Guns On Guns - Grenade Launcher And Shotgun Attachments On Rifles

[dy031101]

Before playing Half-Life, I thought M203 can only be attached to AR/M16/M4 platforms.  Okay, for a short while after playing Half-Life, I thought M203-equipped MP5 only exist in airsoft form.

Then I saw the pic here (see top attachment if the link has problems).

As time passes by, I began to see more and more alternative platforms for mounting M203...... like this.

Finally, I foudn this and this.

Cool.

Maverick has expressed some opinions, however brief, about his experience on Austeyr with M203 though.

The Masterkey shotgun attachment seems like an equally-interesting piece of machinery, too.  When I read about the Operation Gothic Serpent in a Taiwanese magazine, it was said that a Delta operator strapped (don't know if it was the right word) a sawed-off shotgun to his CAR-15.  I don't know if this is the first instance of Masterkey being used or an independent contraption (or maybe both).

Here comes my question:

I've only ever seen M4 operationally equipped with an under-barrel shotgun (Masterkey) although there appear to be other efforts to mount, for example, a clip-fed one on a MP5 as well (see bottom attachment).

Has there been efforts to mount a breaching shotgun onto rifle/SMG other than the M16 family (shotgun-equipped MP5 is rare enough for me to warrant inclusion in my question)?  Is the Masterkey available for mounting on Picatinny Rails (M203 seems to be)?  And how exactly has the Masterkey been received by the end-users?

[Maverick]

Donny,

The initial mountings of the Masterkey were specifically tailored for the M4.  Most of the more recent photos I've seen, however, show it with a rail system mount, so I would assume any weapon equipped with a RIS would be able to have the system attached.  There's also the XM26, a clip fed shotgun system that was developed for the M4 family which also utilized the rail mount.  I'm not sure if this has made it into production, however.  The Idaho breaching system looks quite a bit like the XM26, although the latter had a large muzzle brake.

Having handled the Masterkey/M4 combo, I was surprised that it didn't do that much to the weapon's balance, which wasn't the case with the AUG/M203 combo.  Regarding the M203, I've seen quite a few different mountings for the newer M203PI system which is a much better arrangement than the original M203.  These included the MP5, but that model had an abbreviated barrel so as not to protrude below the MP5s barrel, much like the weapon with the PASKAL troops.

There's always the FN EGLM which FNH USA have adapted for the SCAR family as well.


Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

While the M203 can be adapted to the Steyr it is not the grenade launcher of choice because its effect on the weight distribution of the weapon.  The ISL274, which looks superficially similar but with a shorter barrel is now the GL which is preferred with the Steyr.

[Maverick]

It's interesting that the blurb on the ISL 274 suggests that although the conversion uses a cutaway handguard, the AUG can be used without the launcher attached.  Where would you hold the weapon with the left hand?  There's no foregrip or even a rudimentary foreguard.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

I'd assume that you could put a handgrip back on the weapon, using the rail under the barrel.  It wouldn't be the original one but rather one of the fixed ones which are available.   What would be ideal would be a GL which used the existing handgrip but there doesn't appear to be one around.  I also suspect that would make the AUG more muzzle-heavy, shifting the C-of-G further forward.

Speaking of GLs.  The one I've always been sorry wasn't developed further was the one designed to fit the SPIW back in the 1960s by AAI.  Basically it had a backplate and you clipped the rounds to it.  The case of the round was effectively the barrel, which was disposed of, after firing.   It got rid of the need to carry a heavy, extra weapon around which was only used occasionally.  Its one disadvantage was reduced range and accuracy.  However, those seemed to be a tradeoff which was acceptable apparently.   When the SPIW died, as it deserved to, so did that handy grenade launcher concept.

[Maverick]

A logical choice, although why one would want to take the launcher off is another matter I guess.  You'd end up with an F88 without the standard grip and the issues that could potentially cause to a troopies 'muscle memory'.

I actually prefer the idea of an ARA grenadier either armed with an M4/203 combo (a much better balanced weapon, IMO) or, as I have seen in earlier photographs, the grenadier toting the old M79.  Although it's another weapon, the basic unloaded weapon is fairly light and if that weight is an issue, there are standalone attachements for the M203PI which allow it to be used as a shoulder-fired weapon. 

