In the damned if you do, damned if you don’t category, the Army’s new M320 grenade launcher is facing stiff criticism over one of the principle advantages of the system requested by Soldiers and touted by the Army.
There were lots of M320s among Joes in the 3rd BCT of the 101st Airborne — in fact I don’t remember seeing a single M203 among them. But just about everyone I asked about the new H&K-made M320 was that they miss the 203. I got the sense that this was mostly a reaction against changing from a tried and true system to one with a couple more whistles and bells than the simple, streamlined M203.
Soldiers complained about the pistol grip handle catching on things, the forward grip and the sighting system. Even the side loading mechanism didn’t impress — though the Army touts that capability as a plus since it allows the M320 to take longer, more high-tech rounds.
But it’s the last criticism that really surprised me, and actually put me in the position of pushing back to give the Joes some perspective about what they were actually saying.
I’m sure many readers remember the rumblings back in the depth of IOF over bringing back the M79 grenade launcher. Joes and Marines both were saying that additional firepower slung over the shoulder would give the kind of accuracy in a pinch the M203 couldn’t.
In fact, I remember seeing a Marine in Ramadi with 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines with an M79 slung over his shoulder at the “Gov Center” combat outpost — he was the envy of everyone.
But now, Joes complain that they don’t like carrying the M320 as a stand alone grenade launcher, saying “I don’t like having that thing swinging around and getting in my way.” Maybe that’s a function of how it’s carried rather than an indictment on the weapon itself. But still, I find it ironic that after asking for a stand alone grenade launcher and the Army’s finally delivering, the service is getting critiqued over this added capability.
The one problem I saw about the weapon — and I noted this a few years ago when I did some shooting with various Army weapon systems back at Aberdeen — is that the collapsible stock on the M320 is pretty short, forcing you to scrunch up on the weapon to get a stable grip.
{ 35 comments… read them below or add one }
At this point, it just seems like grunts who are complaining just to complain. I’ll admit I did my ffiar share as a former 11M.
I think joes in different situations need different gear. In spec ops I could see the possible need for different types of rounds. In 11B I could see the need for accuracy. In a field artillery unit I could see the need to not get it caught on stuff. EVERY piece of gear has strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately alot of people don't understand that fact, or they don't know how to figure that fact into the overall picture. It may even be that they just don't feel like buying different models for different units.
Did any of them complain about the trigger? I've only fired 2 rounds through a 320 and the thing that struck me was the very long, very heavy, double action trigger. My hand started to shake before it broke. I'd never buy a revolver with that trigger on it.
Well, Jeff, I'd never buy a revolver in 40MM either. Do the math.
The Snuffie in the field has it right: Accuracy is everything. And the M79 had that in spades. I remember an old buddy dropping three into the OPEN HATCH of an old APC on the range from 300 meters with a 79…I couldn't even come close to that with a 203…and that attachment was a POS insofar as accuracy with a '16 was concerned IMHO. The ergonomics thing is a hassle, true, but I'm sure there'll be a few "Field Expedient" modifications that'll correct things…or, at least, make the best of a bad situation.
all i want from a grenade laucher is to have my rounds fall
within the needed kill circle when they hit the target.
the guys can discuss WHICH one they prefer
but i'd wager they only really worry about having
more then enough rounds when the firefight starts.
enemy isn't used to us throwing big mm. diameter
stuff early in a firefiight in Afghanistan.
I would love to have me one of those. I can protect the borders of america with it!!
Looks heavier. Forward grip is unecessary..should have found a way to but it up against the mag-well like the 203. Side mount, fine, whatever works. Anyone notice its still strapped to a high-maintanence, weak round firing weapon?
I am from the old school, C-Co 2/501st 101st Airborne, 1969-1970. M-79, was accurate & reliable too put that HE, round at a distance make the NVA, dance too my tune, keeping them in a pack, too there bunker, 24 KIA’s and at a distance.
Guest, I'm guessing that you are ragging on the .223 round because you are not an effective firer, or someone who could not keep their weapon clean in order for it to function correctly. I've not dealt with this new system, but joe does b*tch just for the sake of b*tching sometimes (I know, I was a Joe). There are always growing pains when you change any tried and true system for something that those with lots of rank and little common sense feel is better and should replace a system that works and has parts in the system while our guys are in the middle of two wars. Hopefully it will turn out to be a great change, but time will be the only thing that tells.
Please read, this is very important!!! loneliness is a silent killer to so many people…so i just need some friends to talk :-) i also uploaded my hot pics on SeekingUniform.com, i'd be more than happy to share them with everyone. Do have a look.
