Now that rail-mounted grenade launchers are a thing, can we get

>>33386003

no, probably not

>>33386023
/thread

File: you over there, fuck you.jpg (590KB, 853x1280px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 853x1280px

>>33386003
I know frontline would prefer the stand-alone 320 to the rifle mounted,

Ounces on the fore-end can become tons with an unsupported firing position, continuous and sustained rate of fire/guarding an avenue of approach.

SF does standalone 320s, and it works.

>>33386259
i carried a M16a4 with a M203, through 2 year long deployments in Iraq. weight ain't that bad.

>>33386404
I got to shoot the M320 both from the shoulder with the included buttstock/vertical grip and attached to an M4. As a former 203 grenadier, the only disadvantage I feel of the unit is the weight. It's hefty when mounted on an M4. I found that because of the location of the breach release (in front of the trigger) I could reload between shots much faster than with my old 203. Also, I really enjoy the improved leaf sight design. When firing from the shoulder, my first shot was dead-on a barrel at 200m. When firing FTS with the vertical grip down, the amount of control over the weapon is leaps and bounds over that of the 203 and I don't find it a chore to operate.

Max effective range for a point target is around 250m with no wind and if you're a good shot. For an area target, you're looking at ~325m.

I would love to carry one as a stand alone unit, but would rather keep a 203 if mounting it on an M4.

Regular 11B here. Our units all went from undermounted to slings

File: weapon swapping.webm (2MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1280x720px

>>33386634
You mean like this?

I was aviation and our 320 was standalone lol>>33386259

>>33386701
>I was aviation

LOL indeed.

Would be nice to have a master key but I can only imagine the hell that'd play on the barrel/nut/upper from taking the recoil in some fucked up torquey manner.

>>33386679
surprisingly you don't really need to use your grenade launcher all that much

>>33386679
>high speed low drag

>>33386003

Make shit simple for every one? I don't think so, Tim.

>>33386679
h-he's fast!

File: 5954839570_dea3da8a17_b.jpg~original.jpg (62KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 800x533px

>>33386634
>Not using holsters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQvdd3GHDEg

>>33386003
>spend 150-200 million rebarreling a million M4's because rail mounted grenade launchers make the cut out obsolete

Holy unnecessary fiscal expenditure Batman.

>>33388639

I think he means on new production clones that just have the cut to be MILITARY GRADE.

They won't get rid of the standard shitty M4 barrel until the Marines give up the barrel-mounted M4 and everyone adopts the rail-mounted M320 or M203A2. Here's to hoping they eventually switch to free-floated 1:7 HBARs.

>>33388639
OP definitely did not mean replace already-issued barrels

Do you still have bayonets?

You better be affixing those bayonets, boyo.

>>33388663
>not knowing about the stock piles of government profile barrels that are in storage
It's like you don't know how to utilize the government issued no limit credit card.