Obviously the argument is there regarding logistics issues with a different weapon or an extra one, but it seems a better option that ruining a weapon's balance by tagging a GL onto it. 

I think it's one of the great problems with any bullpup weapon, in that any accessories forward of the trigger group will usually have a detrimental affect on the weapon's COG.  That has been borne out in the plethora of firearms developed that have a conventional layout as opposed to the few bullpups that have actually made it into service.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Interesting.  My experience is the reverse.  Add weight to the front and the weapon actually becomes better balanced IMO if its a bullpup.   I always found even putting a bayonet on the L1a1 made it quite nose heavy.

The M79 isn't that light, either.  Having carried one on several early exercises I went on.  Useless piece of junk.  Loads of fun to fire but a bugger to carry when you couldn't fire it.  Just something else that had to be kept clean.  I used to put black electrical tape over the muzzle of mine (with a small hole in the centre to allow it to "breath") to keep the dust and crap out of it.   I mean, unlike the empty M72 which I also used to carry, you couldn't even put a can of beer in the M79!

[Maverick]

I never had an issue with the M79's weight, but as I say, the 203PI stand alone is supposedly 'light' if that's an issue.  As to the weapon's usefullness, I've seen quite a few nice shots with the weapon that a hand thrown grenade would be hard pressed to beat, to say nothing of the extended range of the weapon over a conventional grenade.  I'd rather have an extra thing to clean knowing I could put an HE round where it was needed when necessary, but I guess that's why they went with the M203 to alleviate the second weapon.  Whether the concept translates to a bullpup is a matter of opinion.  I found the early 203/F88 combo an unbalanced affair.  Perhaps the newer GL hassorted that out.

As for the weight shift in a conventional weapon, an underbarrel GL is quite a different option to a bayonet.  The bayonet is at the very end of the barrel and therefore the force exerted is enhanced by the lever effect.  A 203, Masterkey or other addition adds weight to the centre of the weapon, albeit slightly forward of the COG.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

Oh, I wouldn't argue against the utility of a GL over a thrown grenade.  I always used to get the willies when I did grenade throwing.  I was one of the last courses which did the grenade assault range, which is where you advance in the open with live grenades and take turns throwing them!  I really disliked the things, not necessarily 'cause of what I was going to do with it but rather what the idiot next to me might be going to do with it.   

Only time I've seen real do or die sort of bravery was on the grenade range.   Some silly blighter dropped his live grenade.  The instructor grabbed him, picked him up by the collar and belt and literally threw him over the parapet and then jumped over himself.   If he'd been a fraction of a second later he'd have been dead as the grenade went off just as his feet cleared the parapet!   Now, you'd think it was pretty silly to drop a live grenade but its all too common and what the instructor had done was SOP for that situation.

I was always taught to "throw into or throw it out of a building but never throw it in a forest!" by a Sergeant who'd had one bounce back on him in Vietnam.   He'd survived to tell the tale but was always very wary of them.  He also taught me to splay the split pin which held the handle down of the striker as soon as you get issued it and to always carry them inside your basic pouch.  Never do the Hollywood trick of hanging them by the rings off your webbing (supposedly to make it easier and quicker to grab them and throw them, pulling the pin at the same time).  Problem is if they snag on vegetation, out pops the pin and up you go.   And if you want to lose your teeth, try pulling a grenade pin with them. 

The only thing a GL can't do is toss its grenade over a wall (yes you can try and fire it at an elevation approaching 90 degrees but the chance of it coming down short are a  bit too high for my liking).

[Maverick]

Very true indeed.  There's a certain degree of skill either utilizing the GL or a hand-grenade and both have their applications otherwise I'm sure we'd have seen the death of the hand-grenade.  "John Wayning" was the US term for hanging grenades off webbing I think and quite a valid one.  I'd actually be surprised if anyone in the ADF or any other professional army would suggest that way of carrying them.  More the thing that is a Hollywood idea these days, although there are basic pouches and the like that have 'grenade loops' as part of their design.

They're funny sort of things really when you consider it all.  A thin pin is the only thing that separates the user from life & death and that's not from an offensive point of view.  Then of course, there's the 'offensive' and 'defensive' grenades to say nothing of the plethora of smoke, flash bang and other options.

