How about a center mounted grenade launcher but with a side mounted trigger somewhere around the position of the charging handle?
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Awkward design and easy to misfire if you drop your rifle on the side where the trigger is.
Side mounting distorts the centerline weapon balance.
Since a M203 is used 95% of the time as a M16A2, it is an excessive sacrifice for.
Also, side mounting the GL would also distort the recoil of firing 40mm. By side mounting, you are essentially going a gansta:
By doing this, you will negate any benefit while adding a shit load of training and operational complications.
GL is useful not as a reflex shooting weapons, due to fragmentation radius, and most important of all, arming distance.
So it is unlike to be used in a manner like in BF3
And used more in line with target or area suppression from a tactical halt, from behind cover. You will often see guys using it to suppress a window or room from across the street.
Which is why we increasing see M320 used as a separate module, independent of MK18 or M4A1.
MwRYum
Major
In other words we're going back to use it like M79, but with lesser of bulk like that of M79...
Basically yes, but one can also carry a rifle.
Right. previously the M79 Grenadier had only a M1911 45ACP side arm.
Replace the hefty M79 with a plastic M320, and replace the M1911 with a a M4A1 and most of the problem is solved. The grenadier has the option to attach the M320 to the rails, as an option in the field.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
well originally the M79 was more replaced by the M203 mounted on either an M16 or later M4. The M1911 was replaced by M9 now M17/18.
Althoughthe M320 is partially made of polymers it’s not “plastic”. It weighs more than M203 mounted or stand alone. It main advantages are that it’s more easy to use in both configurations than M203 acceptable for longer 40mm rounds and as a pistol can be easily holstered compared to the blunderbuss on steroids.
The weight and bulk is the reason why it’s preferred as a pistol. The USMC based on this preference issued their lots in that form. That said M320 mounted on Carbines are issued aim the army. Part of this back and forth on both types has to do with the M320 design vs the M4A1 and HK416 based M27. The M4A1 doesn’t have the proprietary mounting system HK designed for their 416 rail systems that allows quick detach so they mount to the rifle in a semipermanent mount like the old m203. The Marines have the rails but prefer to use the lower sections for a bipod and grip. Besides M27 is already 10lbs vs M4A1 8Lb base weight.
Althoughthe M320 is partially made of polymers it’s not “plastic”. It weighs more than M203 mounted or stand alone. It main advantages are that it’s more easy to use in both configurations than M203 acceptable for longer 40mm rounds and as a pistol can be easily holstered compared to the blunderbuss on steroids.
The weight and bulk is the reason why it’s preferred as a pistol. The USMC based on this preference issued their lots in that form. That said M320 mounted on Carbines are issued aim the army. Part of this back and forth on both types has to do with the M320 design vs the M4A1 and HK416 based M27. The M4A1 doesn’t have the proprietary mounting system HK designed for their 416 rail systems that allows quick detach so they mount to the rifle in a semipermanent mount like the old m203. The Marines have the rails but prefer to use the lower sections for a bipod and grip. Besides M27 is already 10lbs vs M4A1 8Lb base weight.
Yup, thanks for the correction.
Also, the M320 uses a "double action" trigger, in case the fist primer strike was a bit weak. Previously, in the M203, you had to re-cock the tube, exposing the shooter to potential delayed discharge.
Had no idea regarding the rail integration issues. Seems like a quick "airsoft" mod to fix, but hey HK part ain't cheap.
The whole M320 is a bit unwieldly under the an AR platform.
Back in 2003, I remember my troops had a laser range finder attachment to the M203 that resembled a giant "U". That thing was HUGE! I think it was an earlier version FN FCU.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Remember that both the rifle and launcher have a recoil element to them. Any modifications have to be able to take the impulse of both that and the soldiers who use them. Airsoft parts are not built anywhere near the same level ruggedness.
The 416 rail system was designed specifically for the 416 receiver and visa versa. The M4 receiver system wasn’t designed for the launcher mount either so you would basically need a engineering design change for an upper receiver replacement set with integral mounting system in a new hand guard, it could happen but seems unlikely due to NGSW AR.
However this is a bit OT to the QBZ191.
Obviously Norinco will if required cook up a dedicated mount and launcher. Likely modified off of either the launcher on the QBZ95 possibly redesigned akin to how FN changed the F2000 launcher to the Mk13 or the Launcher from CS/LR17 probably with a dedicated mount that like those on Army M4A1 with M320 would require an armorer.
The 416 rail system was designed specifically for the 416 receiver and visa versa. The M4 receiver system wasn’t designed for the launcher mount either so you would basically need a engineering design change for an upper receiver replacement set with integral mounting system in a new hand guard, it could happen but seems unlikely due to NGSW AR.
However this is a bit OT to the QBZ191.
Obviously Norinco will if required cook up a dedicated mount and launcher. Likely modified off of either the launcher on the QBZ95 possibly redesigned akin to how FN changed the F2000 launcher to the Mk13 or the Launcher from CS/LR17 probably with a dedicated mount that like those on Army M4A1 with M320 would require an armorer.