Talk:China Lake grenade launcher

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

China Lake Launcher

The China Lake Pump-Action Launcher is not the EX-41. The EX-41 was a High-Velocity Pump-Action Grenade launcher built by the Louisville Naval Ordinance Station(NOSL). Several reasonably knowlegable individuals have only refered to the China Lake weapon as the Pump- Action Grenade Launcher. These individuals include former Navy Seal James "Patches" Watson and author Kevin Dockery. The Summer 1995 issue of Fighting Firearms also has an article by one Nick Steadman that details the NOSL EX-41, among other grenade launchers. --Paulwharton 05:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous sites referring to the China Lake Launcher as the EX-41, but the only thing similar I see originating from NOSL is the Mark 20. Perhaps you could elaborate using your reference? --Crimson30 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As is often the case on the Internet, one unsourced site will repeat verbatim the information of another website and so on until the false information on the original unsourced website becomes accepted as truth, simply because every other website says so. Various reliable print sources such as Kevin Dockery and Jane's Infantry Weapons have never conflated the China Lake Pump-Action Grenade Launcher and the EX-41mm grenade launcher. The China Lake weapon was a Vietnam-era multi-shot grenade launcher that resembled a pump-action shotgun developed for the Navy SEALs at China Lake that fired low-pressure 40x46 mm grenades. The EX-41 was a post Vietnam-era multi-shot clip-fed (not a box magazine) grenade launcher that resembled a rifle developed for the USMC and US Army at Naval Ordinance Station Louisville and Picatinny Arsenal that fired high-pressure 40x53 mm grenades fitted to a 40x46 mm case. I would put up a picture of the EX-41, but I only have them from copyrighted books. I will write up a separate entry for the EX-41. Pettifogger 15:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a paper reference that confirms this, then could you add the reference, chop any incorrect web references and correct the article, please? --Crimson30 15:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a 1995 order form fo a Flash Suppressor for the EX-41.I am adding it to the online links. --Paulwharton 06:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a substantial rewrite of the article. I deleted all reference to the EX 41 and put in a link for anyone still confused. I added a bit more information from the already referenced Weapons of Navy SEALs book and Small Arms Review article. The infobox was filled out. I reworded what was left, since there was a lot of awkward phrasing, such as "being fielded by the Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake". I deleted most of the external links since they were just generic information on 40mm grenades, not specific to the China Lake pump-action. I deleted the links to Security Arms, Bellum, and world.guns.ru, because I felt they were inaccurate in referring to it as the EX-41. They also provide no further information. I changed the Armament Services, Inc. link since I think people might want to see the movie and how fast one can actually fire it. Directly linking to the movie would violate Wikipedia policy. Pettifogger 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pettifogger. I am trying to contact a man who claims to have one of a possibly five origional examples of the china lake pumpstill in existance. With the assistance of an owner of an origional copy I can possibly get ahold of better photographs. Paulwharton 07:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be most helpful if you could get a statement regarding the copyright status of said photos (as in, a statement releasing them into the public domain would be great!). --Crimson30 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NATIC name?

Does anyone have a source for the NATIC name? What does NATIC mean? Is it a reference to a project name? An abbreviation? Is it a reference to the Army's Natick Labs? The only time I have seen the NATIC name is in Wikipedia and on a Japanese Vietnam War re-enactment site. Pettifogger 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, btw. NATIC, according to thefreedictionary.com, stands for Naval Air Technical Training Center, which makes it sound like it was mangled into the name, much like EX-41. If the NATIC part is also some sort of phantasm, we could always make a new article, move all the info and blank or redirect this one. --Crimson30 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to find several references to me on pages on this site. I can state with certainty that the China Lake pump-action grenade launcher was not the EX-41. That weapon was a prototype design attemped by Louisville in the 1990s and fires a unique round of 40mm ammunition. I have photographs and have conducted detailed examinations of the production 40mm pump, including firing both it and the recent reproduction. And I have photos of the original prototype 40mm pump made at China lake. I have examined serial numbers 1, 2, and 3 and done some simple repair work on one of the specimens. Only twenty of the launcher were reported as having been made. A stripped receiver with number 50 on it has been seen in storage, but that number may be a mis-mark and not a true serial number. 69.81.142.121 01:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Kevin Dockery 14 July, 07[reply]

So what is the story about the designation NATIC? Where is it derived, is it official or jargon? There is no reference to it in the text which makes it even more confusing.. Koalorka (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits from December 2010 were deleted from Gunwriter as they say disparaging things about a company that is in civil Federal litigation with Trident Enterprises. Gunwriter is Samuel "Dutch" Hillenburg a principle of Trident Enterprises and thus is violating Wikipedia editorial rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.243.85 (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The M79 unreliable?

I'm really curious as to that opening line of the "history" section. If the '79 was unreliable, 5th SFG(A) wouldn't still use them in Afghanistan three decades after it "officially" was replaced by the M203.

Yes, the XM148 and the XM148E1 sucked, the M203 had its weak points, but the only flaw I have EVER heard of regarding the '79 was the fact it was a single-purpose weapon in its stock configuration. I have limited live-fire experience with it of course, since I grew up in a M203-equipped Army and got out just as my brigade got the first of the XM320s from H&K.WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weight less than an M79??

"The weapon actually weighs 1½ pounds less empty than an empty M79. Loaded with 4 of the 8 ounce rounds, the 4 shot weapon weighs only ½ pound more than the single shot M79."

I call BS, the infobox for the M79 states its weight as 2.93 kg (6.45 lb) loaded, and when empty, 2.7 kg or 5.95 lb. Compare this to the China Lake launcher, which is 4.63 kg (10.21 lb) loaded, and 3.72 kg or 8.2 lb unloaded. Last time I checked, 10 pounds wasn't half a pound more than 5.95 lb, nor was it lighter than an M79 unloaded...should I/someone remove this false information? 220.244.111.207 (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you have read the China Lake is 8.2 lbs unloaded but it has an actual weight of 5.5 lbs unloaded and 6.5 lbs loaded. Reference Airtronic USA China Lake Pump Action Grenade Launcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 55.170.175.40 (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Price edits?

there were a number of recent edits made without any sources cited regarding the prices & production dates of the repro launchers. i searched for a while online to try to find any trustworthy accounts of the amount airtronic invested with trident or even the dates of production and came up empty-handed. 55.170.175.40 seems to be knowledgeable enough about the subject to edit the heck out of this page & im just curious to see where they are getting this info from. Dankdevice (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I called Airtronic USA back in 2012 and was very curious about the China Lake project and talked to the President of the company Dr. Merriellen Kett, She is definitely smart to the situation, her story on it goes like this and I'm remembering from the conversation from the phone in 2012. 1.Their was a lawsuit between Airtronic and Trident and the military looked elsewhere once the two companies went into a lawsuit for a launcher, 2. Airtronic did invest over two million dollars into researching and developing the system again, 3. A representative was sent to Vietnam to examine and record dimensions from the original design for reverse engineering. I hope this helps out as I was disappointed to find out everything was scrapped and it was a loss to both parties... Makes me wonder if their was never a lawsuit if the China Lake would be back in service.... awell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.143.192.106 (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]