# Standalone M203



## PhilB (8 Jan 2007)

Hey guys, so here is a question for all of you weapons experts and machinists. The concept of a standalone M203 has been discussed before and there are definitely positives. Personally I would much rather carry a separate grenade launcher then have an ungainly primary weapon. Now, not getting into legality or "will they actually do it" do you think this concept is possible:

I found a site online called www.40mm.com very interesting, they have what seems like a very simple standalone platform for the M203. The actually 203 attaches to the platform in some method which I am not familiar with. I am wondering if it would be possible to modify/have something like this built. Here are some pictures






















From looking at the pictures it does not seem like it would be that hard to have machined. I was thinking if the platform basically had a slip ring and a delta ring incorporated into it our 203 could just be attached onto it as if it was a rifle? Let me know what you guys think.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jan 2007)

PhilB said:
			
		

> The concept of a standalone M203 has been discussed before



Do you mean "concept" as something new ?

http://world.guns.ru/grenade/gl06-e.htm

Sounds like you want to go full-circle back to the 60s


----------



## Kendrick (8 Jan 2007)

The question I'd have here is, why a "stand alone" M203 when you can have something like this:

http://forums.army.ca/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=24264

Beats the purpose doesn't it?


----------



## PhilB (9 Jan 2007)

Aviator -  yes something new, as it is not the M79, close but not the same. Same concept, different weapon, smaller profile.

Kendrick - although an MGL like that would be great I don't think it is very likely that Canada will adopt something like this.

What I am talking about is a piece of kit that will interface with our current M203, as is, unchanged, that will increase the utility of it.

I think that a standalone M203 system is better than a weapon mounted system for several reasons;

1) It allows the C7/C8 to be fired more accurately (Firing the C7/C8 with 203 sucks! Or maybe its just me, but I have found a very noticeable drop in my accuracy with the primary when an M203 is attached.)

2) It allows the M203 to be fired more accurately. Again, maybe just me, but I find firing the 203 somewhat awkward ( maybe its my stumpy arms ). While the A2/C8 is a huge improvement over the C7A1 I think a standalone unit like this, with a real pistol grip and non offset sights would increase the accuracy of the launcher.

3) Wpn is easily switched from KIA/WIA grenadier to another troop. In theater casualties are now a reality. If a grenadier goes down someone now has either 2 rifles plus the 203 or they have to leave their own rifle behind and use the rifle with the 203 on it. In the case of carrying both rifles extremely awkward, in the case of adopting the downed man's weapon you are now using a weapon that is not zeroed for you. If the grenadier was utilizing a standalone system, such as I have shown, it would be much simpler to grab the standalone launcher and a bandoleer of bombs.

Just to clarify, I am not trying to open a discussion about whether the army as a whole should adopt a system like mentioned above, but rather the feasibility of using and manufacturing a system for individual purchase. (I know if I am deployed as a 203 gunner I would buy something like this.) Also, I understand and have heard all of the arguments about modified weapons, non issue weapons parts, etc etc ad nausea. So lets just assume individual CoC would allow something like this and go from there. Thanks


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jan 2007)

This system was posted by Tomahawk6 before Christmas PhilB.  Watch towards the end of the video.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/52784/post-474459.html#msg474459

SCAR is the new modular rifle selected by the Special Operations Command. Below is a video demonstration.

http://mfile.akamai.com/21772/wmv/gannett.download.akamai.com/21772//streaming/wmv/101806scar.asx 

Cheers


----------



## PhilB (9 Jan 2007)

Thanks Kirkhill, I have seen the SCAR and it looks awesome. 

But again, I am trying to make something that can be used with *our* M203


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2007)

Phil, i read the reasons you posted but i have to wonder, there must be a reason why the americans went from the M79 to the M16/M203 combination, i am just wondering if you are just trying to reinvent the wheel here.......


----------



## vonGarvin (9 Jan 2007)

I think they went from M79 to M16/M203 combo so that their Grenade Launchers (the soldiers with Grenade Launchers, I hesitate to call them "grenadiers") so that they could have rifles for the close in fight, when needed.


----------



## PhilB (9 Jan 2007)

I think that they went to the M203 because the M79 was large enough that it was the only weapon for a soldier. By transitioning to the M203 they increase the fire power of their squad. That being said, the Americans, at least USSOCOM, are going back to the capability of having a standalone launcher (See Kirkhill's post above).