One wonders if there isn't a better way of designing them so they arm once thrown deliberately but without the potential of arming if dropped.  In that way, the old German Steilgranate wasn't such a bad idea with the screw cap and line to pull.  No chance of that sticking in vegetation.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

There have been many attempts to create a better mousetrap but basically, William Mills got it right in 1915 when he designed his "Mills Bomb".  There were a plethora of competing designs, from stick, paddle and tin shaped grenades but the safety features of Mills' little death machine eventually saw them off.  It really is an ingenious design with pin holding the handle in place until thrown.  The handle holds the striker safely cocked and when the handle is released, the striker then hits a percussion cap which in turn lights the fuse, which in turn ignites the igniter and that causes the whole thing to go kaboom!   Most attempts at improvement have been centred on the fusing, rather than the mechanics of the grenade.  Most other nations saw how good it was and immediately started copying it.  Even the Germans introduced a range of egg grenades which saw considerable service - which is as usual completely unrecognised by Hollwood in favour of the Stick Grenade.

Yes some pouches have straps to hold the grenades on but like hanging them on your webbing it still leaves the grenade exposed to the clawing fingers of vegetation.  Better to put them inside your pouch!   

[Maverick]

I was aware of the Eiergranate the Germans fielded.  They had a rather dodgy way of hanging them below their mag pouches, although I believe they were hung by moulded loops on the casing rather than by the pin.

I guess unless someone can develop an electronic or mechanical device that safely can store and then arm the grenade, we're stuck with the baseline pin & striker.

I certainly wouldn't like to use the US grenade loops on basic pouches.  I know they were present in the various LBE systems up until the ALICE type, but I'm unaware of how they go with grenades on their webbing.  I guess it's lucky the Australian webbing has the large cargo pouches as a standard item, otherwise you'd end up forgoing mag space for grenades or have a belt full of pouches which could get uncomfortable.

Regards,

Mav

[Old Wombat]

My father was in the Czech resistance during WW2 & got to play with both German & British weapons (the Americans didn't seem to hand them out as freely as the Brit's).

According to him, the German stick grenade was a far better weapon, it's biggest fault was its complexity to manufacture & associated high cost per unit (not that they cared about cost per unit); it's biggest positive was its ease & accuracy of throwing, & range.


********************************
Similarly the MP-40 was better than the Sten; while the Kar-98 & SMLE IV were pretty much on a par the Enfield has a slightly smoother action & was less likely to jam (possibly because of better quality ammo); whereas the MG-42 & Bren gun were so dissimilar as to make comparing them pointless (although they liked the Bren for its reliability & low ammo use, they had more access to the German ammo & the MG-42 could lay down a rain of sh!t).
********************************

[Maverick]

Another positive for the Steilgranate was that the handle provided a lever to increase the momentum of the throw and hence the distance achievable.  Of course, many of the early /pre war German weapons were superbly manufactured, but cost per unit and lack of tolerance to dirt and the like restricted their value.

An Army sergeant once told me that the Bren was 'too good', in that it was a very accurate weapon and as a result not really useful for the LMG role.  Add the restriction of a 30rd box and you've got nada for a fire support weapon.  Of course, the MG42 was a different beast entirely, belt fed, quick change barrels and a ridiculously high fire rate meant that it could indeed bring a lot of hurt to the game.  Just a pity when the US copied some of the MG42 components for the M60 they managed to turn a superb weapon into such a POS.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

The Bren was a superb weapon.  I have fired it both in .303in and 7.62x51mm as the L4a4.  Incredibly reliable, handy and accurate.  Some of the argument against it being "too accurate" is based more on the rationale why the Australian Army chose to adopt that spawn of Satan the M60 GPMG.  I just wish I'd gotten a chance to fire on a tripod.  They were all gone by the time I was old enough to get a hold of a Bren.   

I used to carry the L4a4 in my platoon.  I remember one US Marine being so intrigued by it he volunteered to have some ammunition flown in especially from his ship off shore, until we told him that live ammunition was banned from the exercise.  He was most disappointed.   Unfortunately they decided to replace the thing for us with some L2a1s.  No where as good a weapon and rather prone to stoppages.   I remember photos being published in the Army Newspaper in the mid-1980s with diggers in the field wearing slouch hats and carrying a Bren.  If you didn't look too hard they looked just like their fathers and grandfathers.