Go Back > The Forum > Just Guns

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-22-2009, 12:48 PM
Spartan198's Avatar
Spartan198 Spartan198 is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: The scorched state of California
Posts: 2,303

And on the subject of wasted funds, what are your thoughts on the army's new grenade launchers, the M320 and M320A1?

Now, admittedly, I'm a dedicated M203 fan, but even looking at it objectively, replacing a system that, despite being virtually unchanged in our arsenal since the 1970s, still works just fine seems pretty pointless to me, especially considering that most of the so-called "advantages" of the 320 are readily-available as fairly cheap upgrades for the 203.

Longer breech opening
Refitting the 203 with a longer breech opening is actually fairly simple from what I've read on Granted I don't have hands-on experience, but I assume that carries some validity when coming from those who actually do have said experience.

Launcher-attached sighting system
KAC produces a 50-400 meter quadrant optical sight that attaches directly to the 203 receiver as well as being available in a picatinny rail-compatible model. Wouldn't it be cheaper just to buy a buttload of QOSs from KAC and drill a couple of holes in the side of an already-purchased 203 to attach the sight, than it is to buy a whole new grenade launcher?

Stand-alone use
This is probably 50/50 since both require separate shoulder stock attachments (KAC produces them for the 203 as well as the Masterkey underbarrel shotgun) that would be, I assume, readily available to military customers. But even then, the 320 really isn't that much of an improvement over a 203.

Day/night sight
Made one for the 203, and I've even seen 320s fitted with the same sight. Troops hated the thing. It was heavy, hard to aim, and made the weapon system front heavy. I can't really see the final D/N sight issued with the 320 being received any differently. Not to mention it'll be offset to the side of the weapon just like the attached leaf sight. That eats up rail space as well as horrendously unbalancing the thing. How much you wanna bet we see troops dumping these new sights and sticking good old M203 leaf sights back on their 12 o'clock rails?

Can't load/fire while prone?
That, too me, seems absurd. This might not be the best example, but I've got a CA M203 (complete with forward-cycling breech and individual "grenade" cartridges for it) on my airsoft M4, which I can load, fire, unload, reload, and fire again while prone without difficulty. Granted, I've never had to do so under machine gun fire or mortar attack, but... forgive me, I'm just trying to analyze this logically here.

Forward hand grip?
Readily available for the 203.

The 203 is lighter and simpler than the 320. Is there really a comparison here?

I've read about complaints of the 203 being geared toward right-handed users with its barrel catch on the left side of the weapon and praises of the 320 being ambidextrous... Are people ignoring the fact that the 320's barrel opens to the left side of the thing? If that's not "geared" toward right-handed users, I don't know what is.

I could go on and on, but I'm rambling now.

Just my opinion here, but I figure it'd be more productive to buy gas piston uppers to make our M16s and M4s into more reliable "M17s" and "M5s" instead of fixing something like the M203 that isn't broken in the first place. Once again, just a pro-troops person's opinions here.

"Everything is impossible until somebody does it - Batman

RIP Kevin Conroy, the one true Batman

Last edited by Spartan198; 08-22-2009 at 12:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2009, 12:58 AM
Vangelis Vangelis is offline
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 185

I think the one you're missing is this, from Wikipedia:

* The M320 operates in double action mode, with an ambidextrous safety. In case of misfire, the M320 operator merely has to pull the trigger again. The M203 used a single action mode which was cocked as the breech was closed. The M203 operator has to cycle the breech to re-cock the firing pin, then pull the trigger again.

This seems more than a little awkward, and I've heard it's also possible if you're in a hurry to mis-cycle the M203 and not actually cock it in the process. I guess the question they're asking is whether it's worth buying a shitload of aftermarket parts from KAC which the M203 itself was never designed to accomodate and getting armourers to attach them, when they could just buy a new system which gives them the same capability right out of the box, and is actually designed to have it.
Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2009, 04:59 AM
zzang1847 zzang1847 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Shoreline, WA
Posts: 43
Send a message via MSN to zzang1847
Default Well.....

There are something that i'd like to correct.

First of all, it is NOT "copy" of XM29. They pratically studied about XM29 because it's just like what they wanted, and they actually liked it pretty much, i guess....

Second of all, the name of South Korean's XM29 is XK-11. It is named after "Experimental Design(which is X is standards for), K-11 Light Support Weapon". They never thought this would be infantry standard assault rifle, but as like infantry support weapon.

Finally, they're spitting out of tons of money for this project, and they would finally start producing this item in early 2010. Whether this one is piece of crap or not, i am pretty interesting about this item.

P.S) I just figured out this piece's price is little bit more than $14,000 per one

Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.