During World War II, the basic weapons of the U.S. infantryman were the rifle, light machine gun and fragmentation grenades. Hand and rifle grenades were used for short-range area targets. Hand-thrown grenades have a realistic range of 30 to 50 yards. The maximum range of rifle-launched grenades was approximately 100 yards; both were ill-suited for engaging targets with accurate indirect fire. Light mortars were used for ranges from 300 to 900 yards. The same weapons and limitations were fielded during the Korean Conflict by U.S. infantryman.

The Rifle Grenade Launcher

During the late 1950s, the M7A3 grenade launcher adapter was being issued for use on the M1 rifle. After the M14 rifle replaced the M1, the M76 grenade launcher was adopted. For accuracy, the M15 tilting-bar sight, designed to be attached to the M14 rifle’s stock, was issued for use with the M76 launcher. Special “grenade launching cartridges” were used. Rifle grenades could also be launched from the M16 rifle, but no special adapter was needed; grenades could be slipped over the NATO standard 22mm diameter flash suppressor. Disadvantages of launching grenades from rifle barrels included: short range, inaccuracy and heavy recoil that would sometimes break buttstocks.

Clearly, a new weapon was needed, one that could provide accurate direct and indirect fire to fill the gap between the rifle, hand grenades and the light mortar. During the 1950s the United States Ordnance Department began development of a weapon that could fire high explosive munitions, multiple projectile anti-personnel rounds and smoke and illumination rounds.

40mm Ammunition

During the early 1950s the Ballistic Research Laboratories at the Aberdeen Proving Ground developed a 40mm high-explosive, fragmentation projectile. The goal was a range of 400 meters at the relatively low velocity of 250 feet per second, with a recoil force no more than that of a 12-gauge shotgun. The new projectile used a high-low pressure system, which was developed by the German firm of Rheinmetall-Borsig during World War II for their 8cm 8H63 anti-tank gun. The advantage of the high-low system was that a lightweight barrel could be used, reducing the overall weight of the weapon.

The M79 Grenade Launcher

The concept of a lightweight weapon capable of projecting a grenade further than could be thrown by hand and could exceed the range of rifle-launched grenades was coordinated by the Small Arms Development Branch, headed by Colonel Studler. Jack Bird, a deputy to Colonel Studler, took an interest in the project; he built a crude launcher and brought it to the Pentagon to demonstrate. The device was comprised of a short length of tubing with the same inside diameter as a golf ball. To operate the “launcher,” a golf ball would be placed inside the tube and compressed against a spring. The golf ball was secured in place with a nail. Upon removing the nail, the golf ball would be launched. Bird, an avid golfer, suggested the name “Project Niblick” after the number nine iron, a high lofting golf club.

During 1953, the Project Niblick grenade launcher was under development at the Springfield Armory under the guidance of Cy Moore, with Dave Katz, a design engineer. The Picatinny Arsenal provided 40mm practice grenades for firing in the prototype launchers. There were three types of launchers being developed: a crude shoulder fired test fixture, a pistol and a three-shot semiautomatic launcher. The fixture was primarily a means of testing the ammunition to get an idea of the range and accuracy. The weight of the projectile was approximately 5.3 ounces. When launched with a quadrant elevation of 35 degrees, it had a range of 400 meters. Development commenced at the Springfield Armory. Proposed designs were identified by a letter “S” representing the Springfield Armory. Many of the designs never made it any further than the drawing board.

The Infantry Board at Fort Benning stated that they preferred a three-shot grenade launcher. A barrel length of 14 inches evolved as the length to make it unlikely that the gunner could get his fingers in front of the muzzle while firing. The three-shot launcher achieved semiautomatic operation through the use of a clip made up of three side-by-side chambers, each long enough to house a cartridge about 3.5 inches long. The clips would move to the left after firing by a constant force of a negator spring. As each round was fired, a latch detected the launching of the projectile and allowed the clip to move over until stopped by the next projectile, lining up that cartridge with the barrel. Although the basic concept was simple, the mechanism proved to be complex and unreliable. Continued misalignment between the projectile on the bore created gas leakage and a loss of accuracy. Special purpose rounds, such as CS gas or signal flares with a longer overall length, could not be used. The simplest design, designated as the “S-5,” was a single-shot, break-open type weapon. The S-5 evolved into the XM79 in 1959 after the three-shot S-6, T148E1 project was canceled.

After the idea of a multi-shot, semiautomatic launcher was scrapped, it was replaced by a simple, single-shot weapon, patterned after a break-open type shotgun. One launcher was ordered from Dave Mathewson, who operated a local fabrication shop, often used by the Springfield Armory. To keep the weight at a minimum, the weapon featured a hard-coated aluminum barrel. The odd shape of the stock was designed so that the bottom edge would be aligned with the line of recoil; the top or comb is contoured to keep the grenadier’s head upright owing to the line of sight relief when firing at low angles. To reduce the effects of the recoil on the shooter, a rubber recoil pad was fitted to the butt of the stock. The Infantry Board suggested a folding leaf sight mounted on the barrel with a bead front sight just above the muzzle. The XM79 launcher was sent to the Infantry Board in 1956 and was recommended for type classification in 1957.

To load the weapon, the operator simply moves the barrel-locking latch counter-clockwise to open the breech. Moving the release latch automatically puts the weapon into a safe position; opening the breech cocks the weapon. After closing the barrel, the safety must be pushed forward to fire. The weapon is easily field stripped by removing the front sling swivel screw and removing the forend. The barrel can then be disengaged from the fulcrum pin and separated from the receiver group.

The weight of the loaded launcher is 6.45 pounds; overall length is 28.78 inches. The stock and forearm are made of walnut. The rest of the weapon, except for the aluminum barrel, uses steel parts phosphated for corrosion protection. The original contract price for the M79 was $318.00 each. The M79 was issued with a small arms accessory case, which included a bore brush, plastic oil tube, combination tool and cleaning brush. Early carrying cases for the kit were made of canvas, later changed to vinyl.

During testing by the Infantry Board in June 1960, it was recommended that a new rear sight for the M79 launcher be designed and fabricated. The new sight was completed in October 1960. The early ladder-type sight was replaced with an adjustable, single crosspiece-type sight with a correction for azimuth. All launchers produced up to June 1960 had to be retrofitted. Confirmatory tests in December 1960 revealed requirements for additional windage adjustment on the rear sight. The additional sight modification was incorporated in the first production run. R&D continued in order to improve the reliability and function of the weapon. The launcher was considered acceptable by the Continental Army Command (CONARC) and was subsequently type-classified as the Launcher, Grenade, 40mm, M79 on December 15, 1960. By the first quarter of 1961, the new adjustable rear leaf sight was in full production, and several mandatory changes were implemented on the barrel locking lug, trigger spring and front sight.

The heat and humidity being experienced in Vietnam were causing problems with the warping and swelling of the wooden stocks of the M79. As a result, work began on designing a plastic buttstock and foregrip for the weapon. By 1964, a suitable plastic buttstock was available; General Tire was the primary contractor. There were no plastic foregrips adopted.

Although the M79 grenade launcher was designed and developed at the Springfield Armory, the majority were manufactured by civilian companies. Contracts awarded to private industry included: Action Manufacturing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Contract DA-11-1199-ORD-736 and Exotic Metal Products, Pasadena, California, Contract DA-11-199-ORD-730. Other contracts were subsequently awarded to the Kanarr Corporation of Kingston, Pennsylvania, and Thompson Ramo Wooldridge (TRW) of Lyndhurst, Ohio. The decision to have private companies manufacture the M79, resulted in a lot of resentment with the civilian employees of the Springfield Armory. Series production ran from 1961 to 1971 with an estimated 350,000 M79 launchers produced.

Despite being replaced by modern grenade launchers, like the M320A1 and the M32A1, the M79 is still being fielded by the U.S. military.

The China Lake Grenade Launcher

Developed for the U.S. Navy SEAL teams was a limited production, pump-action 40mm grenade launcher, fed from an under-barrel tubular three-round magazine. The launcher was fitted with M79 front and rear sights and a shotgun-style stock. There was no official designation other than “The China Lake Grenade Launcher.” The weapon was developed at the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, California, during 1967-1968.