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2007)

PhilB said:
			
		

> I think that they went to the M203 because the M79 was large enough that it was the only weapon for a soldier. By transitioning to the M203 they increase the fire power of their squad. That being said, the Americans, at least USSOCOM, are going back to the capability of having a standalone launcher (See Kirkhill's post above).



Then my question would be : Is this something that the average infatryman needs ?


----------



## PhilB (9 Jan 2007)

I think so, particularly in theater. I think, for the reasons I stated above, it make more sense then the 203 attached to the weapon. Realistically in theater you are almost always carrying something else other than your primary weapon anyways, whether it be a pistol, a 203, or a shotgun. Having the 203 separate from the primary like in the case of the shotgun would not be that far a stretch of the imagination. It could be very practical if you utilized a breachers sling and a weapons catch. That being said, I don't think the army would ever provide these for troops, however as I said earlier, I would purchase something like this if I was being deployed as a 203 grenadier.


----------



## aesop081 (9 Jan 2007)

PhilB said:
			
		

> I would purchase something like this if I was being deployed as a 203 grenadier.



And i can just imagine what you CoC will have to say about it too....


----------



## PhilB (9 Jan 2007)

haha, like I said above, this is hypothetical at this point. I am just wondering from those with experience with Ar's and the machinists in the house, if it would be possible to make something like this. 

As far as CoC goes it depends on the unit, and the situation. But I know what you are saying


----------



## KevinB (9 Jan 2007)

The CF M203A1 has a POS mount system --- with a standalone you still will have the 1.5" of useless drop and extra weight over a normal M203.

KAC has a stand alone for the M203, and Hk has one for the AG/C launcher


  KAC's (the Hk pic I have I cant release)





I've got an op in a few minutes but I will go into a bit more detail as why I think the CF Infanteer does not need a stand alone -- while other elelments may prefer it...


----------



## 1feral1 (9 Jan 2007)

PhilB said:
			
		

> I think that they went to the M203 because the M79 was large enough that it was the only weapon for a soldier. By transitioning to the M203 they increase the fire power of their squad. That being said, the Americans, at least USSOCOM, are going back to the capability of having a standalone launcher (See Kirkhill's post above).



I have used the M79 here, and it works well. Its robust, handles the desert well, its accurate (it really is) and uppermost, its combat proven, with well over 40yrs of loyal service in many theatres of operations over the years. Using the idiot proof sights (I think they are, noting to smash really, and no batts to change), with your estimation of range, etc, even at ranges 300m +, she is pretty much right on target, and the 40mm HEDP 'gold tipped' ammo is an excellent addition to one's daily carriage.

Size wise, I would say that the M79 is not much bigger than what is offered  now, but as a stand-alone, you still have to carry two weapons, don't you.

I won't get into reason why the Wombat Gun is still used, but its common knowledge that the ADF has F88's with an M203 fitted underneath, using a reflex sight.

I can see mulitple reasons to have both in a stand-alone GLA, and one affixed under a rifle.

My 2 cents,

Wes


----------



## Jungle (9 Jan 2007)

Colt Canada is also offering a GL that is standalone-capable

http://www.diemaco.com/eagle-page.htm


----------



## KevinB (9 Jan 2007)

Stand Alone's are fine for guys using it for the odd breach tool or similar -- but its not a great method for carrying around in the green role.  A second long arm is bound to get dragged thru the mud and caught up on things -- and when one is stowed its not available -- often when you need it to be.


----------



## PhilB (9 Jan 2007)

I see what you are saying, but with the folded butt it seems that the standalone would be quite small, definitely at least the same size as a shotgun if not smaller. My experience with the 203 has been whether on or off the weapon it is a magnet for sand and other shit.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Jan 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Stand Alone's are fine for guys using it for the odd breach tool or similar -- but its not a great method for carrying around in the green role.  A second long arm is bound to get dragged thru the mud and caught up on things -- and when one is stowed its not available -- often when you need it to be.



Amen to that one. I remember a slightly embarrassing incident where a patrol of ours ND'd an M79 bullet through a hotel window when the trigger was pulled by a branch on the hedge that the grenadier was pushing through (it was slung over his back) at the time. After breaking the window about 4 ft away, it hit a heavy curtain before the 9ft arming range, dropped to the floor, and was picked up by a German tourist who was kind enough to hand it back out the broken window to the patrol commander. For some reason an SOP was soon issued after that forbidding the carriage of loaded M79s.

