Talk:M203 grenade launcher

Dead Link

U.S. Marine Fact File is a dead link. I've removed it from the external links section. Spartan198 (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Significant figures in range data

I reduced the number of significant figures in the range data. The numbers are also given in metres and since they are rounded to tens of metres, they probably represent the source data. Someone, then, calculated the feet equivalents and wrote them out with an accuracy of up to 1/1000 of a foot! The current accuracy (±1 foot) is most likely still too generous. Those that care for this article might want to find the source for these figures and convert them properly with the right number of significant figures. --Swift 09:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

M203A1 Barrel Length

Any cites for the revision of the M203A1 barrel to 12 inches? This is the only place I've ever heard anything about it. Spartan198 (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Okay, since nobody seems to have a source to prove this, I'm removing the barrel revision sentence. If anyone has a source to prove it's true, please feel free revert it and add the cite while you're at it. Spartan198 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

I also moved the details of the M203 PI's manufacturing to the M203 PI entry, but then looked back at it and decided it looked better the other way, so it's been reverted. Spartan198 (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Rounds

Would the inclusion of pictures of the rounds benefit this article? I could take a picture of the CS grenade round and the HE round. Also, the rounds for the M19 WILL fire out of this weapon, however it is recomended you do this one under the most dire of circumstances because the high velocity and power of the round is prone to blowing the barrel. Maybe we should clarify. Nor3aga (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Uses

If you guys want I can write uyp a couple paragraphs on the inteded, designed, and improvised use of this weapon both in and out of combat. Nor3aga (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

contradiction

This article says: "The XM320 is lighter than the M203"

It also says that the M203 weighs 3lbs. The XM320 article says that the XM320 weighs 3.3lbs. 3.3 is greater than 3, therefore the articles contradict one another. One article is wrong. SJSA 19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering significant digits given, there's not necessarily a contradiction there. An item weighing 3 pounds weighs between 2.5 pounds and 3.5 pounds; an object weighing 1.5 kg weighs between 1.45 kg (3.20 pounds) and 1.55 kg (3.40 pounds). It's possible both are true if the exact weight of the M203 is anything upwards of 3.2 pounds.

However, one of the external links here shows (deeplink) the weight of the M203 ("Launcher, unloaded") as "1.4 kg (3.0 pounds)", thus calling into question the reduced significant figures on the M203 page.

Moreover, one of the references from the M320 article indicates weights no lower than 3.57 pounds mounted (rail-mount, like M203A2), with weights up to 3.89 pounds for direct-mount or 4.80 pounds with standalone stock.

And the claim that the M320 is a lighter system is well-attested, too. So it looks like we have 3 verifiable, but contradictory, facts here. One possible explanation (the only one I can think of) is that the M203 weight is being undercounted by including only the launcher, but not the handguard and sights. This idea that the M203 is heavier than 3 pounds is augmented by reference 4, giving the weight of the Canadian M203A1 as 1.85 kg; while this is likely heavier than the similar US M203A1 due to the long-radius mount, it's also a 9" barrel rather than 12", and only replaces the lower handguard rather than the entire handguard system as the M203. Inconclusive, but still suggestive that the M203's weight may be undercounted in the sources we have. --24.7.241.89 (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Racist?

User:SJSA has removed the image of the Afghan militant holding an M203 as "racist", when I suggested the article should have photos other than just two Western soldiers with an M203 and added it. I agree the main images should be Western soldiers, since it is a Western weapon - but AK-47 certainly doesn't limit itself to Soviet soldiers using the weapon -- if we have freely-licensed images of people in a variety of roles and ethnic backgrounds using the weapon in different manners, why not use that? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I fail to understand how that can be constituted as racism. As for the image, I don't really have any issues with it unless it's an enemy militant using it against Coalition/NATO troops. Spartan198 (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

It is racist to include the image for the sole reason that there are no pictures of non whites using the weapon. And for the record, Spartan198 that is exactly what it is. SJSA 07:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if it's being used against our guys, then I agree it shouldn't be used. However, labeling it racism is a little bit far-fetched. There are pictures out there of more than just Caucasians using the 203, albeit not in this article. Here are two right here of African-Americans using it (though I don't know if they can be used in the article): [1] [2] Spartan198 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

I say put more nations soldiers using it, after all look at all the countries that use this sexy weapon. 214.13.224.133 (talk) 09:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

How can it be, in any way, racist that an iraqi militiaman/insurgent is using an M203? It is totally irellevant what nationality or on what side of whatever conflict he's involved in, this is a factual page about a weapon. Claiming it would be inappropriate just because you do not like the side he fights on is far more racist then posting it. Land of the free indeed... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.112.199 (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

If the images in this article weren't composed only of training practices with the weapon, you'd have a point. But since I think it's inappropriate for any actual live combat images, regardless of which side, to be used, you can stifle your self righteousness. Spartan198 (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This is, of course, absurd. Images such as those you would seek to censor, "live combat images", are not only highly encyclopedic but widely available and regularly published. And, Wikipedia, as always, is not censored to tailor to individual sensibilities.--IvoShandor (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see how they'd make the article any better since training images serve pretty much the exact same purpose. Besides, there are plenty of suitable alternatives out there. I admit my initial reply in this section was badly-phrased, but likewise I'd object just the same if it was a US soldier firing on a militiaman with one, as well. I'd object if it was a US soldier unloading an M4 into Bin Laden himself, or any other supposed "anti-US" image. So take your sly little accusations of bias elsewhere. Spartan198 (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. If I was accusing you of bias you'd know it, I would have said. I'm not. I am accusing you of seeking to censor images you find objectionable for personal reasons. Your argument against them is not cogent, nor is it based on any Wikipedia policy that I am aware of. --IvoShandor (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ROUND PROPULSION

I ASSUME, GIVEN THE LACK OF ANY ELUCIDATION IN THE ARTICLE, THAT THE ROUND IS CONVENTIONALLY FIRED, I.E. BY DETONATION OF PROPELLANT. I DID NOT, HOWEVER, GET THE IMPRESSION FROM VARIOUS VIDEOS I'VE SEEN OF AN EXPLOSIVE PROPELLANT, NO "POW" IF YOU WILL. IT SOUNDED ALMOST AS IF IT WERE FIRED WITH COMPRESSED AIR, WHICH DOES NOT SEEM CONSONANT WITH THE RATHER SIMPLY CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNIT. FURTHER, ONE WOULD ASSUME THAT NECESSARY EXPLOSIVE FORCE WOULD YIELD PROHIBITIVE RECOIL, UNLESS IT IS A RELATIVELY LOW-GRADE CHARGE.

IT SEEMS A BIT NEGLIGENT TO FAIL TO GIVE SUCH BASIC INFORMATION ON SUCH A SALIENT QUESTION.

---