2 e bullet catch at e rear Neutral

chino65 SG

Everything has its advantages and disadvantages.

I suspect that the muzzle-launched grenades, the postential for different warheads can endless compared to GL-launched grenades like the M203.

And as many had already mentioned, it makes every man a grenadier.

chino65 SG

The bowling ball grenade I mentioned earlier is actually aan anti-tank grenade. It was developed by Brunswick (bowling ball company?) and had no takers:

New ideas for the Brunswick Rifleman's Assault Weapon (RAW)

The Brunswick RAW was an interesting weapon that showed considerable destructive potential. In form it was a spherical 6" diameter rocket propelled rifle grenade. The original model had a HESH warhead but later models had a HEAT warhead with a laser proximity fuse. The Launch mechanism was also quite novel. The grenade fitted in a bracket under the rifle's muzzle and some of the gas from firing a ball round was diverted to launch the grenade. Whilst the warhead was effective, it was probably the launching mechanism that prevented the concept catching on. Two improvements suggest themselves.
bullet

Firstly, to give the grenade its own propellant charge in a launch tube that mounts underneath the fore-end of the rifle. This would be more efficient and better balanced.
bullet

The second is to take the warhead, mate it to a rocket motor and fire it from a low signature recoilless launch tube to create a lightweight but potent LAW system.

http://www.g2mil.com/West-anti-armor.htm