I found that the chief advantage of the M79 was greater accuracy, rate of fire, and the ability to share the role of M79 gunner around. It's pretty sturdy, works well in adverse conditions, and was not often U/S. We always kept one on the sentry position and at key sangars as well. It's a particularly menacing little monster too, so you can scare the cr*p out of groups of stroppy locals just by pointing the 40mm business end at them. Makes them remember that they left the bath running at home or something...


----------



## KevinB (10 Jan 2007)

Phil -- I also feel that anyone using a Shotgun in the green role needs their head examined...  Shotguns are fine for less lethal or breaching, but unless your expecting that sort of activity they are not worth the weight -- and for those uses a 12" Remington 870 with pistol grip is a better breacher tool - then I agree it makes a good stand alone -- for the same reason above that some people you've likely seen use the Hk AG/C as a StandAlone.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Jan 2007)

So, perhaps Shotguns at the CQ, for issue for deliberate ops where they WILL be used, on a case by case basis, as another tool in the toolbox, if there's room?  Maybe, as you said, breaching.  I mean, if you are in close quarters, sure, shotguns are nice, but a stream of lead from a long barrel (which you already have in your hands) is probably the tool you want.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (10 Jan 2007)

I don't know....I always thought a shotgun is very good at breaching someones chest cavity.


----------



## Petard (10 Jan 2007)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Colt Canada is also offering a GL that is standalone-capable
> 
> http://www.diemaco.com/eagle-page.htm



During my ATWO course 2 years ago, with some outstanding support from the Infantry School, we did a trial on the EAGLE in a stand-alone form against a M203 that was also mounted stand-alone. So in answer to the question of "is it possible to have one manufactured", the answer is yes, it's already been done specifically for the Canadian version of the M203, I would suggest you contact Colt Canada if you really want to find out about getting one. Wether or not it ends up being worthwhile to you or ends up just being a "see what I got item", I dunno, you don't see any coming into service now and the trial was completed back in 2005, in other words don't hold your breath waiting for the CF to adopt the idea.
BTW in the for whatever its worth dept, I thought the GL belonged on someone's weapon in most situations, but it would be good to have a stand-alone system in the tool box for say non-lethal crowd confrontation type of scenarios.


----------



## KevinB (10 Jan 2007)

Shotguns are a very POOR CQB weapon -- one of the requirements of CQB is quick aimed fire - shotguns pattern and are in that respect quite indiscriminate -- as well due to limited ammuntion and recoil, they are NOT a good choice for CQB.  

I can get at least 2-3 rounds off from a C8 in the same time frame as 1 from a Reminton 870 (aimed again here, not some yahoo just cycling the slide as quick as he/she can). Put that is a military context -- and added mutliple and unknown numbers of multiple targets still like the shotty?


Petard -- I would not hold what DLR's opinion of a weapon is up to any sort of standard -- these are the same people that brought us the TRIAD-1, and the stupid and awkward mount for the M230A1 etc.


----------



## Petard (11 Jan 2007)

A Cdn M203 in a standalone rig (the picture is from a brochure that was available to the public on the 2005 AMS Symposium)


----------



## GregC (13 Jan 2007)

I'll throw in my 2 cents here as a fairly new private deploying to Afghanistan as a "grenadier" on TF-1-07. I would rather carry a more heavy and awkward weapon (ie C7 with M203 attached) simply for the speed of transitioning between the two weapons. Let's face the facts, yes I've seen the secret squirrel types with M79's bungee'd to their legs or back, but they have all the training and ammunition they need to become masters at transitioning between the two weapons and utlizing both. We do not. Therefore, I would rather be able to transition quickly between weapon systems, and more importantly targets. If, after firing my M203, an enemy appears in close, I can immediately engage with my C7. If that happened with an M79, you would need to transition flawlessly to your slung C7 in order to engage the immediate threat.


