Posted on Jul 2, 2016
Army building a better grenade machine gun
3.22K
37
7
20
20
0
A belt-fed grenade machine gun may sound deadly enough, but the Army wants to make the Mk 19 even more lethal, with improvements that could be fielded as early as 2018.
The goal? Improve the weapon’s muzzle velocity, cyclic rate (rounds per minute), reliability, ease of assembly, and accuracy.
The Army is pursuing this laundry list of objectives separately, with plans to later combine them into one upgrade package. Testing is expected in fiscal 2017, which starts Oct. 1, with fielding possible the next year.
“Each improvement is at a different stage of development,” said Peter Rowland, spokesman for Project Manager Soldier Wepons. “The Army is planning to produce and field the upgrade as one kit. This will allow for efficiencies in scheduling and application of improvements at one time in lieu of separate efforts.”
The particular initiatives, Rowland said via email, include the following:
• A new barrel to provide less resistance thus improving muzzle velocity.
• An improved profile for the vertical cam to reduce the force needed to charge the weapon by 20-30 pounds; that will increase the cyclic rate.
• Redesigning the round-positioning block to decrease frequency of misfires, thus enhancing reliability.
• A new cocking cam and lever design to provide a double-benefit: increased durability and shortened re-assembly time after maintenance.
• Updated mechanical sight to aid accuracy, utilizing up to date ammunition ballistic data.
The Mk19 has a range of about 2.2 kilometers to hit an area and about 1,500 meters to hit a more refined target. The tripod-mounted 78-pound weapon fires 40mm grenade rounds from a belt (generally with 32 or 48 grenades each). It currently has a cyclic rate of more than 325 rounds per minute, with a sustained rate of 40 rounds per minute and rapid-fire rate of 60 per minute.
The first version of the MK19 was produced in 1968 and used in Vietnam; it has since been altered with improvements through a handful of modifications.
The troops love the weapon, which was a finalist in Military Times' Battle Bracket contest, a March Madness-style competition to crown the best in military weaponry.
The goal? Improve the weapon’s muzzle velocity, cyclic rate (rounds per minute), reliability, ease of assembly, and accuracy.
The Army is pursuing this laundry list of objectives separately, with plans to later combine them into one upgrade package. Testing is expected in fiscal 2017, which starts Oct. 1, with fielding possible the next year.
“Each improvement is at a different stage of development,” said Peter Rowland, spokesman for Project Manager Soldier Wepons. “The Army is planning to produce and field the upgrade as one kit. This will allow for efficiencies in scheduling and application of improvements at one time in lieu of separate efforts.”
The particular initiatives, Rowland said via email, include the following:
• A new barrel to provide less resistance thus improving muzzle velocity.
• An improved profile for the vertical cam to reduce the force needed to charge the weapon by 20-30 pounds; that will increase the cyclic rate.
• Redesigning the round-positioning block to decrease frequency of misfires, thus enhancing reliability.
• A new cocking cam and lever design to provide a double-benefit: increased durability and shortened re-assembly time after maintenance.
• Updated mechanical sight to aid accuracy, utilizing up to date ammunition ballistic data.
The Mk19 has a range of about 2.2 kilometers to hit an area and about 1,500 meters to hit a more refined target. The tripod-mounted 78-pound weapon fires 40mm grenade rounds from a belt (generally with 32 or 48 grenades each). It currently has a cyclic rate of more than 325 rounds per minute, with a sustained rate of 40 rounds per minute and rapid-fire rate of 60 per minute.
The first version of the MK19 was produced in 1968 and used in Vietnam; it has since been altered with improvements through a handful of modifications.
The troops love the weapon, which was a finalist in Military Times' Battle Bracket contest, a March Madness-style competition to crown the best in military weaponry.
