The link has a photo.

https://www.military.com/daily...renade-launcher.html

Marine Corps Is Finally Fielding a New 40mm Grenade Launcher

5 Apr 2019
Military.com | By Matthew Cox

U.S. Marines are about to finally get a new grenade launcher to replace the Vietnam War-era M203, a switch the Army made about 10 years ago.

The Marine Corps plans to field the M320A1 40mm grenade launcher -- which can be used in a standalone mode or mounted beneath weapons such as the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle -- in fiscal 2020, according to a recent news release from Marine Corps Systems Command.

"The M320A1 will provide good range and accuracy, making the infantry squad more lethal," Lt. Col. Tim Hough, program manager for Infantry Weapons at Marine Corps Systems Command's Ground Combat Element Systems, said in the release.

The Army first began fielding the M320 in 2009 and later upgraded to the M320A1, which is designed to be mounted under the M4 carbine.

Unlike the M203, the breach on the M320 series opens to the side to accept longer 40mm grenades. It also has a pistol grip, so troops don't have to use the weapon's 30-round magazine as a pistol grip.

The M320/320A1 has a maximum effective range of 150 meters on a point target such as a window and a 350-meter max effective range on an area target, according to the Army's technical manual for 40mm grenade launchers.

Unloaded, the M320 series weighs about 3.4 pounds in the mounted configuration and about 6.4 pounds in the stand-alone configuration.

"The functionality of the M320A1 makes it unique," Hough said in the release, adding that its ability to be used as a stand-alone or in conjunction with a rifle should help warfighters combat enemy forces.

But before the Marine Air-Ground Task Force receives the M320A1, the Marines will have to draft their own technical documents for the weapon, the release states.

In early March, Ground Combat Elements Systems began working with fleet maintenance Marines and logisticians from Albany, Georgia, conducting analyses to determine provisioning, sustainment and new equipment training requirements for the system, according to the release.

The first evaluation was a level-of-repair analysis, which determines when a system component will be replaced, repaired or discarded, the release states. This process provides information to help operational forces fix the weapon quickly should it break.

The second evaluation was a job training analysis, which provides the operational forces with a training package instructing them on proper use of the system so Marines can accurately engage adversaries on the battlefield, the release states.

"This process helps us ensure this weapon is both sustainable and maintainable at the operator and Marine Corps-wide level," said Capt. Nick Berger, project officer in Infantry Weapons at MCSC. "It sets conditions for us to field the weapon."


-- Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com.

Took them long enough. The M320 is great, I always took one with me on patrol to keep in the HMMWV or MRAP.

That thing looks huge and weighs more than the 203. That’s 14.7 pounds on a M27, wtf?

quote:

Originally posted by PossibleZombie:
Took them long enough.

That's Marine SOP.

Everyone was getting 300WM bolt sniper rifles to fill the gap between 308 and 50cal in OEF / OIF / GWOT, yet USMC had to take 10+ years to study and get it into doctrine and all that important stuff.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.c...ng-new-mk-13-rifles/

M320 is the heat, I had one on my M4 at one point. Great upgrade from the 203.

quote:

Originally posted by Voshterkoff:
That thing looks huge and weighs more than the 203. That’s 14.7 pounds on a M27, wtf?

It weighs 3.4 lbs...

I clicked into this thread thinking "What, the M320 isn't good enough?" Ah...they are just getting around to the 320, sheesh.

A benefit of being a small organization is that it should be much more agile and adaptable than a large one. Not the USMC, they stubbornly hold on to full size M16A4 "muskets" and other legacy gear like crazy.

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:
A benefit of being a small organization is that it should be much more agile and adaptable than a large one. Not the USMC, they stubbornly hold on to full size M16A4 "muskets" and other legacy gear like crazy.

Well, they have to update tactics, then strategy, then doctrine - after exhaustive testing, evaluating, writing, re-writing, and finally official approval - that takes time, money, time, and more time.

But hey, their staffs have to have something to do!

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by PossibleZombie:
Took them long enough.

That's Marine SOP.

Everyone was getting 300WM bolt sniper rifles to fill the gap between 308 and 50cal in OEF / OIF / GWOT, yet USMC had to take 10+ years to study and get it into doctrine and all that important stuff.

https://www.marinecorpstimes.c...ng-new-mk-13-rifles/

My buddy who is a major in the Marines suspects procurement waits enough years until they can start buying used ones from the Army before adopting.

Any chance of a sale on the old 203s?

That’s funny, I was in the army 2009-2012 and never once saw or even heard of the m320.. shot the m203 plenty though.

quote:

Originally posted by MRMATT:
Any chance of a sale on the old 203s?

Check with CMP in the morning...

I carried a 203 for a while. Would love to have one if I could get some 40mm HEDP for it. I promise not to do anything dumb......

+

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
That’s funny, I was in the army 2009-2012 and never once saw or even heard of the m320.. shot the m203 plenty though.

Phase in was 2009-2015. I retired in 2013 and hadn't seen one yet. It all depends on where you are.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
That’s funny, I was in the army 2009-2012 and never once saw or even heard of the m320.. shot the m203 plenty though.

Phase in was 2009-2015. I retired in 2013 and hadn't seen one yet. It all depends on where you are.

I got issued mine in either late 2012 or first quarter 2013. There were a lot of other brigades in the 82d that got them earlier.

173rd started getting theirs in 2009...neat spud launchers!

quote:

Originally posted by Killer Instincts:


I got issued mine in either late 2012 or first quarter 2013. There were a lot of other brigades in the 82d that got them earlier.

I first saw one in Iraq, early 2010 with a company of 82nd rotating in to our little FOB.

It is sad that active duty USMC is behind the Army National Guard, I don't know when we got them, but in the OR Guard, we have 320s.

And M4A1's with ACOGs and CCOs, M2A1's, M1A2 Abrams, M110's, M107s...we've had these for years, decades in some cases.

quote:

Originally posted by SgtGold:

quote:

Originally posted by limblessbiff:
That’s funny, I was in the army 2009-2012 and never once saw or even heard of the m320.. shot the m203 plenty though.

Phase in was 2009-2015. I retired in 2013 and hadn't seen one yet. It all depends on where you are.

We got them in 2009 before yet another Iraq deployment. I was infantry back then before I commissioned in 2010. If you weren't combat arms then that would explain why you never saw them.

We got them in 2009 prior to deployment. It was kind of a step back. My guys preferred to carry them separately from the M4s due to weight and length (even with some of the accessories removed). Which meant another piece of gear to hang off you while you humped the hills. We actually sent negative feedback to the PM who fielded them. That said they shot well and you can hang all kinds of new accessories off it, unlike the 320. The whole ambi thing is bs, because the 230 pivots out to one side only whereas the 203 pushes forward and can be loaded with ether hand. We never saw the new longer grenades for them. Also, the shoot through muzzle cap cost $25 each (at the time).

quote:

Originally posted by Strambo:

And M4A1's with ACOGs and CCOs, M2A1's, M1A2 Abrams, M110's, M107s...we've had these for years, decades in some cases.

Um, didn't the USMC have SR-25s (Pre M110s) before we got the M110s, The Barret 82 before Army got the XM107s and issue ACOGs to almost every grunt while Army is issuing a ACOGs in a lower density mixed with M68s?

First I'd heard of a "new" grenade launcher. We used (and liked) the 203, back in the day, though it was a bit of an art form to get great accuracy with it. The 320 betterer?