----------



## Badanai (13 Jan 2007)

GregC said:
			
		

> I'll throw in my 2 cents here as a fairly new private deploying to Afghanistan as a "grenadier" on TF-1-07. I would rather carry a more heavy and awkward weapon (IE C7 with M203 attached) simply for the speed of transitioning between the two weapons. Let's face the facts, yes I've seen the secret squirrel types with M79's bungee'd to their legs or back, but they have all the training and ammunition they need to become masters at transitioning between the two weapons and utlizing both. We do not. Therefore, I would rather be able to transition quickly between weapon systems, and more importantly targets. If, after firing my M203, an enemy appears in close, I can immediately engage with my C7. If that happened with an M79, you would need to transition flawlessly to your slung C7 in order to engage the immediate threat.



My experience with the M203 mounted on the C7 the only complaint I had with it was my repositioning of my fire positions. With the M203 under the hand guards I had to re teach myself to shoot the C7 do to the fact it changed my fire postion


----------



## westie048 (13 Jan 2007)

There are good points and bad points to the attached 203 and stand alone, like anything it depends on the role of the person, and what they are comfortable with. Will we ever get the stand alone where you can choose, prob not, but isn't the fact that we may get better kit or weapons that gives us hope that things will get better, which anyone who has been in for any amount time knows, no it wont. ;D






 :skull:


----------



## brucekie (13 Feb 2007)

If you are looking for a more comfortable way to handle the M203 I would suggust using the M203 grip designed to mout like a vertcal grip to the bottom of the M203 www.m203grip.com. They are pricy though. I email wanting to know prices and it was over 300$ for one. I would suggest trying to manufacture one yourself. But from the looks of it it s seems to improve fire positions. So you don't need to seperate to 2 weapons due to comfort.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Feb 2007)

Making one yourself?

I don't think that would go over too well.

The generic grip is glued on to the bbl, and its pretty much a permanant fixture.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## RHFC_piper (14 Feb 2007)

Wesley (Over There) said:
			
		

> Making one yourself?



Both M203 grenadiers in my section bought M203 Grips (for $300), and after looking at them, taking them apart, fiddling with them, etc. I figured, with enough time in a CNC shop, I could probably make them for a considerably cheaper price.  It's a pretty simple design (as it should be), and once part programs are designed for CNC machines, parts can be pumped out rather quickly.  

I think the only reason they're $300 each is 'cause there's no competition in the market.  Unfortunately, there's also very little demand out side the military / deployment market... do they make air-soft M203's?

I believe, like any other vertical grip, it would provide a more comfortable firing position... at least when firing the attached C7.   Has anyone fired the M203 avec grip?  just looking for an experienced opinion.  (infidel6, I'm looking in your direction )


----------



## Gunnerlove (14 Feb 2007)

Why would you machine them when injection molded glass filled nylon is so strong (and cheap)?


----------



## RHFC_piper (14 Feb 2007)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Why would you machine them when injection molded glass filled nylon is so strong (and cheap)?



Well... The one's sold online have injected handles... but, the two arms which grip to the hand guard on the M203, the core piece (which is just a threaded bar) and the castle nut (which, by turning the handle, tightens the gripping arms) are all made of Aluminum (most likely aircraft grade), Which is fairly easy to machine and is pretty strong.

I'm sure injection molded parts would be just as strong, but I just tend to trust good old machined metal...  ;D

Either way, I figure there's got to be a cheaper and easier way to produce those grips... $300 is just a little pricy.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Feb 2007)

Gunnerlove said:
			
		

> Why would you machine them when injection molded glass filled nylon is so strong (and cheap)?



I would love to but i loaned my injection molder to my neighbour 6 months ago and he hasn't returned it....


----------



## PhilB (14 Feb 2007)

Piper if you could manufacture an M203 grip I could paypal you tonight! I am very interested in getting one but $300 is ridiculous. I looked on their website and I liked the look of the shorter of the grips. If you are serious about making these shoot me a pm and we can talk turkey ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (14 Feb 2007)

The question being is how do you get the old standard hand guard off without damaging the bbl or the old hand guard. where is this going to be done, and what happens to the old hand guard, and who is going to replace it afterwards?

Modifying such weaponry without approval/authorisation is wrong. Using home made mods is even worse. When done by untrained (untrained meaning out of their trade) soldiers and not within the EME Corps is downright dangerous. The 203 bbl is alloy and easily puckered or dented.

I've never had a problem with the 203 under a M16A1, or a Steyr for that matter. The generic hand guard has been around since the weapon was introduced in the 1960's.

