M203 or m320 launcher?

>M302

Attached: Bruh.png (600x600, 652K)

M320s are utter trash and I'd rather using a fucking M79

t. Army Grenadier

M203. Longer barrel, lighter, purpose-built underslung grenade launcher that's actually ambidextrous. It can, in fact, load any munition the M320 can by removing the barrel completely.
>cons: obviously takes longer to load long cartridges, but not by much, isn't double action

They do heat up if you fire enough.

Came here to post this.

HEATSHIELD
A E S T H E T I C

i dont understand this post.

Short barrel 203 attached.
M79 stand alone.
M320 make a decent paperweight.

320 is gay, I have no clue why the grip is so short and stubby. hk is run by retards.

I've heard this sentiment before, elaborate?

centerfiresystems.com/p-9348-original-military-issued-m203-grenade-launcher-handguard-with-leaf-sight-fair-condition.aspx

I found the 40mm hedp grenades to be massively underwhelming in Aghan. We accidentally shot one at a kid and it landed about 4-5 feet away from him and the kid was totally fine. Could have been luck but I was very unimpressed.

grenades are always a crap shoot, dual purpose more so.

203 simply because it's way more aesthetic

Just make the 203 barrel pivot. Or adopt a modified HK79 instead.

m302 for versatility, m203 for aesthetics and ergonomics

The M203, unironically.

The M320 is another overpriced malfunctioning piece of shit that was only adopted to line the pockets of defense contractors. Another garbage addition to a military that has gone completely down the shitter since 2001.

Retards who say otherwise are either useful idiots or puppets of (((Military Industrial Complex)))

Attached: US Military before 2001 after 2001.png (1044x904, 1.47M)

Not him but I share the same experience as a former grenadier:

>Stupid low pistol grip on the M320, lower than any vert grip would be, considerably lower than an M203 with a stubby vert grip. Doesn't mate smoothly/flush like the M203 did to the reciever/mag well whn mounted.

Check the pic out.
3 sighting systems
for a grenade launcher ffs
Only one of them is actually good, and it wasn't designed for the M320

>Sights are fucking terrible. I advise anyone stuck with a 320 to use a rail mounted M203 ladder sight instead of the side mounted ladder. The offset is insane past 200m. You WILL miss smaller targets easily - like windows. I had no issue putting a grenade in a window over 200 with an M203.

>Fuckhuge side Rail system for fucking retarded BII consisting of a laser rangefinder/sight unit, that is flat the fuck out terrible and makes no sense for normal grenades - yet is incapable of being used for the newer (not widely issued yet) 800m range HEDP grenades. It's also heavy fully equipped.

>No weight improvement whatsoever over the M203. In fact the (loser) LMT Rail Mounted M203 was lighter than both legacy M203A1 and M320

>Double action is another feature that its competitors, like the LMT, also had, before anyone spergs that bs.

>It's really not a great stand alone, but fuck mounting it to a rifle whatsoever. Sling options aren't great - no you don't want to single point it, the NSN Holster is garbo

Attached: 1920px-Soldier_shooting_M320.jpg (1920x1275, 276K)

does that thing have 2 triggers or am i seeing things?

You mean on the M203? There's just one trigger, the reversed trigger-looking lever is the safety.

I personally prefer the 203 because it is lighter and feels better when mounted than the 320. The only good thing about the 320 is i could use it stand alone and just bring it slung on me with some HE and smoke if the mission looked like it might get heated.

The M203 was more aesthetic.

The M320 is so much easier to shoot, though. And it can be shoulder fired. We almost never had them mounted under barrel. We'd pack strap them and use them when needed. Absolutely a better system.

ok thanks

M203 is an aesthetic we won't see anymore, it's all railshit now

Attached: 1486758220888.jpg (943x960, 285K)

Even the dolls agree

>"For me its, M203!"
- doll

Attached: 1512793695228.jpg (1117x1920, 470K)

For standard Army issue? M203 for integral launcher. M320 for stand alone. But really, LMT makes a perfectly good stand alone set up, so fuck Hk.

Attached: lmt stand alone m203.jpg (650x243, 26K)

If you are planning on shooting up a school near you then either launcher is fine. You will also need to use a military grade acog scope and at least 4 30 capacity magazines.

mods

But nobody gives a shit about that and guys already bitch about getting stuck with 40mm anyway

>putting a $500-$1000 flare launcher on your toys

>not putting a $500-$1000 flare launcher on your toys

XM148

Attached: XM148.jpg (1280x863, 307K)

jesus christ, is literally all that shit hanging off that gun for the 320?
What a fucking nightmare.

they both fucking suck to carry I'd rather have neither but at least the 320 is issued with a standalone frame so I don't have to have a 15 pound rifle

Ttbqhwy

LMT makes a really nice 37/40mm launcher, too.

203 by a landslide. 320 is beyond garbage with the fucking stupid dot sight that forces a shooter to have to manually adjust the range on it before he can engage a new target instead of just eyeing it with the old 203 sights. Mounting it is retarded but operating it separate from the M4 makes it a pain in the ass to carry around and prevents a quick switch between weapons.
Its inconvenient, unecessarily complex, and offers no significant advantage over the 203 and whoever approved this shit deserves a 40mm shoved up their ass.

M79's are fucking dope man, dont use them as a "bad" metric