Under Barrel vs Standalone

Standalone.

Much easier to aim and reload.

Standalone, because those things are a bitch to fire your rifle with.

Personal taste ultimately. I guess if you don't use it often then standalone is the better choice, but it doesn't really mean that much either way.

>>31500151
>>31500145
Doesn't it take way longer to bring on target?

>>31500175
Why would it?

>>31500129
standalone
easier to use, and not in the way when you don't need it, and with todays standalone launchers you can mount it if the tactical situation calls for it.

>>31500199
Well if it's on your rifle then it should be pointed down range at all times.

I mean look how long it takes this guy to get his m320 active in a firefight. 34 seconds between contact and sending the first 40mm.

https://youtu.be/QiTwlRn6r4o?t=6s

>>31500151
>>31500216
Just trust me when I say that it's a lot cooler to look at then to carry.

>>31500231
Same shit with the modular shotgun

>>31500216
Yeah, speaking realistically both have drawbacks. Under mounted is a bit bulky, adds weight to the front of the rifle, and makes for a goofy rest if you're shooting regularly off cover.

Standalone is more maneuverable, the bulk can be better secured, and frees up your weapon of the added part. However, slower to get into action, and you can't use both your rifle and the launcher at the same time (effectively at least)

My preference is under mounted, you never know when shits gonna pop off, and when it does, both your rifle and grenade launcher will be in your hands. Technically you can provide your own covering fire.

>>31500216

At 0:08 of that video, Did that one idiot just run straight through his buddy's line of fire?

>>31500276
Hard to make optimal choices in a split second.

>>31500129
Conventional rifle: standalone.
Bullpup: underbarrel.

I remember the unders they bought out in basic for the m16a4. Me bbeing a short couldn't shoulder the gun properly and reach that trigger at the same time. Drill Sgt was screaming at me to hurry up and shit. It was a bad day.

>>31500216
Wasn't that a drill? Also loved how they took cover in deathtrap on teh bridge and stayed there. Good for them they were not under real attack.

>>31500216
GETTING STUNG BY FUCKING BEES

>>31500516
Why?

Just because there's less leverage?

Rifle grenades

>>31501356
Literally the worst

I carried mine on a war belt in a homemade Kydex holster, loaded on safe. Fantastic. Went through two bandoliers in combat.

File: ak74_with_gp25.jpg (16KB, 650x184px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 650x184px

Why are American under barrel grenade launchers so fucking huge?

>>31502380
We like barrel length for velocity vs fuckhuge explosion

>>31502380
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sacho_o7sT4

>>31503162
Poor rifle seems to be getting stressed all over. Are western GL's also hard on the rifle?

>>31500216
>barrage of taliban unaimed fire
>shit pants
>talibans run away immediately
>run in front of gun
>one guy does most of the shooting, fires grenades, and throws grenade, while everyone lays there
>the only ANA soldier gets shot in the head
>shooting at nothing for 5 minutes
>gun jams multiple times
>leaves a mag and a frag on the ground
>only person doing everything also goes back to get it
>retreat to horrible location
>talibans are already at home grilling a lamb they just fucked

>>31503236
Dunno. Never seen good slo mo of them firing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqyLoU_0Av4

>>31500129

Why not both?

Under barrel cause as a grunt you still have to carry a rifle and you don't want to be carrying excess weight if u can help it.

>>31500603
at like 0:48

FUCK BEES!

the m203 was great as an underbarrel.
the 320 fucking sucks to have as a underbarrel
I've played with both, but 90% of my (entirely training) experience shooting grenade launchers is standalone, so that's how I'd like to use it on deployment.

File: M-32_Grenade_Launcher.jpg (822KB, 2592x1944px) Image search: [Google]

822KB, 2592x1944px

What about these things /k/? Meme tier or a step up?

>>31500276
Yes but the guy recording is a pro so he managed not to kill his buddy.

>>31503324

Are there any videos online of soliders reacting the "correct" way? I only ever see comments about how much they fucked up.

To be fair, there was that one video where the nco kept blind firing his rifle right next to his friends heads.

>>31500129
Rifle grenades.

>>31507390
held one of those before. A lot heavier than it looks. 12 pounds empty

>>31507390
Absolute meme-tier in my opinion. Heavy as fuck so nobody wants to hump with it. Literally the Streetsweeper of grenade launchers. Then again, I'm not a grunt so I can't speak for its actual application.
>source - Marine 2111

File: VuIuiFF.jpg (28KB, 367x390px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 367x390px

>>31503162
>american guns can't handle vibrations

>>31502380
Because we have multiple payloads in our grenades, some of which are long af.
>watched our grenadier doink someone with a smoke round because hes an idiot
>bust out laughing in the middle of combat

>>31503324
top fuking kek

>>31500216
was that a famas?

File: m-79.jpg (258KB, 575x1094px) Image search: [Google]

258KB, 575x1094px

>>31500129
If you're going to have a demoman in your squad give him the best tools for the job.

File: 1177713297066.jpg (123KB, 994x762px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 994x762px

>>31510664

>>31510672
Imagine a Hornet's nest shooting 7 x M885A1 at the same time.

>>31509922
>street sweeper of grenade launchers

I am now inspired

File: 55fcaa032928c.image_.jpg (34KB, 620x414px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 620x414px

Any word if this is still being seriously developed for deployment?

>>31510818
lightsabers? i think so

File: 12079212_10153759558702340_5641613197510029334_n-660x378.jpg (37KB, 660x378px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 660x378px

>>31510818
Pike missile from Raytheon.

