Questions regarding M203 grenade launcher variants

[Spartan198]

I used search, but only three topics came up with mention of the M203, and none answered my questions.

I'm having a bit of confusion about the variants of this weapon, maybe someone can answer these questions here.

M203A1 ~ There had previously been an unsourced statement on Wikipedia (we all know it's the epitome of reliability...) that the barrel was lengthened from 9 to the standard 12 inches. Is this true or not? I've never been able to find anything out and all pics I've seen of the A1 model show it still with the shortened 9 inch barrel.

M203A2 ~ I know it's "designed" for use with the M16A4 rail system, but can someone point out how the attachment method differs from the A1 model? I've seen pics of it attached to the A4 rifle, but the attachment points look to be exactly the same as the earlier model A1.

M203A3 ~ I saw this designation on a military weaponry site a while back. Is there an A3 version in existence? I've searched and searched, but found nothing on it. Is it real or probably just a typo?

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by Spartan198

I used search, but only three topics came up with mention of the M203, and none answered my questions.

I'm having a bit of confusion about the variants of this weapon, maybe someone can answer these questions here.

M203A1 ~ There had previously been an unsourced statement on Wikipedia (we all know it's the epitome of reliability...) that the barrel was lengthened from 9 to the standard 12 inches. Is this true or not? I've never been able to find anything out and all pics I've seen of the A1 model show it still with the shortened 9 inch barrel.

M203A2 ~ I know it's "designed" for use with the M16A4 rail system, but can someone point out how the attachment method differs from the A1 model? I've seen pics of it attached to the A4 rifle, but the attachment points look to be exactly the same as the earlier model A1.

M203A3 ~ I saw this designation on a military weaponry site a while back. Is there an A3 version in existence? I've searched and searched, but found nothing on it. Is it real or probably just a typo?

The American M203A1 grenade launcher is intended for use with the M4 and M4A1 Carbine. The 9" barrel and is able to quickly detach from the rifle, and be replaced by a Knight's Armament Company M4 RAS lower handguard. The Canada built M203A1 launchers a similar except it places the launcher lower to to accommodate the distinct barrel profile of CF C7/C8 series weapons


The M203A2 grenade launcher is intended for use with the M16A4 MWS (Modular weapon system). The M203A2 uses the standard 12" barrel, the grenade launcher has been modified to use with the Knight's Armament Company M5 RAS handguard and not the standard M203 handguard . It also can use range-finding optics for precision targeting. Yje receiver was modified to fit the Knight rail system with a standard M203 will not fit the M5 RAS handguard

[Gunmaster45]

You should properly categorize these on the M203 page. I would really like to be able to ID all the M203 variants, not just call them all an M203.

What's an M203PI BTW?

[Nyles]

Originally Posted by Phoenixent

The American M203A1 grenade launcher is intended for use with the M4 and M4A1 Carbine. The 9" barrel and is able to quickly detach from the rifle, and be replaced by a Knight's Armament Company M4 RAS lower handguard. The Canada built M203A1 launchers a similar except it places the launcher lower to to accommodate the distinct barrel profile of CF C7/C8 series weapons


The M203A2 grenade launcher is intended for use with the M16A4 MWS (Modular weapon system). The M203A2 uses the standard 12" barrel, the grenade launcher has been modified to use with the Knight's Armament Company M5 RAS handguard and not the standard M203 handguard . It also can use range-finding optics for precision targeting. Yje receiver was modified to fit the Knight rail system with a standard M203 will not fit the M5 RAS handguard

There's nothing unique about the barrel profile on the C7, our 203s are designed that way so they don't snag on kit. When mounted on the new C8A2s they don't even use the lower handguard.

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by Nyles

There's nothing unique about the barrel profile on the C7, our 203s are designed that way so they don't snag on kit. When mounted on the new C8A2s they don't even use the lower handguard.

That's the info from Diemaco when I picked up a brochure from them. The CF M203A1 hang a lot lower than the US version. The C8's I took photos of at George AFB during training have the slimmer barrel profile on then unlike the M4 carbines which were heavier.

[Nyles]

I'm posting this from CFB Edmonton, where I'm currently a Corporal assigned to 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. I'm issued a C7A2, up until now I carried an A1, and they both have the same profile as that of the M16A2. Diemaco advertises it as having a cold forged barrel, which is how it's manufactured, not the profile.

The old C8 and C8A1 had the same lightweight barrel as the old Colt Model 653 / 654, but we've been issuing them more and more lately and found they won't last in a sustained firefight. The new A2s have a 16" heavy barrel instead of the old 14.5" lightweight - they're basically the old Diemaco SFW without the rails.

Our 203s do hang lower than the US version, but the reason the mounting bracket is different is that they're less likely to snag on kit. Personally I don't like the design, they're a bitch to a put on, but we don't exactly get a choice in the matter.

[Phoenixent]

Originally Posted by Nyles

I'm posting this from CFB Edmonton, where I'm currently a Corporal assigned to 1st Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry. I'm issued a C7A2, up until now I carried an A1, and they both have the same profile as that of the M16A2. Diemaco advertises it as having a cold forged barrel, which is how it's manufactured, not the profile.

The old C8 and C8A1 had the same lightweight barrel as the old Colt Model 653 / 654, but we've been issuing them more and more lately and found they won't last in a sustained firefight. The new A2s have a 16" heavy barrel instead of the old 14.5" lightweight - they're basically the old Diemaco SFW without the rails.

Our 203s do hang lower than the US version, but the reason the mounting bracket is different is that they're less likely to snag on kit. Personally I don't like the design, they're a bitch to a put on, but we don't exactly get a choice in the matter.

Thanks Nyles the one I photographed in the old 14.5 " lightweight. Do the C8A2 have a large diameter un the handguards? I know that the M4A1 have a larger diameter under the hand guards compared to the M4 standard model.

The Canadian Forces that were training at George AFB, California were Great bunch of guys and gals. It's to bad the the government didn't supply them better but my fellow armorer Larry and I took care of that while they were here.

[Nyles]

Just the standard handguards, with the heavy barrel it's all you need. Here's some info on it if you're interested: http://www.casr.ca/101-rifle-c8fthb-carbine.htm They touch on the naming issue on there, but they're calling it C8A2 in battalion. Most of the ones we have out here are green though.

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Nyles

Just the standard handguards, with the heavy barrel it's all you need. Here's some info on it if you're interested: http://www.casr.ca/101-rifle-c8fthb-carbine.htm They touch on the naming issue on there, but they're calling it C8A2 in battalion. Most of the ones we have out here are green though.

Yeah, I heard about the designation change a couple weeks ago. "C8A2" most definitely runs off the tongue much better than "C8FTHB".

Slightly off topic, but how does performance of the C8A2 (other than the increase in accuracy from the longer barrel) compare to the M4/M4A1?

[Nyles]

Well, not being an infanteer they're not giving me one, so I haven't shot it all that much, but realisitically not so much as you'd notice. An inch and a half of barrel won't make that much difference in the hands of most shooters, they can't shoot nearly as well as the weapon anyways.

They're used pretty much exclusively with optics (mostly the EOTech 552 but I've seen a few that still have Elcans), but even if they weren't there's still no more distance between the front and rear sights than on an M4.