The XM148 Grenade Launcher

While the adoption of the M79 grenade launcher solved one problem, it created another; it reduced the number of riflemen in a squad, the man carrying the single-shot M79 was usually armed with only a pistol for self-defense. To address the problem, the concept of the rifle-mounted launcher was studied. The 40mm XM148 launcher, first issued in 1967, was designed for mounting under the barrel of an M16 rifle. The weapon was developed by Colt Firearms to allow each rifleman in an infantry squad the ability to launch 40mm grenades, rather than one man equipped with an M79. During field testing in Vietnam, a number of problems were encountered. The XM148 launcher was not considered reliable or safe enough for type classification, and the launchers were pulled from service; most were destroyed.

The M203 Grenade Launcher

After the XM148 grenade launcher was scrapped, the concept of a rifle-mounted launcher was not. The Army initiated a competitive program for a new 40mm rifle-mounted grenade launcher. Designs were submitted by Aircraft Armaments Inc., Ford Aerospace and Communications Corporation and Aerojet Ordnance and Manufacturing Company. During August 1968, the Aircraft Armaments (AAI) design was type-classified as the XM203 grenade launcher. A small lot was manufactured and shipped to Vietnam for field testing. AAI’s XM203 40mm grenade launcher was found to be simple, safe and reliable. After successful testing and evaluation, the Aircraft Armaments design was type-classified as the Launcher, Grenade 40mm, M203 in 1969. Ironically, Aircraft Armaments, who developed the weapon, did not have the capacity to produce the number required by the Army, and a contract to manufacture the M203 was awarded to Colt Firearms. The U.S. M4 Carbine version of the M16 was adopted in 1994. The M203 launcher would not fit on the shorter M4. The M203 GL was modified into the M203A1, which is functionally the same as the M203 but is designed to fit on the M4 and M4A1 carbines. The quick-release M203A2 was designed for M4 carbines with a rail system and with M16A4 rifles that have the M5 adapter rail. Currently, there are at least seven U.S. companies manufacturing the M203 grenade launchers and its variants.

The M320 Grenade Launcher

During 2004, the U.S. Army issued a requirement for a new technically advanced grenade launcher with improved accuracy, ergonomics, safety and function as a stand-alone weapon. Development of the XM320 single-shot launcher, based on the HK AG36, began at the Picatinny Arsenal. The 40mm M320, which can also be attached under the barrel of a host weapon, was adopted in 2016 to replace the M203 under-barrel launcher.

The M32A1 Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher

While fighting in Iraq, the U.S. Marines requested a grenade launcher with a rapid rate of fire. An off-the-shelf, multi-shot revolver type, semiautomatic launcher was submitted by Milkor USA based in Arizona. The weapon was tested in 2006 and was eventually adopted by the U.S. Marine Corps as the M32A1 Multi-shot Grenade Launcher, and by the USSOCOM as the Mk 14 Mod 0.

ARSENAL JSCo, BULGARIA

MSGL-L

The 40х46mm ARSENAL Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher MSGL-L has revolver-type launchers with 6-round drums; chamber loading; a chromium-plated barrel bore; a telescopic buttstock; and MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rails at the 3, 9 and 6 o’clock positions. The launcher uses 40x46mm low-velocity rounds with lengths not more than 140m.
arsenal-bg.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Multi-Shot
Weight: 6.0kg
Length (overall): 727mm (combat position) / 551mm (traveling position)
Length (barrel): 170mm
Maximum Range: Up to 400m
Effective Range:
–at area targets: Up to 350m
–at point targets: Up to 150m
Rate of Fire: Not less than 12 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 76mps
MSRP (USD): Provided on request

ARSENAL JSCo, BULGARIA

UBGL-M8

The 40x46mm ARSENAL Underbarrel Grenade Launcher UBGL-M8 has an add-on launcher; flat or curved trajectory fire; chamber loading; and uses low-velocity grenades in 40x46mm caliber with lengths up to 170mm. The UBGL-M8 has MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rail availability that provides attachment of a mechanical or collimator sight as well as a three-dot sight system with one luminous dot on the front sight and two dots on the rear sight.
arsenal-bg.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Add-on
Weight: 1.463kg
Length (overall): 376mm
Length (barrel): 250mm
Maximum range: Up to 400m
Effective range:
–at area targets: Up to 350m
–at point targets: Up to 150m
Rate of Fire: Not less than 5 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 76mps
MSRP (USD): Provided on request

GENERAL DYNAMICS ORDNANCE AND TACTICAL SYSTEMS

MK47 Advanced Grenade Launcher

General Dynamics-OTS is the system integrator of the MK47 Advanced Grenade Launcher with Lightweight Video Sight II (LVS II). Integrating the latest sensing, targeting and computer programming, the MK47 with LVS II weapon system provides the warfighter with the most sophisticated fire control and a decisive technological advantage over adversaries.
gd-ots.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Stand-alone
Weight: 39.6lb
Length (overall): 37in
Length (barrel): 24.02in
Maximum Range: 2,000m
Effective Range: 1,500m (iron sights); 2,000m (fire control)
Minimum Safe Range: 40m
Rate of Fire: 275 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 790fps
MSRP (USD): N/A

LMT DEFENSE

LMT Shorty 40

The Shorty 40 is an M203 40mm, rail-mounted grenade launcher receiver. The Shorty 40 is designed to be used on any Picatinny rail or as a stand-alone weapon system. It is machined from aerospace aluminum and utilizes a 7-inch 40mm 1:48-inch RH twist barrel. ATF approval is required before purchase.
lmtdefense.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Attachment
Weight: 2.9lb
Length (overall): 12.5in
Length (barrel): 7in
Maximum Range: 437yds / 400m
Effective Range: 382yds / 350m
Minimum Safe Range: 143yds / 130m
Rate of Fire: Single-shot
Muzzle Velocity: 250fps / 76mps
MSRP (USD): $1,999

LMT DEFENSE

LMT Standalone Shorty 40

The Standalone Shorty 40 is an M203 40mm grenade launcher. The launcher is designed as a stand-alone weapon system, featuring a pistol grip and LMT Shorty SOPMOD adjustable stock, mounted to an included LMT frame. It is machined from aerospace aluminum, utilizing a 7-inch 40mm 1:48-inch RH twist barrel. ATF approval is required before purchase.
lmtdefense.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Stand-alone
Weight: 3.6lb
Length (overall): 17.25in
Length (barrel): 7in
Maximum Range: 437yds / 400m
Effective Range: 382yds / 350m
Minimum Safe Range: 143yds / 130m
Rate of Fire: Single-shot
Muzzle Velocity: 250fps / 76mps
MSRP (USD): $2,799

MILKOR USA INC.

M32A1 Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher

The M32A1 is the USMC/SOCOM 40mm Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher of choice. The M321A1 is a hand-held, gas plug operating, semi-automatic, revolving action, 40mm Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher (MSGL). The M32A1 has been tested to the rigorous MIL-SPEC/MIL-STD required by the USMC. The weapon earned a Weapon Explosive Safety Evaluation Review Board (WESERB) certification and is currently the only MSGL in the U.S. DOD with this certification. Through the IDIQ, the M32A1 officially became a “weapon of record” for the USMC and U.S. DOD. Less lethal options are available.
milkorusa.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Stand-alone, 6-shot
Weight: 13.8lb–15.8lb / 6.26kg–7.16kg
Length (overall): 25.5in–29.1in / 648mm–739mm
Length (barrel): 8in / 203mm
Maximum Range: 450 LV / 850 MV
Effective Range: 400 LV / 800 MV
Minimum Safe Range: Ammo-dependent, usually 100m
Rate of Fire: 44 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 75mps / 124mps
MSRP (USD): $7,200

MILKOR USA INC.

SSGL variants

The SSGL was specifically designed for use with low-velocity, medium-velocity and extended-range rocket-assisted 40mm munitions in mind. The SSGL gives you the same robust strength as its bigger brother the M32A1, in a much smaller and lighter stand-alone package.
milkorusa.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Stand-alone, single-shot
Weight: 5–7lb / 2.2kg–3.2kg
Length (overall): 19in–23in / 482mm–584mm
Length (barrel): 8in / 203mm
Maximum Range: 450 LV / 850 MV
Effective Range: 400 LV / 800 MV
Minimum Safe Range: Ammo-dependent, usually 100m
Rate of Fire: 18 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 75mps / 124mps
MSRP (USD): TBD

RM Equipment, Inc.