I am all for change and mods, but with approved kit, installed by the right mob.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## RHFC_piper (14 Feb 2007)

PhilB said:
			
		

> Piper if you could manufacture an M203 grip I could paypal you tonight! I am very interested in getting one but $300 is ridiculous. I looked on their website and I liked the look of the shorter of the grips. If you are serious about making these shoot me a pm and we can talk turkey ;D




I wish I could get back into a CNC machine shop... I'm still on contract until deemed fit for service again, or ultimately not and released from service.

At some point, I'd like to get my hands on some machines again and start making tactical kit... better and with the advice from others who have used it in the field.  But for now, all I can do is sit in front of my computer, dream of 'good' and 'cheap' tactical gear and try to plan it out on MasterCAM.



			
				Wesley (Over There) said:
			
		

> The question being is how do you get the old standard hand guard off without damaging the bbl or the old hand guard. where is this going to be done, and what happens to the old hand guard, and who is going to replace it afterwards?
> 
> Modifying such weaponry without approval/authorisation is wrong. Using home made mods is even worse. When done by untrained (untrained meaning out of their trade) soldiers and not within the EME Corps is downright dangerous. The 203 bbl is alloy and easily puckered or dented.
> 
> ...



The M203 Grips available on www.m203grip.com (which are pretty much the only ones available) just grip to the existing handguard with direct pressure around it.  No mods to the weapon at all.  And they dont apply enough pressure to damage the tube.  It uses two arms which wrap around the stock when a castle nut is tightened (by twisting the handle).  To release it, there is a button which unlocks the handle and allows it to be loosened off.  Pretty ingenious solution to the problem.  And it's pretty far from 'home made'.. even if I was to make one, it would still involve some serious machining in a comercial machine shop.  CNC ain't cheap.. especially a multi-axis mill.


----------



## NavyShooter (14 Feb 2007)

If you want to get into CNC stuff in a home shop, check out Sherline.

For about $2500 you can get into a CNC Mill with a reasonable work area (9"x5"x6") plus the cost of your software and PC.

I'm running a manual 4400 lathe wtih the milling attachment, and it's pretty neat some of the stuff you can produce.  So far, there's some really nice cannons hanging around the shop 

I started a machinist course before joining the mob, and loved the CNC portion of it.  My only regret is not having finished that course prior to joining.

NS


----------



## RHFC_piper (14 Feb 2007)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> If you want to get into CNC stuff in a home shop, check out Sherline.
> 
> For about $2500 you can get into a CNC Mill with a reasonable work area (9"x5"x6") plus the cost of your software and PC.
> 
> I'm running a manual 4400 lathe wtih the milling attachment, and it's pretty neat some of the stuff you can produce.  So far, there's some really nice cannons hanging around the shop



There's a lot available in the buy and sell papers around my area.  ATS keeps selling some pretty nice 4 - 6 Axis HAAS Mill centres for decent prices, but it all comes down to space and money... I live in a townhouse and the wife (soon to be) owns the garage for her car (my truck gets to sit outside).  So, no space... and I just bought the house... so, no cash...  The machines are going to have to wait.  For now, I'll just write programs and design parts (masterCAM).



			
				NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I started a machinist course before joining the mob, and loved the CNC portion of it.  My only regret is not having finished that course prior to joining.
> 
> NS




Yeah, I finished GMM and CNC, and had a crappy job in a shop before aI deployed.  I don't know if I can go back to the shop, can't stand (sit or lay) for long period without pain, but I'm hoping I can atleast do programming and first-offs...  It get's in your system, doesn't it (CNC that is).

Anyway, this hijack has gone pretty wild.  Back to the subject at hand...

Has anyone used the Stand alone M203 with a vertical grip?  Just wondering... looking for oppinions.

I think the stand alone idea seems pretty good, but I can see some problems which could arise on the 2 way range; ie. switching weapons.  

My only question would be (to those who've used both... if there are any) is; Which is better for accuracy, Mounted to C7 or Stand alone? and has anyone noticed any difference with vertical grips (both mounted and stand alone)?


----------



## Gunnerlove (15 Feb 2007)

$300? for that WTF. IMO it is not worth the expense and would be more about the LCF than filling a need. To be honest I have not liked vertical grips on any weapons I have shot so far as they don't seem to point well (guess you like them or you don't).