The M-320 having a short stock is a design feature, made to suit soldiers in the field who wear armored vests.
The 203 took getting used to. The M-79 is a single shot, and soldiers were issued a .45 pistol because there was concern that the enemy would try to give the bums rush to the gunner. Adding the m203 to the M-16 took that tactic away from the enemy. Soldiers complained that they wanted the .45 pistol too.
Re Don M> I never understood why the Army didn't give their soldiers, esp. in Nam and Iraq, a sidearm, personal choice, personal weapon or military issue. I know that my son was not allowed to bring his own gun to Iraq (he had an M249 plus and over/under M16, but if you run out of ammo on the big toys, then a sidearm is a nice backup to have. Also, it is good for close-in fighting, has lots of rounds, and can easily be reloaded.
As a non-combat journalist, I didn't carry a weapon in Vietnam (except once to keep an AR15 from blowing my foot off in Cambodia since my friend was driving like a maniac), and my escorts only had snub-nosed 38's or 32's, but I would think that any soldier would want a backup piece just in-case.
I carried a M-79 in RVN and had to buy my own sidearm in the black market. Carrying the equivalent of a single shot shotgun with a canister round made me feel a little naked. All the officers and NCOs glommed onto the military issue .45s.because they could and they all wanted to feel like Wyatt Earp. Never used the sights on the M-79, just felt the distance. Tried to get white phosphorous rounds, but they would not issue them to me. Having a combo rifle and grenade launcher would have been nice. Grunts will always find something to complain about.
Only mp's and special forces along with some field grade officers carry a sidearm.
Negative Ghost Rider. Mortar Crews, Machine Gunners, Rocket Crews, so on and so forth get issued
M-9 Berretas and Ka-Bars (Marines). Also usually your PltSgt would carry one.
Don't forget us line medics. Hell, if everyone played by the rules all we're SUPPOSED to carry is a pistol for self defense. (or defense of our patient). And I would give almost anything to be able to choose my sidearm rather than have one of a trillion m-9s that have been in circulation since the U.S. bowed to the pressure from NATO (or the U.N. I don't remember which) to become uniform in the caliber of our sidearms. Nothing makes me feel better than a Springfield XD45 full of JHP on my thigh.
I got back from Iraq last year, but I still remember having my M9 strapped to me every day, and my M4. And I wasn't an MP, SF or commissioned officer.
as a 11B and a turret gunner in iraq we were issued the M9 as a backup because al queda started climbing up on HMMWVs in the middle of towns to try and kidnap the gunners. especially when said gunner was attempting to reload. never had to use it for that personally but it sure felt better knowing that i would have to fidget with an M4 in a cramped ass turret.
I'm a retired Armor Sgt. (19E) and all us tread-heads had were an old- school M-3 and good old slab sides 1911A1. When in the Navy back in 70 on PBR's we had an 870 12ga.,M-79, and .45 all of them worked well and now I'm M-203.M-14,3,16A3,1911A1,and M2 & M-60 MG qualified my thought is what worked then was good enough and now-a -days what my youngest son used in the sandbox (M-249,16A5,and M-4) works just as good too. But please don't try to sell me on the 9MM 'cause that to me was issued to appease the NATO gods! To all my Brothers and Sisters in the field, HoooooAhhhhh troops keep yer head on a swivel and weapon hot!! Sargent (Ret) Michael (Warchild) G.
As a former ranger I carried a Colt 45 1911 in a shoulder holster forever,no one questioned me about it
The carrying of a pistol is becoming more and more common. While in a lot of line units there are not enough pistols for everyone, many specialized service members and service members in duties that require them to operate in limited space environments are afforded the increased combat effectiveness of a sidearm.
As far as personal weapons go, that would be a violation of the Geneva Convention and constitute a war crime. As long as a service member uses a government issued weapon with government issued ammunition they are protected. The use of personal weapons and non-FMJ government issued ammo would result in the service member being chrged with murder.
There are plenty of different pistols being issued today by our militay. Some include the standard Baretta to Sigs, H&K, Colts, and Glocks. It is just a matter of what a unit has on their property books and what they can get authorized. My EOD company currently issues the M9 and the H&K USP in .45.
Won my CO a case of Jack when I droped an He round on a concrete fence post at 200 yards. My guys and I got half the case SSG ED
The old M-79 was almost too easy to maintain in the field. They could update the stock to an adjustable and ambidextrous upgrade and possibly a better sighting system. With the proper carrying case it could hook onto to an assault vest or pack with little trouble and add only the weight of the rounds compared to the old weapon itself.