M203PI 40mm Universal Grenade Launcher System

The M203PI 40mm Universal Grenade Launcher System is a single launcher module, functional in three configurations: pistol grip with M203grip QD handle (NSN: 1010-01-579-0712); rifle/carbine-mounted (shown) (NSN: 1010-01-393-0656); and stand-alone with shoulder stock (not shown). The launcher has an integrated sight that attaches/removes without tools. The M203grip attaches/removes without tools.
rm-equipment.com / 40mm.com / M203grip.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: TSA4, only by RM
Weight: 2.5lb
Length (overall): 12in
Length (barrel): 9in
Maximum Range: Variable by ammo design
Minimum Safe Range: Variable by ammo design
Rate of Fire: Variable by operator selection
Muzzle Velocity: 249fps
MSRP (USD): Provided on request–Government sales only

ST ENGINEERING LAND SYSTEMS

STK 40GL Mk1

The 40mm Grenade Launcher Mk1 (40GL Mk1) is a single-shot grenade launcher developed by ST Engineering, designed to fire the standard 40x46mm low-velocity grenades. The 40GL Mk1 is lightweight, compact and ambidextrous, an asset for warfighters in today’s dynamic operating environment. It is available in the stand-alone or underbarrel configuration.
stengg.com
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Available in both variations
Weight: Approximately 1.25kg (Underbarrel); 2.42kg (Stand-alone); 0.25kg (Ladder sight)
Length (overall): Approximately 400x 60x190mm (Stand-alone); 310x60x90mm (Underbarrel)
Length (barrel): Approximately 216mm (8.5in)
Maximum Range: Up to 150/400m (Point/area)
Effective Range: N/A
Minimum Safe Range: 14m–28m
Rate of Fire: Single-fire
Muzzle Velocity: 76 m/s (Low-velocity grenade)
MSRP (USD): N/A

U.S. ORDNANCE

Mk19 Mod 3 Automatic Grenade Launcher

The U.S. Ordnance Mk19 Mod 3 Automatic Grenade Launcher is an air-cooled, blow-back-operated, automatic fire, belt-fed weapon. It fires from an open bolt and fires the M430A1 High Explosive Dual Purpose (HEDP) 40mm grenades, at a cyclic rate of 325 to 375 rounds per minute.
usord.com
Model: Mk19 Mod 3
Stand-Alone or Attachment: Stand-alone
Weight: 77.6lb (35kg)
Length (overall): 43.1in (1,095mm)
Length (barrel): 21in (including flash hider)
Maximum Range: 2,212m (2,419yds)
Effective Range: 2,000m (2,187yds)–area targets; 1,500m (1,640yds)–point targets
Minimum Safe Range: 310m in training, 75m in combat
Rate of Fire: 325–375 RPM
Muzzle Velocity: 241mps (790fps)
MSRP (USD): Pricing on request (Military and LE sales only)

In May of 2010, the annual National Defense Industrial Association’s (NDIA) Small Arms Systems Symposium was rolled into a new format joining forces with NDIA’s Guns & Missiles Division to host the first ever NDIA Joint Armaments Conference. The Dallas, Texas Hyatt Hotel was packed full of Industry and Government personnel all anticipating a full schedule of academic papers and an exhibit hall loaded with new gear. Some of the hot topics this year included the growing debate surrounding 5.56mm ammunition effectiveness and new information concerning the Army’s carbine solicitation. Vendors and presenters were well rounded and included everyone and everything from the usual American suspects as well as participants from the EU, Asian Pacific Region, and even China.

Goings on in Government

A main feature of any NDIA small arms event is the plethora of interaction between government and industry personnel with this year being no different. Embodying this concept were the keynote speakers: Major General Brogan of USMC Systems Command (SYSCOM) and BG Fuller of the US Army, Program Executive Officer, PEO Soldier. The generals were not ill prepared or poorly informed as to what the crowd was there to hear and pointedly addressed some of the hottest and most contentious topics in the industry – carbine and ammunition performance – which MG Brogan referred to as a “significant and emotional event in the U.S. military.”

The USMC

MG Brogan outlined the small arms vision currently held by the USMC that includes continued fielding of the M16A4/M4/M4A1 platform with many officers now being issued M4 carbines in lieu of the traditional M9 9mm pistol as necessitated by current hostilities. He also touched on several key decisions including:

• The USMC selection of the HK416 to fulfill the Infantry Automatic Rifle requirement in Infantry Squads and LAV units as the M27 IAR.
• Selection of the Army’s M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS) as the Marine Corps’ Long Range Precision Rifle.
• Large scale fielding of the MK 318 Mod 0, 5.56mm SOST ammunition, amongst USMC fighting units deployed in Afghanistan.

More enlightening were MG Brogan’s key questions to industry relating to both small arms and ammunition; questions that attest to the keen awareness and sensitivity such issues are viewed with. “Should we buy (in the future) an individual weapon or a family of weapons?” He further gave a suggestion that such a family could use a common platform allowing for PDW, Carbine, Combat Assault Rifle, Service Rifle, SDM, and IAR configurations. In the ammunition realm his questions were similar, “Is the current caliber effective?” Brogan continued by adding a potent caveat: “I can assure you there are many enemy combatants that can attest to the effectiveness of it.” Brogan then laid out a simple methodology should a new caliber be considered. He said, “If we are going to consider changing caliber the technology must be equal,” referring to the fact that comparisons have been made of alternate calibers (i.e. 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, etc.) to new technology 5.56mm rounds, including MK318 SOST and the Army’s M855A1. MG Brogan clearly understands that these comparisons do not accurately compare “apples to apples” so to speak and as a result any truly effective data in the raging caliber debate will only occur when all calibers are tested utilizing the same design technology (e.g. M855A1 vs. 6.8mm SPC utilizing the same bullet technology). Brogan’s formula for ammunition considerations: weight versus effect on the enemy versus ammunition expended.

Other notable information relayed during the brief included:

• Any future individual weapon contract will include provisions giving the government full ownership of the Technical Data Package (TDP) or full use rights.
• Any future weapons and ammunition must be compliant with the laws of land warfare.
• Weight savings are a must.

A presentation shortly thereafter by LTC Brinkman of USMC SYSCOM/Infantry Weapons further reinforced the points made by MG Brogan while praising current successful fieldings like the M32 Multi-Shot Grenade Launcher and the light weight infantry mortar system. On the horizon in the USMC’s future as outlined by Brinkman: more foreign weapons training kits, a long range sniper rifle, light weight machine gun, and a close quarter battle pistol (though details are lacking at this time).

The Army

As the largest service and often the traditional purchasing agent for other services, the Army also had a wealth of information in their briefing sessions. This year was no different with BG Fuller, PEO Soldier, detailing the Army’s ever changing small arms acquisition strategy. The Army’s small arms vision has completely transformed in a short period of time from “pure fleeting” M4s just two years ago to a dual path model meant to substantially upgrade the current issue M4 platform while paving the way for a full and open source carbine competition. BG Fuller expounded on details to eager industry personnel and echoed the sentiments of beleaguered Soldiers across the globe when he acknowledged, “The Soldier is not a Christmas tree that we can keep hanging items on,” bucking the trend of the past decade to keep adding kit and equipment to the basic soldier load.

The highlight topic of course was the update on the long awaited carbine solicitation. Since the past 2009 NDIA Small Arms Systems Symposium, the debate surrounding the carbine issue has not faded and events like the intense battle at COP Keating in Afghanistan, mimicking the Wanat engagement less than a year earlier, have further driven forward movement in an effort to get real time improvements into the field. The battles highlighted again the need for higher rates of fire and die hard reliability in individual weapons for U.S. troops engaged in close quarter running firefights with Taliban and other insurgent fighters. These considerations among others were significant influences leading to the dual path strategy where the Army will improve the M4 carbine while soliciting its replacement. The Army is seeking to address the M4 improvements in phases:

Phase I

* Increase the barrel mass for better performance during high rates of fire.

* Ambidextrous Safety/Selector tailoring the ergonomics to an even larger percentage of users.

Phase II

* Add an enhanced M1913 type rail adapter system to the platform. Most likely the new rail will be of the free floating type to negate operator influences on the barrel achieving a consistent point of projectile impact.

Phase III

* Explore improved operating systems to include short stroke gas piston mechanisms and a redesigned bolt carrier and bolt group with the goal of improving overall weapon reliability.

Furthermore, the introduction of the improved 5.56mm M855A1 round into service in June 2010 should mean that the “improved” carbine will be quite a potent platform, especially since M855A1is optimized for the M4 carbine and not the M16 and provides consistent terminal effects through a large variety of barriers. Fuller was cautious to add that the M4 improvement program must be managed carefully and the options well considered warning that, “we can’t spend the same amount on an improvement that we would spend to buy a new one.”