Army building a better grenade machine gun
Posted from armytimes.comPosted in these groups: 
Weapons
Weapons
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
Before the M-19 came out, I had plastic a belt-fed (Which we had to fill by hand) hand crank grenade launcher, which put a grenade out at 3 o'clock and one out at 9 o'clock, which was attached next to my .50 Cal, on my River Boat. I was amazed the first time I saw a M-19 working out. We called ours a Honeywell, which is probably who made them.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Capt'n Ray Wallace would think he was in Heaven. That man loved the Grenade Gun we had on the Arkansas and it only shot one at a time.
(3)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Spear 120mm Mobile Mortar System Elbit
Asian Defence News http://www.asiandefencenews.com
SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL - I don't understand . . . why a belt fed grenade launcher instead of a belt fed mortar? The Nazis fielded a high rate of fire M-19 Maschinengranatwerfer in WWII. The Soviets fielded the F-82 then 2B9 (water cooled) then 2B9M (air cooled) Vasilek breach loading clip fed automatic mortars. Several other countries produced variants of the 2B9M w/ HEAT, HE, thermobaric, and other special rounds. The French build the most curious looking yet indefatigable 120mm Dragonfire . . . which the USMC extensively adapted for their Dragonfire II 120mm Scorpion series automatically fired mortars. These weapons have distinct advantages over grenade launchers in mountainous terrain and achieve far longer range. Why the focus on automatic belt fed grenade launchers instead of automatic belt fed breach loaded mortar launchers? Why focus on auto grenade vs auto mortar launchers? Warmest, Sandy :)
p.s. While the ELBIT SPEAR is not fully automatic there is no reason it could not be made so.
ELBIT SPEAR: http://youtu.be/8JnX2NrrnC0
DRAGONFIRE: http://youtu.be/KL192U_tlVU
LTC Jason Mackay CSM Charles Hayden LTC Stephen C.
p.s. While the ELBIT SPEAR is not fully automatic there is no reason it could not be made so.
ELBIT SPEAR: http://youtu.be/8JnX2NrrnC0
DRAGONFIRE: http://youtu.be/KL192U_tlVU
LTC Jason Mackay CSM Charles Hayden LTC Stephen C.
LTC Jason Mackay
1LT Sandy Annala mortar systems mounted on vehicles also tear up the vehicle suspension. I've spent the last few months trying to get mortar tracks fixed. I know what they do to tracks that are much more robust with torsion bars and road arms, honestly don't know how the Stryker mortar carrier will hold up over time, never mind how a Land Rover Defender 500 will stand up with a 120mm Over a single light truck axle, unless it swivels over the back and the base plate goes on the ground to fire....then in the end, is it really mounted? We do have low recoil systems in development and is HMMWV mounted, but the MK19 is filling a different role. In the video you posted, these mortars are being used as fire support in lieu of cannon. The MK19 is more of a crew served weapon to get you out beyond .50 cal range with small area effects. Dismounted infantry are not going to be employing MK19s unless their Strykers are in close support. The systems you have posted would be supporting Airborne, Air Assault, or purely light infantry that still have dismounted mortars they have to move at times by hand.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
1LT Sandy Annala - Ma'am that truck pictured is still a dedicated mortar carrier, much like the dedicated TOW carriers. The MK19 can be mounted on the same tripod or turret mount as Ma Deuce. I believe the Bradley fighting vehicle and the Strykers fill the slot that a mobile mortar might. If you wanted to argue that we should have auto mortars in our inventory, I wouldn't be prepared to argue you. However, I do believe that they couldn't supplant the MK19.
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
LTC Jason Mackay - Well, I can grasp some of the basic principles, the limits of practical application are way beyond my knowledge. What I recall is ELBIT claims to have reduced the 120mm's firing recoil impulse load from 30 tons to less than 10 tons. Is this enough to avoid tearing up whatever may be the heaviest axels available? Are they being too optimistic and the 120mm recoil must inevitably destroy even tracked vehicles? What if we can reduce the recoil impulse further - how much can your axels handle? What about hardening the floor and dropping quick acting hydraulic jacks? Warmest Regards, Sandy
LTC Jason Mackay
1LT Sandy Annala - all things are possible if you can mitigate limiting factors to the point of negligibility. Of course we look to science, technology, and engineering to do that. Someday.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google 
