in their underbarrel states, which is better?
HK269
>>62142518they're almost the same thing
>>62142551this. the only difference is the mounting hardware and the M320 has a foregrip.
AG36S AND M320S ARE THE SAME THINGWAKE UP PEOPLE
>>62142518M203
>>62142541interesting there basically no other info about it though
>>62142583how so?the only benefits the m203 has, seems to be weight, but does it really weigh that noticeably less?and if so, wouldn't the Beretta GLX160 be better than any of the other launchers?
I always prefered using the M320 in its stand-alone config, but the trigger fucking sucked
>>62142596in standalone, is good for carry?i heard people say its a pain in the ass during a fire fight, because you got nowhere to really keep it since the holster sucks & whatever
>>62142609Yes and no? I always just had it in a sling and would lock it to the lower back of my vest with a carabiner when patroling, to keep it from bouncing around. But i was mainly vehicle-based and needed the AR a bit less clunky for getting it up in case i needed a secondary when on the .50, and only did footpatrols every now and then. I know some of our infantry-guys would keep it rifle-mounted when on patrol and have it as stand-alone when setting up in trenches/fixed positions for the night.
>>62142518The M320 sucked as a under barrel grenade launcher, worse than the M203. Its why its mostly used as a simple grenade launcher.
>>62142593its more of a bulk thing imo. Also we've had them and it workstbbqh I have never handled any 40mm launcher so I'm talking out of my ass but from my limited observations the 320 seems better as a standalone launcher than an under barrel and standalone 203's don't seem a whole lot worse
>>62142585The French bought it along with their HK416FsPretty sure the Germans are getting it with G95 as well