As far as the solicitation for a new replacement carbine, the going has been slow, but is advancing. As of the time of Fuller’s brief the carbine requirement was in the Joint Staff, but the industry RFP will likely be released before this article is in print. The step following is full and open competition for the Army’s new individual carbine. This competition will be historic in nature and unprecedented in recent Army history. When walking the showroom floor at this year’s event it was not at all difficult to see that this is what all of the industry’s major players are gearing up for.

Follow on presentations by LTC Henthorn at the U.S. Army Maneuver Center for Excellence (MCE- formerly the Infantry Center) and COL Douglas Tamilio, PM Soldier Weapons, were consistent with details given by Fuller. Henthorn took the time to expound more on current and soon to be fielding efforts on the Army radar:

Current Fielding Efforts

* The M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS) is now 85% fielded to units. Some early issues with the guns have been resolved and combat surveys show acceptance and approval of the SASS by end users and commanders.

* The M320 Grenade Launcher (HK GLM) is rapidly replacing M203s among the conventional force and will soon be integrated with a day/night range finding sight.

Coming Soon to Units This Year

* The M2A1 enhanced .50 BMG machine gun with quick change barrel and fixed headspace/timing.

* The upgraded M24 Sniper Rifle chambered in .300 Winchester Magnum.

* The M240L light weight machine gun with titanium receiver, (See SAR’s 2009 NDIA Small Arms Symposium article for information on this system).

* The M855A1 improved 5.56mm round (lead free and eco friendly).

Among items Henthorn sees the Army eyeing in the future are suppressors and a sub-compact rifle.

A last note worth mentioning before closing the Army section of this article is a survey conducted in Afghanistan by PM Soldier Weapons. As briefed by the Army at his event, PM Soldier Weapons personnel spent time on the ground with units in Afghanistan evaluating how the everyday dirty boot war fighter employs his weapon system, what shortfalls could be noted, and of course what is being done well. A most interesting find is there seems to be a trend among troops to incorporate substantial amounts of aftermarket equipment into their individual weapon’s configuration, particularly the M4. It is commonplace to find non-standard stocks, grips, optics, and especially magazines integrated into the basic kit of our warfighters. This sparks an interesting and fiery debate between those who believe that troops should have the freedom to select superior commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment and the official “by the book” stance of Army regulations, which requires the issuance of modified weapons orders (MWOs) and numerous tests and certifications to authorize a piece of weapon related equipment. The tone of this debate could not be clearer than the warning issued to the industry during the brief by COL Tamilio that industry suppliers who provide non-standard equipment could be encouraging Commanders and Troops to violate AR750-10, which could be detrimental to their careers.

Concern is justifiable since some sub-standard equipment was clearly being used by Soldiers who may have not been fully informed about the products they were using. It is clear, however, that troops in the field will continue to integrate innovative aftermarket solutions often contrary to the rules. The goal of the military and industry alike should be to ensure that these fighting men and women can fight with the best top quality gear without fear of reprisal. Aftermarket and non-standard pieces of equipment are often superior and it is commendable that one priority for PM Soldier Weapons is to develop a menu of authorized aftermarket items for carbines. This will be challenging to do fairly; until then, troops will continue to weigh the risks and rewards of the practice.

The Other Services

Some highlights occurring in the other armed services were also briefed as follows. U.S. Navy (CDR Tom Gajewski, USN) elaborated the Navy’s need for a .50 caliber remote weapons station to protect ships from terrorist attacks while in port. This system must possess corrosion resistant properties as expected for maritime use.

U.S. Air Force (Mr. Randy Roth, USAF Combat Arms Program) reported that the Air Force is supporting broader government efforts to include the solicitation of a new individual carbine and selection of a precision sniper rifle (PSR). Numerous equipment transitions are taking place in the service to include: replacement of the M203 40mm grenade launcher with the M320, replacement of the M2 .50 cal. with the M2A1 QCB, and transition of some M14 EBRs and M4 carbines to the MK17 and MK16 SCAR variants.

U.S. Coast Guard (Capt. Michael Price, USCG Office of Specialized Capabilities) noted that the USCG is looking into acquisition of a Precision Service Shotgun (PSS) with a rifled barrel optimized for firing slugs to disable outboard marine motors and the service is still seeking a gyro stabilized marine enhanced weapons platform to take the place of manned guns on the bows of high speed watercraft with the goal of enhancing gunner safety during operations. Due to a lack of training facilities, the Coast Guard is exploring options for effective simulators specific to the P229 DAK handgun.

Awards and Achievements

With previous coverage in SAR, there is no need to go into great detail, but it is only fitting to profile the well deserving men who received recognition at this year’s Joint Armaments Conference for their hard work and dedication in the small arms field.

Chinn Award Recipient

Mr. Frank Puzycki, U.S. Army ARDEC.
* Over 40 years in the small arms community.
* Key mover and shaker within the National Small Arms Center.
* Personally involved with seventeen ammo type classifications and 13 weapon type classifications.
* Quote: “Team work is indefensible. When Industry and Government are working together good things happen. When we’re doing this we can’t be beat.”

Hathcock Award Recipient
Mr. Jeff Hoffman, Black Hills Ammunition, founder/owner
* Began an active law enforcement career in 1979 and continues to this day.
* At 50 years of age and as head of a well established company, Hoffman is still subject to SWAT call outs.
* Black Hills Ammunition is renowned for quality in the precision marksmanship community to include MK262 Mod 0 and Mod 1 types.
* Quote: “People at the plant know to never tell Jeff ‘We can’t do that.'”

Professional Service Award Recipient
Mr. Hays Parks, DoD General Counsel
* A Vietnam veteran, having entered service with the USMC in 1963.
* Has fought numerous battles as a lawyer to prevent radical restrictions of lawful military ammunition types used by U.S. Forces.
* Has been a champion for the warfighter on the international scene facilitating the approval of new ammunition types for military use.
* Renowned debunker of misinterpretations and deliberate misrepresentations of small arms ammunition related treaties, agreements, and revisionist history.
* Quote: “The most important client I have is the Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine.”

Papers and Exhibits

The NDIA Joint Armaments Conference sported a very high rate of participation from outside of the United States and a large number of vendors due to the combined nature of the Conference. With over a 100 vendors on the floor presenting products ranging from tasers to tank guns, it was largely impossible to cover every aspect in the time allotted, but for a small arms guy there were definitely some products that caught the eye including some new systems largely unseen beforehand.

Domestic

Among domestic U.S. vendors in the exhibit hall, Remington Defense was attracting a lot of attention, not only with the Gen 7 variant of the Adaptive Combat Rifle (ACR), but also with the new Remington Gas Piston Rifle (RGP). While the ACR is becoming a regular feature of these events (beginning life as Magpul’s Masada), the rifle has seen many evolutions since the base design was introduced. In the Gen 7 configuration, which eyes the military and defense markets, the polymer receiver had been replaced by an improved magnesium receiver (which I have been assured does not burn, at least not easily) and a Remington octagonal rail system. “ACR is not our original design,” Remington’s Trevor Shaw noted, “but we’ve made improvements.” On the other hand, the RGP is truly a floor up design and much more than a simple conversion of the standard AR-15 type platform. Though the ins and outs of the rifle were not fully accessible to this writer due to the system’s newness, the quality of the build was readily apparent upon inspection. The RGP features a completely monolithic upper receiver with the recognizable Remington octagonal rail design containing modular attachment points. The rifle does not have any advanced coatings as of yet, but even without it Shaw assuredly states the initial tests are very promising both in terms of accuracy and reliability. Even better to both the government and commercial consumer is the strategy behind the gun as described by Shaw, “We are looking for high reliability and quality at a good price point. We want to make the gun as affordable as possible.” Other notable features of the gun include a regulating gas system for suppressor use, ambidextrous controls, a beefed up barrel extension designed for multi-caliber applications, and upper receiver compatibility with the standard AR-15/M16/M4 lower. The RGP will certainly evolve as time passes, but the base system viewed at this event is exciting and this writer is very enthusiastic to follow the RGP’s progress. Undoubtedly Remington Defense is well postured for the Army’s upcoming carbine solicitation and M4 improvement program with strong designs in both the AR-15 and non-AR-15 configuration.

