XM25 "good enough"

[Kiwigrunt]

I think there could be some advantages to this technique with 40 mm, especially for lobbing some grenades over a high obstacle like a wall. I can see some negatives though, some of which have been mentioned:

• Requires lots of practice rounds. Good luck with that. There are typically 6 to 9 grenadiers to a platoon against only 1 (for armies that have’m) commando mortar. They would all need to be trained in this additional technique. They don't get enough playtime with 40 mm as it is.
• A 60 mm bomb makes a reasonably big bang and can therefore afford to be off target a bit and still be effective. A 40 mm grenade needs to be pretty much bang on (pun intended) or all it does is throw up a bit of dust. So lobbing 40 mm in an indirect fire mode may be somewhat disappointing in most cases.
• The ‘aim by sling’ method is not particularly scientific and accuracy will be easily affected, even just by not being on perfectly level ground (between baseplate/buttstock and locking foot). This will exacerbate the above point. Firn’s suggestion of using a better sight would make more sense.

So it would a useful technique to add to the toolbox but I think we need to be careful with assuming that we can easily and effectively use a light direct fire weapon in the indirect fire role. Armies that do not yet have them are IMO better off with adding a 60 mm commando mortar at platoon level ….. sure, more weight, but the tool has been specifically designed for this role.

While we’re drifting towards commando mortars, the South Africans use two different conversion sets for their M1 mortar. One uses the ‘aim by sling’ method. The other uses a clip-on handgrip with an incorporated laying table/levelling bubble thingy. Now a simplified version of that could work on a 40 mm. That would however add yet another sticky-out thing to the weapon, to add to the Christmas tree effect.

[Fuchs]

About OICW / XM29 / XM25:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtGpWnLi45U

The ROK has its own.

[jcustis]

Now a simplified version of that could work on a 40 mm. That would however add yet another sticky-out thing to the weapon, to add to the Christmas tree effect.

You know, it need not...all it would take is a graduated level that could attach to the side of the mil-std 1913 Picatinny rail. Our current M224 60mm has that built into the firing assembly. It just needs to be small, lit by a tritium ampule, and could clip on via any number of attachment means that are already in use for side-mounted sling swivels.

A couple rounds to get the thing zeroed and locked down with Loctite, and there you have it. No need to fiddle with a sling marking system that would rely on the grenadier to pause and adjust it to the appropriate length for use. There would be slight variation due to the surface the buttstock rests on (sand, gravel, boot tip, etc.). The only thing limiting this setup would be the degree of accuracy required in the requirement document, as it related to mounting the sight to the rail, adjusting the rail in relation to the launcher receiver, etc.

We might never get there due to tight tolerances required by whomever would generate the specifications, but my light bulb just clicked on.

[Schmedlap]

We had IR aiming lights for our M203's as early as OIF III. A few of our enlisted Soldiers who were RFS'd from the Rangers said that they had them a couple years before that. So long as you estimate range within the ballpark (which you need to do anyway if using leaf or quadrant), it's very accurate. Even in training, guys who had never fired a 203 before (really, we had a bunch of people who had never fired one - unbelievable) they were scoring first-round hits on targets at 250 meters at night. It was kind of bulky, but lightweight. I think the latest generation are far less bulky and even lighter.

See the bottom of the page here: https://peosoldier.army.mil/FactShee...IW_M203DNS.pdf