It looks like a complicated piece of junk. The M203 (and M79) is simple and reliable.
The more complicated something is, the more likely it is that it’ll malfunction. And that’ll happen when you need it the most. “Keep it simple, stupid!”
The M203 is a piece of shit. I never used one that didn’t break, or wasn’t already broken, especially those stupid little tabs that hold the shell in while you try to slam the barrel closed.
But seriously, why the hell would they name the new grenade launcher M320? Doesn’t that sound a little too much like M203? Why not the M204, 205, etc? Have these assholes never tried to distinguish names and nomenclature over a radio? “Say again your last, over.”
July 30th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Wish they’d key the cock-on-close feature from the M203. The DA trigger on the 320 is helluva long and heavy.
July 30th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
It looks like a complicated piece of junk. The M203 (and M79) is simple and reliable.
The more complicated something is, the more likely it is that it’ll malfunction. And that’ll happen when you need it the most. “Keep it simple, stupid!”
July 31st, 2009 at 8:34 am
The M203 is a piece of shit. I never used one that didn’t break, or wasn’t already broken, especially those stupid little tabs that hold the shell in while you try to slam the barrel closed.
But seriously, why the hell would they name the new grenade launcher M320? Doesn’t that sound a little too much like M203? Why not the M204, 205, etc? Have these assholes never tried to distinguish names and nomenclature over a radio? “Say again your last, over.”