Smith and Wesson has also been hard at work under the law of supply and demand developing rifle designs geared towards the Army’s requirement. At their booth, Joe Bergeron took the time to highlight some of the company’s recent work to the AR-15/M4 system (S&W’s M&P rifle line) including the addition of fully ambidextrous controls (including the bolt release) and the integration of new “in-house” barrel technology that yields greatly extended barrel life, though due to the proprietary nature of the technology and the ongoing status of testing, no exact numbers were readily given for this article. Smith and Wesson’s rifle line includes both short stroke gas piston and direct gas impingement rifles, and of course, all uppers are compatible with the current issue M16/M4 lower receiver. Furthermore, the gas piston version of the S&W rifle allows for multiple settings for suppressor use that also includes a complete gas shut-off option. Other notable S&W developments are the introduction of Coyote Tan slides and Titanium rust resistant sights for the M&P pistol line as well as ongoing suppressor work and testing in 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

Heckler & Koch’s Dale Bohner was enthused to show off the company’s products. HK has seen lots of good news in the past couple of years with the selection and delivery of the M320 40mm grenade launcher to replace the Army’s aging M203s and now the recent choice by the USMC to field the HK416 as the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. So far, HK has delivered over 20,000 M320 grenade launchers to the Army and deliveries are continuing. The USMC’s IAR has yet to enter full rate production; according to Bohner, “We’ll deliver a quantity by November this year.” Attesting to the design quality of the original HK416, who’s legacy has become well known both due to outstanding performance and its place among the never ending carbine controversy, the M27 IAR in its final form is nothing more than an HK416 with a bayonet lug and bipod. The HK hammer forged barrel, proven in quality and longevity, coupled with the 416’s short stroke gas piston operating system is believed by many to be the combination that gave the HK system the edge needed to meet the USMC’s IAR requirement. It should be noted that the IAR will augment, not replace the USMC’s M249 SAW fleet, with the SAW being retained in most units and for vehicle use. In the meantime Bohner is optimistic, “As soon as a decision is made regarding to full rate production we can proceed.”

From the Foreign Fields

The NDIA Joint Armaments Conference was clearly global in scale this year as international issues and non-U.S. participants took the spotlight position in many of the presented academic papers and featured exhibits. Notable presenters focused on the NATO role in weapons and ammo solicitation and standardization, with some pretty contentious moments. Also worthy of comment was the presentation and exhibit of the Republic of South Korea’s new K11 Advanced Individual Weapon System (albeit with some U.S. Customs mishaps) and participation from the Chinese engineering team who provided a briefing on the 40 years of successful employment of the Type QLZ87 35mm grenade launcher and the system’s evolution in the Chinese infantry formation.

The NATO related paper topics this year focused, as with earlier papers, on the shortcomings of the 5.56mm SS109 type round being currently deployed in hostilities in Afghanistan. During his sessions, Mr. Anthony Williams of the U.K. championed the idea of evaluating a medium or optimal caliber solution that meets the needs of 5.56mm and 7.62mm users, citing difficulties with 5.56mm effectiveness at longer ranges and through intermediate barriers as experienced by British Troops serving with ISAF. Another presentation by Mr. Jim Schatz had a similar approach and made credible arguments in these budget strained times for a collaborative effort developing the next generation of individual weapons by NATO partners.

Daewoo’s K11 would have been quite a star at this show providing it had made it. Ju Hwan-Song of S&T Daewoo explained in broken English just enough to figure out that U.S. Customs had become a road block to having the actual K11 system present on the showroom floor and as a result a life sized cardboard cutout served as a space filler for the real thing. Despite this mishap, the K11 booth was intriguing and the merits of the platform and its ground breaking novelty was not diminished. The K11 is a “dual barreled weapon system” and vaguely resembles the U.S. OICW prototypes from the late 90s and turn of the century. The K11 features a 5.56mm carbine, 20mm bolt action rifle that fires 20mm airbursting smart munitions, and a sophisticated fire control system (FCS) all integrated into a single man portable individual weapon. The system is very similar in concept to the XM25 Airbursting weapon system being tested in limited field trials by the U.S. Army; the difference that Ju Hwan-Song proudly pointed out is that K11 has been fielded in mass ahead of U.S. system. The K11 replaces the ROK Army organic K201 rifle and under barrel 40mm grenade launcher; two of which are found in the typical infantry squad. The K11’s FCS allows for optical aiming of the carbine using a dual day/night IR based system that projects a digital image to the operator. The FCS also integrates a laser range finder and advanced ballistic computer that accounts for environmental effects when programming airburst ranges for the 20mm projectiles, making the K11 an effective counter-defilade weapon that is simplistic to use. As far as mechanics goes, the K11 uses modern alloys in the upper portion of the weapon with a polymer lower making it possible for the system to weigh in at a portable 6.1 kg (13.45 pounds). Ergonomically, the weapon utilizes one trigger pack and selector with the operator rotating the selector between safe, semi-auto, burst, and 20mm options with a single fluid motion. Magazine capacity for the system is five 20mm airbursting projectiles and the standard NATO type 30-round 5.56mm magazine.

At the Range

One legacy event of the NDIA Small Arms System Symposiums is the annual Firepower Demonstration where vendors get the golden opportunity to put their products into the hands of attendees and let rounds fly downrange. The Joint Armaments Conference continued the tradition with an excellent demonstration out at the Spartan Tactical range facility managed by owner Jim Smith and his staff of professional cadre. The predictions of thunderstorms and flash flooding that were rumored throughout the first two conference days, and seemed even more imminent on the day of, gave way to clear blue skies and the Texas sun. Over twenty vendors were on site showcasing everything from pistols, sniper rifles, and even truck mounted .50 cal. machine guns on three different ranges optimized for the systems being fired thereon.

At the pistol range, vendors included HK with a full suite of handguns and submachine guns, Glock, Inc. with the Gen 4 enhanced .40 caliber pistol and Ruag Ammotec with their frangible ammo line. The line was especially long for EMA Tactical where Eldad Oz (EMA’s president) and Mr. Michael Grundy could not keep the magazines loaded fast enough to satisfy the crowd waiting to fire the Roni pistol conversion kit for the Glock 17 handgun. The Roni (Hebrew for rejoice/rejoicing, but also the name of the designer, Moshe Oz’s daughter), which has seen multiple product improvements just since the SHOT Show in January, allows for the standard Glock 17 to be converted without modification into a semiautomatic shoulder fired weapon system; and when cradling a Glock 18 the Roni takes the form of a true submachine gun. The Roni delivers impressive accuracy in a small package with an integrated M1913 rail allowing for the mounting of any compatible optical devices and a sturdy sliding shoulder stock. As Grundy explained, the Roni conversion allows agencies the flexibility of fielding only a standard service pistol yet gives users the ability to achieve pistol caliber carbine/submachine gun performance. There has already been interest from across the global and domestic spectrum, with one undisclosed school system viewing the conversion as a means for better equipping school security officers to quickly respond to a Columbine type of scenario. The Roni is envisioned as a tool negating the need to secure a separate weapon on the campus premises or in a patrol cruiser, which delays response time when an incident occurs. Better yet for those who read this as a civilian, the Roni conversion kit is BATFE approved and can be mailed to your doorstep. (Introducing a pistol into the conversion, or the mere possession of the two together, can still be viewed as possessing an SBR. All NFA rules apply).

A trek past the main range and up the hill leads to Spartan’s long distance range where light machine guns, carbines, DMR rifles, and sniper systems stood ready to receive shooters. At this range vendors included La Rue Tactical, SIG, Colt Defense, HK (with the HK416 IAR variant and HK416 in 6.8mm), and Remington Defense with their new RGP rifle and Generation 7 ACR. The lines at this range gave testimony to the enthusiasm of the crowd which endured equatorial type heat to get hands on the new weapon systems. For HK, company President Wayne Webber joined Dale Bohner in assisting attendees to firing positions to fire the IAR while Remington’s Trevor Shaw stayed busy with the RGP carbine at the far right. Despite its geographical disadvantage of being located separately from the main range area by a required uphill walk through rough terrain, the long distance range was the busiest per capita at the Firepower Demonstration, likely due to the relevance of the products highlighted there.

