[Weapon] M320 grenade Launcher system

[[R-DEV]Eddie Baker]

Originally Posted by Cheditor

Why in the picture is there a foregrip added? Can't you just use the Launcher's grip?

There is no added foregrip to the weapons in the attached photo. That is the launcher's grip.

[DeltaFart]

Oh he means the little flip down grip I think that you can make it into a GL rather than UGL

[Hunt3r]

I'd be in favor of a less obstructive sight for the UGLs, but I don't think that will happen..

[hartbilt]

Originally Posted by Solid Knight

Anyone used one? The increase in profile size seems undesirable. The M320 is huge compared to the M203.

I've had the opportunity to handle both stand-alone and M4 mounted M320 briefly @ Atterbury and Knob Creek, Ky. IMO, it is extremely cumbersome and awkward when mounted on the M4, but where is really earns it pay, is as a stand-alone GL (Enter the new "Thumper"). As far as weight goes the m320 is slightly heaver, the M320's grip is located in a good position and balances M4 carbine quite well during reloads, The side-open breech is more user friendly and harder to make mistakes while loading-and it is convenient to get a clear view of breech during reload, IMHO the M203 follows the K.I.S.S. design doctrine and there was no real need to phase it out with a new model. At a cost of $3500 a pop for the M320(not sure if that includes sighting system either), It would have been much more cost effective to just develop a new sighting system/trigger-safety package for the M203.
That being said, the real incentive of the project was to equip combat units with a module GL package, easily converted to stand-alone GL.

The unit is much more viable as a stand-alone GL, the M320 takes "compact-GLs" to a whole new level. Spec-ops, most notably SEALs, still continue to utilize the M79 Grenade launcher to this day, and with great effect. The ability to maintain a "low-drag" carbines along with GL's is of great importance in Urban environments, which is why you still see Spec. ops. in Iraq w/ M79s.
I believe we will see the M320 fielded more often in it's stand-alone config.

I think the America's Army 3 game replaced M203 w/ M320s over a year ago

Heckler & Koch AG36 / AG-C / EGLM / XM320 / M320
M79 in Iraq

[Hitman.2.5]

doesnt the M320 have a min range of 25m?

[hartbilt]

Originally Posted by Hunt3r

I'd be in favor of a less obstructive sight for the UGLs, but I don't think that will happen..

In the Game? or for real steel systems?

[hartbilt]

Originally Posted by Hitman.2.5

doesnt the M320 have a min range of 25m?

Min. safe distance depends on the cartridges being fired, not the GL.

[gx]

In all honesty I have to say the m320 is a bad idea. The m203 with day/night sight was already heavy and messes up your accuracy while firing due to all that extra weight being to one side no to mention infront with your barrel and m203. In a time when soldiers what less load they give more, now they want people to carry a heavier system with the day/night sight and laser, no thank you.

[SGT.Ice]

Originally Posted by hartbilt

I think the America's Army 3 game replaced M203 w/ M320s over a year ago

Heckler & Koch AG36 / AG-C / EGLM / XM320 / M320
M79 in Iraq

Indeed Americas Army did, and I hate the M320 :/

[DeltaFart]

Whats wrong iwth the M320? It seems like a good step in the right direction granted its not all that KISS but honestly you cant blame them for trying to make it more effective than it currently is