File: 1471890955.jpg (67KB, 850x430px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 850x430px

Development of the LG5 “sniper” grenade launcher was inspired by US-made Barrett XM109 “payload” rifle that fired 25mm grenade ammunition originally developed for OCSW program. Designed in around 2011, this remarkable weapon is available in two versions. First, known as LG5, is an export-only variant sold through NORINCO Corporation and chambered for the NATO-standard 40mm high velocity grenades (40x53mm HV). Second version, known as QLU-11, is produced for domestic use by PLA, and is chambered for indigenous 35mm grenade ammunition (35x32SR).

The LG5, in turn, is offered in two sub-models. The LG5s is a one-man portable, lightweight version which can be fired from integral bipod against point targets at ranges of up to 1000 meters. The LG5 is basically the same weapon, but equipped with substantial tripod mount and magazines of extended capacity, to provide more effective area or long range fire.
With Chinese-made BGJ-5 40mm “sniper grade” HE-DP ammunition LG5s grenade launcher is claimed to have 3-round R100 accuracy of 1 meter at 600 meter range. Basically, it means that with proper aiming at 600m meters it can put three subsequent high explosive rounds into a typical house window or door. It also can fire numerous other types of 40mm HV ammunition, but with lesser accuracy.
Accuracy figures for 35mm QLU-11 grenade launcher are not available at this time.

File: 1471890906.jpg (20KB, 850x252px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 850x252px

>>31510944

The LG5 / QLU11 grenade launcher presumably uses long recoil semi-automatic action with additional recoil buffer in the tubular stock. Ammunition is fed from detachable drum magazines with capacities varying from 3 to 15 rounds; 15 round magazines are usually employed when gun is fired from tripod. Grenade launcher is equipped with integral folding bipod and can be mounted on a tripod or a vehicle mount. It is equipped with back-up iron sights and a Picatinny rail above the receiver. The rail can be used to host various day and night sights, including an electro-optical sight with built-in laser rangefinder and ballistic computer. For LG5 and LG5s grenade launchers this advanced unit is an optional accessory; for the 35mm QLU-11 grenade launcher such device appears to be the primary sighting equipment.

>>31505034
Heh, reminds me when I played ufo:aftershock. Had M79 with M203 on a rail. Good times.

>>31500129
Standalones are nicer to shoot. But singles are pointless -
not something you'd leave your rifle to use so it's just another thing to carry. Extra weight over underbarrel too.

M32's however are awesome and something else all together

>>31500129
Standalone is generally preferred for your average patrol. Makes the aiming of your rifle and grenade launcher easier, plus it's just a pain to carry that extra weight in your hands when you don't have to.

But under barrel has two possible advantages (neither of which matter much to standard infantry operating in the Mid East right Nosa):

1. For some grenade launchers, you can slightly reduce to the net weight of your kit by attaching it to your rifle. It means that you don't need a stock. But the difference is so slight that it would really only matter in a jungle environment. Plus, the M302 doesn't lose much weight by removing the stock.

2. It's true that it takes much more time to switch between your rifle and grenade launcher when they're desperate. But again, in modern combat that really doesn't matter unless, maybe, you're SOF.

>>31507390
Only good for niche jobs like maybe some road check points. Also good for riot control.

>>31510672
You do know they have the M576 Buckshot 40mm Grenade right?

Because sometimes you need a 1.2 Gauge Shotgun. Not 12, 1.2.

>>31503162
Cool that they're effectively caseless. Do the Russians have a Milkor equivalent?

Given the manual of arms for the Milkor seems like the two would pair nicely.

>>31500603
They are trying to Jam their AR's by flying into the chamber to get stuck in the bolt lug recesses.

>>31510672
so basically another way of turning your M79 into a shotgun except for not having to reload new buckshot rounds - just use this adapter with new bullets

>>31511239
Man, autocorrect fucked me in like 10 places that time.

>>31502380
They use a bigger grenade.

File: rg62.jpg (13KB, 550x202px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 550x202px

>>31511264

>>31510672
Is not this a machine gun?

>>31511264
Bore diameter isn't everything. Taken from wiki, those rounds were pretty fuckin' weak. I figured that if it was developed for standalone, sturdy, one-shot GL, they'd develop those - supposedly - close range defence rounds fuckin' brutal. Instead, by these numbers, they sound rather meh.

"The M576 contains twenty 24-grain metal pellets.[3][4] The XM576/XM576E1 was standardized to become the M576. Normal dispersion pattern of the M576 will put 13 of 20 pellets in a 1.5 meter circle at 40 meters.[5] The remaining 7 pellets could be anywhere.[6] Another test variant, the XM576E2, which had twenty seven, 24-grain metal pellets without a sabot within the shot cup was deemed to spread too quickly for effective use. Both types had a muzzle velocity of roughly 880 ft/s (268 m/s).

For comparison, a single pellet of lead alloy no. 3 buckshot also weighs 24 grain. A common 20-gauge 2.75 inch (70mm) shotshell loading of no. 3 buckshot (e.g. Federal F203-3B [7] ) pushes 20 of those no. 3 buckshot pellets to 1200 ft/sec at the muzzle from 18.5 inch barrel length. Compared to the M576 this has the same projectile mass, but exhibits 36.36% higher velocity at the muzzle for 36.36% more momentum at the muzzle, and 85.95% more energy at the muzzle."

>>31511729
Might fall under destructive device anyway being over 12.7mm.