Down at the main range facility, fifteen vendors lined the firing points, with plenty of steel and La Rue targets on the horizon. The firing line contained everything from FNH’s SCAR rifles on the far left (SOCOM has announced a decision not to field the Mk16 SCAR Light since the NDIA event), to the GUA-21 .50 cal. machine gun on towable trailer on the far right. Sandwiched in between were a plethora of vendors with a very diverse product range to include: Dr. John Kokinis of U.S. Machine Gun Armory with his semiautomatic variant of the Mk46 light machine gun, Aloysius Donovan with the Adams Arms short stroke gas piston carbine, Milkor with the M32 multi-shot 40mm grenade launcher, and LTC (Ret) Mark Westrom with ArmaLite’s AR-15 rifles. To discuss each participating company and their wares would be far too intensive for this article. To say the least, the NDIA Firepower Demo does stand as unique for small arms trade shows inside the United States with its interactive vendor demonstrations and personal one-on-one range interactions. It is commendable to NDIA that they have continuously hosted this event without incident for many years.

(A debt of gratitude is due to Mr. Sal Fanelli and Jim Schatz who, for many years running, have volunteered their time, resources, and sweat to making the Firepower Demonstration both safe and successful. Also a special thanks to LaRue Tactical, whose mobile BBQ trailer provided the large crowd with traditional Texas cuisine at the best price in town… free.)

Conclusion
With so much going on in the world, the changing winds of politics, and the inevitable cutting of defense budgets, the fact still remains that troops in the war zone need the best small arms and ammunition available. With all of these obstacles it is organizations like NDIA and events like the Joint Armaments Conference that can make the difference by consolidating the cutting edge products and the great minds that develop and employ them under one roof for three days that impact the rest of the year. From military units and government agencies that send their subject matter experts to top engineers and scientists from home and abroad, the Joint Armaments Conference is an event where business cards and email addresses are exchanged, where new ideas are birthed, and focus is honed on the path ahead for the sake of the warfighters that put their lives on the line daily in the service of their country, wherever that may be.

by J. David Truby

You’ve seen them on all of the Vietnam War movies and TV shows, on the combat/terrorism/SWAT/peace-keeping news footage on CNN, non-firing replicas are sold to collectors. But, look closely and you might just see a few turn up on your local gun club firing range as collectors discover the M203 40mm grenade launcher.

Originally designed to mate with the M16 for tactical military and police use, the initial M203s were built in limited numbers for the civilian collector and esoteric sport shooter market by Jonathan Arthur Ciener, and, more lately by Randall Shivak.

“BATF classifies the M203 as a destructive device and they are completely legal to own under the classification. With signal and other recreational loads they are totally safe and nondestructive,” Randy Shivak says.

Ciener, an innovative Florida ordnance engineer who is no longer in the M203 business, adds, “That good old M203 is just the thing for the imaginative gun buff who wants to go to the next level of collector’s stratosphere. It’s the adult boy’s ultimate expensive and totally fun toy!”

The standard M203 unit is a breech loading, pump action, single-shot 40mm projectile launcher that is mounted under the barrel of a rifle. It’s 15.52 inches long, and adds just a little over 3 pounds to its host AR15 or M16, 3.6 pounds when you include the standard 40mm round. Maximum range is 500 meters, although its most effective results are within 300 to 350 meters.

One of my fellow advisers to some Central American military units in the 1980s said of the M203, “It’s like having your own brass knuckles in a barroom brawl.”

The 781 40mm practice round is easily reloadable for long term continued use. A variety of signal and pyrotechnic loads are available to the civilian shooter. Credit: J. David Truby

Five standard types of ammunition are produced for the M203: The M406 HE (High Explosive) round, M433 HE armor-piercing, M576 buckshot antipersonnel round, and the M407 and M781, which are practice rounds. In addition there are also tear gas and various signal loadings readily available to military and law enforcement users. According to Randy Shivak, there is no operational 40mm ordnance available to the civilian market, both for legal and liability reasons.

The velocity using the M406 HE cartridge is 245 fps. This is the most common military round used, an antipersonnel load with a lethal radius of 5 meters. The M433 round will penetrate 2 inches of steel armor plate before showering its lethal fragments.

Attaching the M203 to your own M16 is not quite the happy task that the Colt sales literature promotes, although it is hardly a major challenge to the average user. It’s basically a matter of a couple of mounting screws and the military manuals are very easy to follow in this regard.

You load the M203 by depressing the barrel release and pushing the barrel forward. This opens the breech and automatically cocks the unit. However, an automatic safety sear also activates at this point to prevent an accidental discharge. Insert the round carefully. Aim, fire, observe and repeat.

The M203 entered US Army service in 1970, to replace the M79, the fabled Blooper that looked essentially like a short, fat, single barreled shotgun that fired 40mm grenades.

The major problem with the M79 was that the user generally didn’t also carry a rifle and certainly couldn’t use both weapons at the same time if he did. By replacing the old Blooper with the M203, the grenadier once more became a rifleman. Although R&D and initial contract cost numbers are unavailable, a 1978 commercial production contract let to Colt by the DoD listed each M203 at $231.88. In addition to American use, the early units were also issued to South Vietnamese troops, plus hundreds were sold to Australia, New Zealand and to the United Kingdom during the Vietnam years. Later, the Pentagon sold and gave thousands of M203s to our allies as military and law enforcement assistance.

The M203 was developed by AAI Corporation at the direction of the US Army Weapons Command to replace to the M79, which had its beginnings in the early 1950s at Aberdeen and Springfield.

The original design, though, had come from Colt in 1964 with the development of their CGL-4, which the Army called the XM148. Nearly 1,800 XM148 units were field tested in Vietnam in 1967. Although well liked by some troops, the units officially “failed” the field-testing and were withdrawn.

Ironically, in 1972, while representing Interarms in Vietnam, the late Dr. Edward Ezell said that he saw a battered XM148 recovered from a VC unit that “was probably happy to have this wonderful firepower that the Americans didn’t want.”

Despite that history, R&D began on a replacement in the Fall of 1967 and AAI won the competition with its M203 design. By April of 1969, 500 XM203 units were sent to Vietnam for field-testing. One of the many, many glowing testimonials to the XM203 was the number of units that attempted to replace their M79s with the new test weapon. The XM203 won enthusiastic endorsement.

Because AAI was a small company and the military needed massive amounts of M203 units, manufacture was undertaken by Colt in 1971 on a license purchasing agreement. Obviously, by that time supplies of everything to those American forces that were still in country were slowing down, although the new launcher did make it into combat. Most accounts estimate that Colt has produced between 500,000 and 800,000 units for US and friendly foreign governments.

At the 1992 meeting of the American Defense Preparedness Association (ADPA) meeting, Colt showed its M203H, which is essentially a standard M203 with a fixed pistol grip and butt stock. It also uses a 250-meter ladder sight. The M203H is stand-alone weapon.

According to Ciener, back in the mid 1990s, there was new interest in the M203 from some US-friendly middle eastern nations that want to add this relatively inexpensive and useful bit of ordnance to their national defense and law enforcement systems.

“I was approached by some folks in our government to build several hundred M203s for one our allied nations in that region,” Ciener says. “But, that really did not work out.”

As serious users will attest, Ciener’s version of the old bloop tube is rugged. Each unit’s receiver is constructed of high strength, forged aluminum. Although it is almost always attached to an M16, it can be operated independently.

Randy Shivak moved into the M203 community in 1994. The year before he was a roofing contractor with a great business as well as a self-taught machinist who found he enjoyed that better than his day job.

“I got bitten by the Class III bug in 1993, loved machining, had an M16, and wanted to go for more, “ he says.

He studied federal and state law, talked with some friends, bought some more machining equipment, then got his manufacturer’s Type 10 license and began to produce M203s and M79s.

What had been a hobby quickly grew to a business. He was using GI parts and building his own receivers. As demand quickly grew, he added more machining equipment, and realized this new business was outdistancing his day job.

“In 1998, I went out of the roofing business and began devoting my full time to my fully functional 40mm weapons and accessories. I now have a very active website, too, and have expanded offerings again, selling real M79s, real M203s, parts, all sorts of practice rounds, repair facilities and I am doing some contract work as well.”

Randy said there is a very loosely organized “users club” of 40mm collectors and hobbyists who are trying to get a 40mm competition included at Knob Creek. His customers come from all walks, trades and professions, including one federal officer who lives in a very gun-unfriendly state.

. Rather than give you today’s BATF drill for legally owning an M203, which may change tomorrow, my advice is to personally contact Randy Shivak or Dan Shea, the two experts in this matter, as noted at the end of this article.

In the meantime, enjoy the civilian side, where the emphasis is clearly on sport, fun and recreation. The late USMC Gunnery Sergeant Donald Steffey, who knew the M203 well from firsthand Vietnam experience, championed the sport value of the civilian collector’s use, saying, “These bozos that say that military equipment has no sporting or recreational use are simply ignorant of the truth, or lying.