Why spend all that money trying to upgrade the M-203 and it makes the weapon system harder to shoot accurately and tougher to handle under combat conditions ?
The length of the "old" M79 seemed just right, either at the shoulder or angled beneath with the armpit. A multiple round weapon might become handy, sometimes. Why the short stock? Do they want a big bore unstable pistol?
This thing is meant to be stand alone, because when it is attached to the rail on the M4, it makes it a little ridiculous to carry. As far as accuracy goes goes, it is nice and the laser mounted on it, would definately help at night. After testing it, I think it would be best used in the turret of a vehicle. That way the guy wouldn't have to lug it around, with it swinging and beating. And the guy would have another weapon at his disposal in the turret. Either that or come up with some kind of weapons catch for it, because the sling it comes with is a joke.
Actually, you CANNOT attach the M320 to the rail on the M4, or the M16. I connects to the bayonet lug on both weapons at the front end, and mates with the barrel nut on both weapons on the back end. Amazing, the comments on here from folks who don't really know a thing about the M320, but have a lot to say. For what it's worth, the buttstock on the M320 (when it's not hanging from a primary weapon like the M4/M16, is unforgiving. I'm still amazed that there are no pictures here that show the M320 with it's laser pointer. I guess the pictures everybody is commenting on are just trade stock, and don'treally reflect the actually weapon as it's issued.
Current 40mm M430A1 HE grenade will fly 350-400 meters. Is there any need for a version that would go 1000-1200 meters and still be launched from the M-203 or the new M-320? I am thinking that the ranges of engagement with the oppostion forces in Afghanistan would call for greater ranges on a launched grenade.
The M320 is my secondary weapon. unless you are a gunner I find it pointless. It adds a ton of unnecessary weight to an M-4 when attached. My entire company is currently in Afghanistan and not a single one of us carry it attached to our weapons. The only people that do carry it, are Gunners. As for mine, it gets left with the guard tower. The side load feature is great except the release is kind of akward, and all of the extra sights on it are just there to snag onto stuff. Personally, coming from HK I expected much better. I would rather just have a better Carbine than a “souped up grenade launcher”.
So talking about new grenade launchers, what's the real feedback from the field on the multi shot guns like the M32?
M79 Vs M320 Vs M203
has anyone noticed a change in accuracy?
I have yet to fire a M320 or M320A1 but i am Certain of one thing. The M79 holds a OAL Barrel Lengthof 14in. the M203 Series a 12in. or 9in. Barrel and the M320 Series 8.46 in. So with that how about you tell me which one of the three would have the most precise accuracy with the same 40X46mm round. I can tell you from experience the M79 vs. the M203 vs. the M320… The M79 is will always be on Top of the Later systems and without a doubt if I had to confront any of the three in combat I would want a chance to be as accurate as my enemy Greandier so give me that Thumper, Blooper, or if you from Australia “Wombat”. Hopefully someday Engineers that design these EGLM’s realize they are playing with Life and Death and they will need to compare these systems on OAL of the Barrel’s to restore precision to our Grenadiers in our CAB’s. Mac
9 Years Armorer USAR/USARNG. 7 Years Small Arms Repairer/Artillery Repairer. QC/Manufacturing as a Civilian DPMS 1 Year 7 Months 99-2000 The Y2K Rush. Iraq War Vet 2005-2007 34thID. Currently DoD Tech Small Arms Repairer Full time.
The concept is good mind you, but in many cases the weapons contracts are made and approved by people that have little to no idea what the troops want or need, while they are trying to help, they should have the M-16 and M-4 re-designed along with the M-203, that way accuracy and reliability are at the tops, Now if they were able to incorporate the M302 along with the M-4 in a single system (same lower receiver IE same safety and trigger so a change of the selector switch is all you would need to change between the two), and H&K does have the right Idea with the 416 and 417 (remove the gas blow back that the M-16/M-4 use and replace it with a piston), but the M302's design as a stand-alone is fair, but Rail-mounting it they need to do some more R&D on it
the problem with the design comes from trying to shoehorn a miniaturized GL design onto a compact AR that was not made with it in mind. look at the G36/AG36 for an example of how it should work.
Also the dual role it tries to fill (standalone/weapon mounted) means it can't be perfect for either one.
As a side note, I wonder if any of those troops whining for vertical foregrips are complaining about this one.
we need a 40mm round that goes the distance. In afg they knew our 40's only shot 400m so they stayed outside the range. I dont care what i have for a grenade launcher 320, 203, m79 as long as you can get me a round that can reach my freakin enemy.