Comments by "mpetersen6" (@mpetersen6) on "Airtronic's Modernized 40mm China Lake Grenade Launcher" video.

@gregsmall5939 P D's might be interested in them for riot duty. I'm not sure what the size the gas cartridges today are. But if they are still 37mm that would be one way to differentiate them from military weapons. At least in a legal situation. Truthfully the old Bloop Tube reminded me of the older tear gas launchers. It's just my opinion but the pump action looks like it would be far more user friendly in terms just carrying the damn thing. That revolving cylinder on the one that was adopted might work. But it's big. And yes they should have stuck to the Hi-Lo 40mm. At least in terms of chambering. I could see the idea behind being able to shoot flares if needed though. If they wanted to fiddle with the design (some things they did make sense) why not look at adapting say the Remington 1100 autoloader action. But only if it allowed a faster follow up shot without an increase in complexity. For sights a simple Red Dot optic that rotates on its mount for elevation. One question. Do they make 40mm Flash Bangs. If the US deploys troops into a combat situation I want them to win. If it takes killing the opposition fine. After all they had a choice and made it. But there are times when I could see it might be useful to take the opposition alive if possible. Intelligence for one thing. Another is why make a martyr out of somebody if killing them just helps create 2 or 3 new enemies.
17
@Jebu911 Perfect is the enemy of good enough. Ian makes the point about the current 40mm launcher being awkward to carry etc. The China Lake 40mm pump certainly beats it hands down on that matter from all appearances. Yes fix the problems in the original. Just dont get creative with "improvements". As to the property rights I have a post on that further up the comments.
4
@lostalone9320 If the RN and the Marines absolutely needed a SVTOL airframe it's my opinion they really should have just upgraded the Harrier. Face it nobody is going to be putting an amphibious force ashore in the face of air superiority. If all that's really needed is a close support airframe a STOL version of the Turcano would probably do. I also happen to think that the Marine MAUs should have a better option for gun fire support. Let's say the US needs to put a MAU ashore in the Hormuz Straight region (I'm not advocating it. This is hypothetical). The first thing the US Navy is going to do is to eliminate any potential threat from Iranian aircraft and SSMs. Second is any sub threat. Once the MAU is ashore if they need fire support they need it now. Now in the 5 or 10 minutes it might take to get the air raft there. This is one thing the LCS might have been good for. It's also another thing modularity might have been good for. If the Freedom LCS class had been built with the modularity concept built in base the modules on 40 ft standard shipping containers. These containers could have different configurations. One of which could be an integrated 155mm gun with its accompanying ammunition load carried in the container. The gun system could be based on a navalized version of the M-203 or the German PZz1000 (?). Additional containers could be carried onboard the accompanying replenishment vessel. Another design option for the containers could be accomodation space for troops assigned to the vessel for shipping security such as off the East African Coast or the Straits of Malacca.
2
So a weapon built for the US Navy in the 60s has "intellectual property rights". The IPR should of been held by the Dept of the Navy if anyone. When I was working if I developed something at work for my employer they owned the rights.
1