“Private collectors who own M203s use them safely, carefully and totally within the law, simply as outdoor recreation, to send an inert (non-explosive) or flare round harmlessly up in the air.

“There is a literal analogy with firecrackers, rockets and the 4th of July…recreational use of explosives. I guess it’s tough for some of the anti-gun paranoiacs to see that when they have their heads wedged so far up where they do,” Don added.

Dr Tom McCoy is a civilian who owns one of Jonathan Ciener’s classic M203s, and has been enjoying this hobby for some years now.

Tom brings his M203-laden M16A1 up to the firing line amid the time-honored cry of “Let the games begin.” Thus, on a nearby field and quarry area, Dr. McCoy and friends enjoy afternoons of blooper-style competitive sport and entertaining pyrotechnics.

Military and civilian prices for the old and remade M203s ran about $700 for the entire unit. By 1998, prices for civilian-manufacture M203 receivers were about $950. Today, receivers for the M203 cost nearly $2,000, while those for the M79 run around $1,700. Within the past year I have seen ads for a used Ciener unit for $3,000, two of Shivak’s units at $3,200 and $2,900, respectively, and an original Colt M203 in mint condition for $4,300. Of course, there are still bargains to be found out there.

Sources of Equipment, Parts, Accessories

Mr 40mm
Randall R Shivak
Elyria, Ohio
(440) 284-1044
www.mr40mm.com

Long Mountain Outfitters
Dan Shea
631 N. Stephanie St. #560
Henderson, NV 89014
(702) 564-0948
www.longmountain.com

Today’s USMC Rifle Company is arguably the most lethal in Corps history. Packing a variety of weapons from the 9mm M9 pistol to the 83mm SMAW, its six officers and 176 enlisted men are well equipped to deal with a whole catalog of battlefield threats. The company’s three Rifle Platoons are armed with M16A2 assault rifles, M203 grenade launchers, and the compact, fast-firing M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, giving them a kill zone out to 600 meters or more. These combat proven weapons are relatively light, providing highly effective firepower to dismounted infantrymen whose best chance for survival and mission success is to move fast and hit hard.

Weapons Platoon

The big bite that “Devil Dog” grunts can deliver comes from their own Weapons Platoon; 47 Marines specially trained in the efficient employment of machine guns, mortars and rocket launchers. This interesting mix gives the company commander the ability to respond quickly and decisively to many of the challenges that are likely to be encountered in both offensive and defensive situations.

Usually under command of a 1st Lieutenant, the Weapons Platoon is organized into three sections with distinct but sometimes overlapping capabilities. First, the Machine Gun Section has Six M240G general purpose machine guns that can pump 7.62mm NATO rounds out to a maximum effective range of some 1800 meters with significantly more punch and sustained volume of fire than the 5.56mm SAW. The M240G is based on the highly respected Belgian MAG58, and replaces the fragile and trouble prone M60E3. Although somewhat heavier than the “Sixty”, the “Two-Forty Golf” is virtually indestructible and uncannily reliable under the worst conditions. These machine guns are particularly effective when fired from tripod mounts, dealing with enemy troops and light vehicles with both direct and indirect fire capability as the rifle platoons do their job. (See tech specs at end of article)

Then, the Mortar Section is home for three 60mm M224 light mortars. They put bigger and more effective high explosive, illumination, and smoke rounds way beyond the reach of those shoulder-fired 40mm M203 grenade launchers found in the rifle squads. These mortars are the company commander’s “hip pocket artillery”, immediately on call to wreak havoc day or night on enemy formations during offensive and defensive operations. (See tech specs at end of article)

The Assault Section is the Weapons Platoon’s third element, with six MK153 Shoulder Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapons, usually called “SMAWs.” These awesome 83mm rocket launchers are direct-fire weapons that are capable of dealing with a variety of targets including armored fighting vehicles and earth/log bunkers. Also, supporting the increasing emphasis on fighting in urban areas, the SMAW is astonishingly effective even against reinforced concrete buildings. You wouldn’t want to be hiding behind a wall when the SMAW’s High Explosive Dual Purpose round slams into it, instantly turning your squad into unrecognizable pulp from blast and fragments. The assault section also provides demolitions support as required with bangalore torpedoes, satchel charges and mines. (See tech specs at end of article)

Now, as fantastically capable as each of these heavy weapons can be, the company commander must employ them with skill and savvy to maximize their combined effect as a combat multiplier. While all of the factors that he must consider are way beyond the scope of this article, they obviously incorporate the basic triad of enemy, weather and terrain. Each of these must be taken into account as to how they will affect the desired outcome of either offensive (moving on the enemy) or defensive (luring him into your kill zone) operations with the least number of friendly casualties.

To this end, the commander relies to a large extent on advice from his Weapons Platoon commander — a very big responsibility for what is typically a lieutenant with only a year or two of real experience. How, then, does the Marine Corps ensure that this relatively green young man is equal to the job?

Infantry Officer Course

This challenge is met with a combination of formal schooling and on-the-job experience for a special breed of leader. While there is ample evidence that other components of the US Armed Forces are unevenly applying standards for officer selection and training in order to achieve social engineering “goals,” this doesn’t yet seem to be the case with the Marine Corps.

Always forward-deployed and with the strongest traditions of promotion based on merit and combat performance, the Corps remains committed to ensuring that its leaders are the best that America can provide. Marine officers, we are told, still get the kind of tough, uncompromising, and realistic training that keeps the Corps ready to fight anywhere in the world.

This is the responsibility of MCCDC, the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, located at the “Crossroads of the Corps” at Quantico, Virginia. There, newly-commissioned lieutenants who aspire to become infantry leaders jump from the frying pan of the Basic Officer Course to the fire of IOC; the Infantry Officer Course. This is an intense ten week full-immersion program of instruction in the theory and practice of bootborne combat.

At IOC these extraordinary young men have the opportunity to learn about and live fire most of the standard weapons of the Infantry Battalion from 9mm pistol to 81mm mortar. They also get thoroughly indoctrinated in the principles of offensive and defensive combat operations with and without support fire from tactical aircraft and artillery — including Naval gunfire. All along the way they have to consistently demonstrate that they have what it takes. This is measured through both individual performance and how they conduct themselves as student leaders in a multitude of tactical exercises and other situations – that they have what it takes. Yes, they are allowed to make mistakes, but only the ones who show that they have learned and corrected are allowed to continue.

According to Captain George Schreffler, IOC instructor, every lieutenant receives a solid grounding in infantry tactics while at the Basic Officer Course. This, in theory, prepares him to serve as a provisional rifle platoon commander if necessary. The staff at the BOC screens its graduates and assigns only about 35 out of a company of some 250 as infantry students.

“The grueling IOC program,” Schreffler says, “ensures that those without the necessary decision-making ability or physical attributes don’t graduate.”

This includes more than half of their 50 days in the field in all kinds of weather in a simulated combat environment. There are numerous tests of decision-making skills amid food and sleep deprivation, plus the physical strain from a series of long and challenging hikes.

Schreffler is quick to point out that, “Most graduates freely admit that IOC is the most physically and mentally difficult challenge they ever faced.”

Live Fire Exercise

One of many intense and demanding exercises at IOC is the Weapons Platoon Live Fire, typically scheduled near the end of the ten week course. MCCDC course materials state the purpose of this is “to successfully employ all crew-served weapons assets of the Marine Rifle Company in accordance with a ground scheme of maneuver.” While this may seem a straightforward tasking to the casual observer, there is a lot that goes into it.

First, there is the need to translate a formal Operations Order into a plan for both maneuver and fire support and to ensure that all players know what their responsibilities are. Then, the platoon must successfully move by both Amphibious Armored Assault Vehicle and by foot to take up planned positions on unfamiliar terrain. Finally, the various weapons must be fired on schedule and on targets both anticipated and unanticipated. Oh, by the way, there may be a few surprises here and there, courtesy of the IOC cadre….

With student lieutenants in all roles from weapons crewmen to platoon commander, the possibilities for both comedy and tragedy are seemingly endless.

I arrived on Quantico’s Range 6 on the morning of 23 Nov, as the Marine lieutenants of IOC Classs #1-100 prepared for the first of two full scale runs of the Live Fire exercise. The Battalion Commander’s Operations Order had already been given to the student acting as Weapons Platoon Commander and all of the various sections were busy with rehearsals and other preparations.