----------



## KevinB (15 Feb 2007)

I know a lot of lefties love them -- as it lets them use their right thumb to trip the barrel latch.

However I dont see a point on a standalone GL -- since the point of going to a stand alone is to not encumber you or your primary weapon.  -- This would only add something with another corner and greater weight to get cuaght up.


----------



## ProPatria031 (23 Jul 2007)

$300 WTF for a piece of aluminum. I saw a good sturdy plastic on in Guns & Ammo magazine for $20 us if I'm not mistaken. and about a stand alone launcher Colt Canada (Diemaco) have just put a new launcher out with its own stand alone rig. they call it the Eagle and it has its own pistol grip and the biggest thing instead of sliding action the barrel swings to the left or right depending on operatorand and it is also weaver rail mounted. awsome piece of kit, whether regular infantry grenadier will ever see them is beyond me.

http://www.coltcanada.ca/eagle-page.htm

 :cheers:


----------



## DirtyDog (27 Jul 2007)

ProPatria031 said:
			
		

> .... Colt Canada (Diemaco) have just put a new launcher out with its own stand alone rig. they call it the Eagle........



They didn't "just put it out".  It's been around for awhile.


----------



## ProPatria031 (27 Jul 2007)

You may be right, but when I visited the Colt Canada factory during my DP1 (battle school) and the gunsmiths told us that they just put it in production.

 :cheers:


----------



## DirtyDog (27 Jul 2007)

ProPatria031 said:
			
		

> You may be right, but when I visited the Colt Canada factory during my DP1 (battle school) and the gunsmiths told us that they just put it in production.
> 
> :cheers:



Roger.

I was there not too long ago myself infact.


----------



## brucekie (29 Jul 2007)

ProPatria031 said:
			
		

> $300 WTF for a piece of aluminum. I saw a good sturdy plastic on in Guns & Ammo magazine for $20 us if I'm not mistaken.


Can you recall the company that manufactured it or sold it?


----------



## MG34 (9 Aug 2007)

The M203 grip is about the stupidest thing I have seen lately, it places the support hand too low for a good shooting position as the Canadian M203 mounts  lower than the US version  and the grip allows the user to place too much tourque on the M203 as now the user can apply pressure left or right when opening/colosing the M203 this can lead to a failure of the unit and actually slows down reload times as the ergonomics are wrong. Save your money troops and put it towards a better optic.
   I've tried one out in A'stan ( fired around 20 or so rounds ) the standard grip was much better.
 As for a standalone M203, this was tried about oh 40 yrs ago, they realized then that it was useless same as it is now as it takes either the 40mm launcher or a rifleman out of the fight at any given time, the M203 ain't perfect but it is the 90% solution


----------



## KevinB (9 Aug 2007)

Ditto to the good WO.
  The only guys that I know that like the grip are southpaws.

Plus it makes mounting of the PSQ-18 an impossibility (which is also impossible with either the Diemaco POS Eagle or the HK AG/C)
  I need to find an inventive FCS Tech and Mat tech - as I want to cut up a PSQ-18 for mounting to the side of a HK gl.)  Bah whats a $4k IR laser if you cant mount it.


----------



## MG34 (10 Aug 2007)

Kevin- Just epoxy as chunk of plastic rail to the side....a good CF small arms style upgrade....... ad hoc and totally useless


----------



## KevinB (10 Aug 2007)

LOL

The PSQ-18 mounts to the M203 bbl though.  And the genius's that designed it made the battery  housing on the bottom and the activation on the left side of the bbl bracket.
  I'll toss up some pics in another thread as soon as I can get pics download on this new laptop.


----------



## Big Red (10 Aug 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> The PSQ-18 mounts to the M203 bbl though.



Wonder if it would fit on my m79 bbl.....


----------



## DirtyDog (12 Aug 2007)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> Ditto to the good WO.
> The only guys that I know that like the grip are southpaws.
> 
> Plus it makes mounting of the PSQ-18 an impossibility (which is also impossible with either the Diemaco POS Eagle or the HK AG/C)
> I need to find an inventive FCS Tech and Mat tech - as I want to cut up a PSQ-18 for mounting to the side of a HK gl.)  Bah whats a $4k IR laser if you cant mount it.



What's wrong with the Colt Eagle?  Just curious....


----------

