I was in the National Guard from the late 70s- the mid 90s. In that time of coarse I was issued several deferent M-16s. All of them were fairly accurate but non but the last was particularly reliable. The rifle I was issued for the last three years I was there had a 203 attached. It was the most accurate of the bunch and I don’t ever remember having any reliability issues with it probably because according to the armorer I was the first person it was issued to.
My question pertains to the accuracy of this rifle. was it common for rifles with a M-203 attached to be more accurate or was this just coincidence?
I would attribute your perception to a few things.
-
NG maintenance is not the greatest and I wouldn’t be surprised if there were parts that were beyond worn.
-
I don’t see how adding an M203 to a barrel is going to improve accuracy.
-
The issues of reliability can be attributed to number 1 above. I would also bet that training and understanding of the weapon was a factor.
It was probably because it was new, this means it had not yet been subjected to white glove cleanings and endless scraping as well as improper cleaning of the barrel.
It also means the parts were not in need of replacement at the time.
Fellas-
Ill relate my experiance in the USMC. I had TWO different armorers, in completely different units, who would cherry pick rifles come qual time. BOTH, every time, would choose a new-ish rifle with an M203
attached. I asked why…BOTH said due to the weight, and easier to hold in the offhand position.
Take that for what its worth.
Ah, finally a reason to own a GL…
From talking with friends who have been issued 203s they did say several things about the things. One was usually it was a pain in the ass when they had to lug it, more so for one who’s unit was not allowed to have grenades for it while in country. Two, they all did praise it for quals because they were more stable with it or preferred it for the balance and added weight. I don’t think it was necessarily more accurate as much as perhaps just easier to shoot. Just going on what I have heard.
I carried an M16A2/203 when I was in the Army and I didn’t think that it helped me qual. And I hated lugging that thing around.
Never saw a M203 attached to an M-16 on the range.
Outside of 0311’s who are issued an M203, I can’t imagine anyone else using one.
Where was this? And what time frame?
ETA: I’m talking about the KD course. My understanding is that now there is a combat course, but outside of boot camp and MCT, I never did anything other than KD as I was not a grunt…
Has more to do with them being better able to consistently establish NPOA. Having a couple of inches of extra material added to the bottom of the forearm can be helpful in general, and particularly to those with T-rex arms. Zero to do with the mechanical accuracy of the system.
Zero X gun (no 203), warfighter shoots it, it’s great.
Then ADD a 203 to it. In the time-frame we’re talking about, there was no other way to attach it except via the barrel, meaning that, however that gun was zeroed would be altered by the addition of 2# of crap to the barrel. Changes the jump-angle, the harmonics, or whatever the current buzzword is…
That’s merely POI shift, however, not an affect on accuracy, but SOMEbody’s gonna misidentify that that gun’s “an inaccurate POS ever since they put the 203 on, man…” The opposite is also possible, that somebody who’s shot a bare A2 (or whichever) that just happened to be a dog, then gets a M203 for a TO weapon that just happens to be a better-shootin’ gun, they may incorrectly identify the 203 as the pivot-point for that circumstance.
The 203 neither hurts hor helps the inherent accuracy of the gun. Unless the mount’s ganked up; then, things go all pear-shaped…
Thanks a lot for the answers. I lost track of this post after it was moved. Sorry about putting my post in the wrong forum at first.
I know the M16A2s in every armory I ever worked in were never actually fired. Once they got a 203 on them they were never used for a duty rifle again. I hated it. I always maintained that a grenadier should qualify and zero the rifle/launcher combo he is going to carry but the AF doesnt do things that way. Therefore the round count was maybe 1/10th on the 203 mounted rifles than the rest. That would be my guess as why they were more reliable. Less wear.
The one I had was fired more than most weapons in the unit I was in.(as were the other rifles I was issued). The company I was in had small arms qualifications twice a year. Half the company one time and the other later in the summer/fall. I was in communications so I went both times. After the rest of the company left and after tearing down commo we would help burn up the extra ammo and there was usually a lot of extra ammo. The supply guys said if we turned in any unfired ammo we wouldn’t get as much next time so we made sure there was nothing but empty brass to turn in.
That would make life so much easier. The AF requires each and every round be accounted for. Each student is authorized X amount of rounds and every round past that must be justified and documented. When we turn in the remainder our round justification paperwork of rounds fired must match mathematically to the rounds we took out.
Service Rifle competitors routinely install lead in their ARs and M16s to bring the weight up to about 16 pounds. This makes the rifles move less and more slowly in the offhand position. I have a Steyr AUG I have been shooting in the past few weeks. The different configuration allows me to move my left hand down and closer to my body to gain a more favorable position for NPA. I can shoot the Steyr better than my usual AR even though the AR has a nice trigger and the Steyr has a shitty trigger. The Steyr is heavier by about two pounds.