The canned Operations Order used for this exercise is plausibly based on real-life possibilities with a tactical scenario involving hostile forces in Bosnia. The mission of Fox Company’s Weapons Platoon is to move undetected into suitable positions then put fifteen minutes of suppressive fire on an enemy howitzer battery and the motorized rifle platoon that is protecting it. Properly executed, this will cover two of Fox Co.’s rifle platoons as they flank and assault the enemy positions, clearing the way for fast movement of follow-on forces.

For rehearsal purposes and later during actual movement and firing, each section was under direct supervision of a Marine non-commissioned officer who was an expert in tactical employment of that weapon. From what I observed, these corporals and sergeants were very professional and matter-of-fact with the lieutenants, providing lessons not only in how to use the weapons, but also how to interact with enlisted men whose experience and knowledge are always essential to mission success.

Meanwhile, support personnel were also busy with many tasks necessary to make the exercise work despite competing necessities of both safety and realism. This included an amazing variety of items from toilet paper to TOW missiles, with stacks of ammunition, several different tactical radios, and four big, hulking AAVP-7 (Assault Amphibian Vehicle Personnel) tracked vehicles.

Also, in addition to the standard crew-served arms found in the Weapons Platoon, exercise play would include some interesting assets from the Infantry Battalion’s Weapons Company. The student platoon commander would be able to call on support fire from 81mm mortars and 105mm howitzers, as well as a pair of tough and squat “Humm-Vees,” one mounting a TOW antiarmor missile, and the other a .50 caliber heavy machine gun. All of these, by the way, were crewed by experienced Marine enlisted men from the MCCDC’s Weapons Platoon, Combat Instructor Company, Instructor Battalion, The Basic School.

Had the weather cooperated the exercise would also have the dramatic advantage of close air support. This usually comes in the form of fast movers like the F/A-18 HORNET and the AV-8 HARRIER, or from attack helicopters. Now, before anybody gets upset that poor visibility kept the air support on the ground, let it be said that rules of combat are much different from rules of peacetime training. It doesn’t make sense to take a chance of crashing good aircraft and killing good pilots for a fairly routine ground training exercise.

“Move Out!”

By early afternoon everything seemed to be in order and the students loaded up into the AAVP-7s for the first phase of movement. These remarkable amphibious tracked vehicles serve as battle taxis, capable of delivering up to 18 Marine infantrymen in full gear from a seaborne assault ship to even miles inland if required. Although awkward and slow moving, they have a lethal sting in the form of an armored turret mounted with two belt-fed machine guns, one a .50 cal. M2 and the other a 40mm Mk19. (See tech specs)

The 60mm mortar section was the first group to disembark along the route of motor march. This allows them time to set up and be ready to provide indirect fire support from a position well hidden from enemy observation and protected from counterbattery fire.

AAVs make a lot of noise from both their diesel engines and the characteristic metallic squeal of most fully tracked vehicles. This meant that a few hundred meters further up the rough and narrow trail the machine gun and assault sections also had to jump out in order to be outside hearing range of the enemy’s presumed forward observation posts. Stealthy movement on foot of the men and their heavy burden of weapons and ammunition was required from here on as they put into practice many hours spent on land navigation and other infantry skills.

A bit of a surprise was in order as the platoon’s forward elements neared their predetermined fire positions. The “enemy” had placed a cluster of antitank mines right in the path the AAVs were supposed to take. Fortunately, the assault section had run several practice drills with just this in mind, and soon cleared the way. Unfortunately, as was embarrassingly pointed out later in the after action review, there was little thought given to providing the mine clearing team with covering fire just in case the mine field was sniper’s bait. This, the instructors often say, is “how we learn….”

Meanwhile, as the countermine efforts were still underway, the machine gun section was literally crawling up a gentle incline in the treeline to ensure they were in position and ready to shoot at H Hour. This protected them from enemy observation and put them into an excellent spot allowing unobstructed direct fire on a cluster of derelict target tanks. Situated some 800 meters away, deep in the enormous impact area of Range 7, these tanks represent BTR-60 wheeled armored cars of the enemy motorized rifle platoon as identified in the Operations Order.

Learning Curve

If things had gone exactly according to plan then all weapons would have been in place and simultaneously firing at the appointed time. As it happened, the M240 machine guns started right on schedule but there was a noticeable lag before the mortars began kicking in. Finally, the assault section, reinforced by a pair of M249 SAW’s to represent fire from two attached rifle squads, got into their position in a log crib to the left of the machine gunners, adding more noise and smoke to the “fog of war.” A note to armchair generals — this stuff isn’t easy to do, particularly when the Marine grunts are all new 2nd Lieutenants.

Ah, but when everything started popping away it was a sight to behold. The spacious impact area was crisscrossed with red laserlike tracers from the SAWs and the medium machine guns. Soon, plumes of smoke began to arise nearby on the grid coordinates occupied by the imaginary enemy artillery battery. These marked the impact of high explosive 60mm and 81mm mortar rounds, marched in by a student in the role of Forward Observer.

Exercise controllers soon added a bit more spice to the tactical play, directing the assault section leader to engage with DRAGON and SMAW a trio of target tanks with the closest two about 350 meters out and another approximately 500 meters away. The rocket teams jumped up from the protection of the log crib and scrambled to get into position. Despite their inexperience, it wasn’t long before three antiarmor weapons were ready. One SMAW was first to fire, rapidly popping off several 9mm spotter-tracer rounds until the gunner was sure of his sight picture. This was followed by a deafening blast and flying debris as the big antitank rocket left its launcher and streaked downrange, getting a near miss on the closest enemy armored fighting vehicle. The second SMAW finished the job, scoring a good center of mass hit.

The DRAGON gunner was taking his time, but when he finally hit the trigger bar his guided missile launcher erupted with similar earplug-packing blast and smoke. If there had been any actual bad guys downrange they damn sure knew from the launch signature exactly where these rockets were coming from!

Unlike the point and shoot/fire and forget SMAW, DRAGON is a a wire guided missile that the gunner “flies” to its target by keeping it squarely in crosshairs in his fire control system. Theoretically, this gives the DRAGON the capability of hitting even a fast moving tank. Alas, the missile ran out of wire before it got to its tank and promptly took a nose dive into the dirt. There is an important correlation between maximum range of the weapon and actual range to the target. “This is how we learn.”

By now the AAVs had driven up the free-of-mines trail, their noise of movement screened by the rude concert from multiple weapons. Coming on line, they quickly added to the excitement by pumping .50 caliber slugs and 40mm grenades into the ridgeline occupied by the luckless enemy BTRs. The Mark 19 grenade chucker is an excellent compliment to both the .50 cal and 7.62mm machine guns, literally carpeting the target area with high explosive bomblets. This weapon’s inherent long range effectiveness is particularly enhanced by the sturdy turret mount of the AAV and its highly precise ballistic computing optical sight.

To any enemy the required fifteen minutes of suppressive fire called for in the Operations Order would have been an eternity in Hell of fire and steel. However, as several of the Marine lieutenants later remarked, things on their end seemed to go remarkably fast. This was particularly true for the four M240G machine gunners, who had to make do with a relatively paltry 1200 rounds each and all ran out of ammo before running out of time.

Lessons Learned

As the last rounds were heading downrange the Weapons Platoon pulled back from the firing line to an established rendezvous point. If this had been an actual combat operation, they would then have jumped back into their AAVs and moved out to rejoin the rest of Fox Company, helping to consolidate the Battalion’s objective. But, since this was only a practical exercise, (and the impact area “objective” was full of lethal duds from countless years of firing) the next order of business was to gather around for a quick AAR — After Action Review.

This is the time for a no-bullshit examination of what went right and what went wrong. All participants are encouraged and expected to contribute with students, exercise controllers, safety officers, and weapons NCOs being as candid as possible. This is, after all, a much better way to learn without the unpleasant side effects of being — or causing others to be — wounded or killed.

It has been said that the making of a U.S. Marine Infantry Officer is an inexact science but one with which the Corps has a long history and much demonstrated success. Let us hope and pray that the way it is being done now at Quantico is the best way and will continue to forge the best America has to offer into technically and tactically proficient leaders with no compromises in standards.

Let all Americans of good conscience also demand that our elected representatives promptly and decisively reverse years of the Clinton administration’s politically calculated starvation, neglect and ill-concealed contempt for the Armed Forces. It is long past time for congress to reverse the dangerous slide in readiness and morale by restoring realistic funding levels and allowing a return to common sense rules for training and deploying the men and women soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines who keep America’s many enemies at bay.