Things that go “BLOOP”

The current main page photo and caption on CENTCOM’s web site:

blooper1.jpg

CAMP TAQADDUM, Iraq (Oct. 1, 2005) — Corporal Brandon G. Laws, a Houston native, provides security for a convoy on the road Sept. 31. These “Road Warriors” are the Marine Corps’ source of life-sustaining supplies here in Iraq, and make up members of the convoys of Combat Logistics Regiment 25, 2nd Force Service Support Group (Forward). Laws is a motor transportation operator with CLR-25. Photo taken by Lance Cpl. Wayne Edmiston.
hi-res

MO has noted the return of the M79 grenade launcher before. The Marines dug them out to use them to set off roadside bombs from a safe distance.

Comments

  1. Wow there digging out all the old weapons. Didn’t you have a post with the m-14 a week or so ago and the LAW. Whats next, A-4 Skyhawks and M-60 MBT’s. Well whatever works use it. Thats a good idea to take out the IED. Is the range of the m-79 greater then the m-203?

  2. The 40mm M-79 grenade launcher. Maximum range = 375 meters/410 yards Minimum range = 50 meters/55 yards Info from: ‘Guidebook for Marines’ Eleventh Revised Edition May 1, 1966

  3. Joseph – haha! That would be great. They’re all good. I for one would love to see some more of Heinemann’s Hot Rods in the skies. Hmm, I bet Israel still has plenty of A-4s and M-60s. They like to use stuff until it breaks and continually upgrade. I admire it. There’s something to be said with having to work with limited budgets and availability that makes you try harder. Maybe the Iraqis are interested in buying some pre-loved F-14s. Low miles! Includes a year worth of gas free! ;)

  4. I’ne never quite understood why the military doesn’t use a multi shot version of the revolver style chemical agents dispensers available. That would give them the same great 40mm ‘tough love’ capability of the M79/M203 AND have it ‘supersized’ by putting another 6-7 rounds right behind the first

  5. There are several reasons that the army isn’t using this type of ‘revolver’ grenade launcher. Some smart, some not so smart. A.) The MM-1 uses a ‘clockwork’ spring to index the cylinder after each shot. The reload time is atrocious. And when is the last time you gave anything ‘clockwork’ to a soldier and you didn’t get it back looking like someone had taken a multitool to half the parts, and didn’t have duct tape all over it? B.) They are looking at going to 25mm ‘smart’ grenades with airburst capability. This weapon won’t accept the fire controls necessary for that capability. C.) They want a magazine-fed semi-auto. Less bulky, and easier to use when it resembles a larger version of your service rifle.

  6. Chad: Yeah, I don’t see why it’s so difficult to effectively scale up a rifle to 40mm, with a very short barrel relative to the caliber, and feed it 40mm grenades. I would think that would be better than a massive revolver doohickey. Then again, part of the point of having an 8 round magazine for grenades is that you don’t have to reload very often, no? At least not until you’ve shredded your target. Give the grenadier a Desert Eagle with a small scope and plenty of ammo and (s)he can whip that out rather than bothering to reload until the action dies down :) The airburst idea is great but why is it taking so long to develop and why is there so little enthusiasm for its adoption? (at least, it seems to me if there was a lot of enthusiasm there would be a lot of money going into it and the goal would be to have it in service soon). I mean, look at how much the Air Force spends on planes or the Navy spends on ships, boats and subs. If a tiny fraction of that went into the smart grenades, development should have been completed ages ago. I guess they blew all their cash on Crusader and all this future combat system BS rather than on new, better guns. I think your best point is the fact that the MM-1 is probably no robust and simple enough for serious field use.