Talk:Grenade launcher

Incorrect Weapon Name

A grenade is a form of of time bomb, and the bomb explodes on impact. The correct weapoan name would be "warhead launcher" but a better name could probably be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.0.89 (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect, impact fuzed hand grenades exist. Bones Jones (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

GLs vs RGs

the article is currently confusing on the issue of rifle grenades. If you read from the beginning, the link to the rifle grenade implied to me that this article would not be about rifle grenades. Then this article went on to discuss things that seem to be rifle grenades anyway? I don't know, I can't tell, that's why I call it confusing.

Metal Storm

Pulled this section out of the article. Metal storm is a cool idea/device but it's not a grenade launcher. Even if they make a MS GL, this article isn't the place to detail the mechanism.

Though not strictly a grenade launching platform, the Metal Storm system is certainly usable in this role. The idea is to place multiple projectiles stacked in a single barrel and fire them either in sequence, in bursts, or all at once. Due to this configuration, and the fact that the charges are electronically fired, the system can reach an amazing rate of fire while maintaining simplicity and reliability. The concept of stacking projectiles in one barrel is not new but never before has a system been as integrated and possibly useful as this. Multiple barrels could be mounted holding different types of grenades to deal with different threats such as personnel or heavily armored vehicles. While grenades do not normally pose a threat to armored vehicles, one side effect of an extremely high rate of fire is the fact that it could dig through using successive projectiles fired at one point. This may seem like the ideal system for grenade launchers, however, due to the fact that once a barrel's charges are expended, you would then be carrying dead weight or have to throw away an entire barrel instead of simply inserting a new magazine or belt. For this reason, it is unlikely that Metal Storm will become a standard issue smallarm, other than for special operations, unless a way to make cheaper and lighter barrels can be found. One experimental attempt at meshing a traditional rifle and Metal Storm system is the Australian Advanced Individual Combat Weapon program that takes the standard Steyr AUG rifle and places a 40 mm Metal Storm barrel on top with a fire control system built into the stock. As it is still at the prototype stages, it has yet to be seen whether this combination will actually be effective in the field.

I agree that the mechanism shouldn't be listed here but Metal Storm is one of a few modern uses for grenade launchers that isn't listed in this article. Also, it is currently being developed as a semi-automatic over or under barrel launcher for the Australian armed forces which makes it as relevant as all these fancy prototypes listed in the article that are being made for the US armed forces.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Of AG36..

In the very start its said AG36 can be used "stand alone" like M79. This is incorrect.

http://www.hkpro.com/ag36.htm is underbarrel like 203,

http://www.hkpro.com/hk69.htm the KH69 on the other hand is stand alone launcher like M79 and i can understand how somebody with no knowledge can confuse the two, but to be correct they are not the same weapon even if there is superficial similarity there.

What's the difference?

With automatic grenade launchers such as the Mark 19, what is the actual definition difference between an automatic grenade launcher and an autocannon? Does an autocannon use higher velocities and more streamlined shells rather than shooting out more rounded shots with a lower velocity via less powder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.25.127 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Trajectory of Round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.79.13.6 (talk) 11:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition is rather wrong

The definition of grenade launcher refers to grenade. However, grenade redirects to Hand grenade, that is weapon designed to be thrown by hand. I think, we need an all-sufficient definition. Ufim (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Advantages

perhaps we should include a section about a grenade launchers advantages over say a cannon of similer calibre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.112.11 (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

American centric

This article seems to have a very specific focus on the development and use of Grenade Launchers among the US defence forces. This is not just limited to American service weapons and prototypes being the only ones included in the article but (current) American uses for grenade launchers being the only ones listed. Where is it explained that automatic grenade launchers make an effective and light weapon to mount on helicopters or that many infantry fighting vehicles come equipped with them. Where are the mentions of new models in other countries with different approaches to the problem of weight & size then Heckler & Koch? Russia has a GMG thats 16kg and supposedly portable enough to keep up with a platoon. Australia is developing a very unique an interesting semi-automatic grenade launcher, albeit slowly. China already has something in service akin to the USA's development, designed practically for marksmanship with grenades.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Not alot of people that I have talked to knows about a Russian revolver-type personal Grenade Launcher. Hell, there's not even an article about it on Wikipedia. The GRAU designation is 6G-30. I'm not Russian, but I believe it means, "6 Grenades, 30 mm", however, this is a 40 mm launcher. If anybody wants to make this article, please contact me, I have a basic description and specifications. Victory in Germany (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Smoke discharger

Hello, what is a smoke discharger? Is it a smoke grenade launcher? --Diwas (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

T-62 generating smoke

Yes, usually smoke dischargers refers to the clusters of smoke grenade launchers that are fitted to tanks for instant smoke screens, however, some tanks (T-55, T-62) can generate smoke by injecting vaporized diesel fuel onto their exhaust systems - and this system might sometimes be referred to as a smoke discharger too. Hohum (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Would you like to check my annotations at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M60A3.jpg and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Army_M551_Sheridan_German_village.jpg ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diwas (talk • contribs) 23:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Gaming

I wonder if a small section on grenade launchers in gaming might be worthwhile. To date, all such additions have been non-constructive, as I saw them. Not a high priority for me, nor something I feel strongly about, and I wanted to see if there would be strong support or opposition.- Sinneed 16:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really worthwhile. Just because video games use them, has no real use in an article about the REAL thing.Halofanatic333 (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree about the lack of worth, but this isn't about the "real thing". It is about "Grenade launcher".- Sinneed 14:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

37mm v 40mm in US usage

In the US there are 37mm and 40mm grenades and launchers. Certain military type grenades (high explosive, shaped charge, incendiary) are made in 40mm only; while tear gas, smoke, signal flares, etc. are made in 37mm and 40mm, no high explosive or incendiary rounds are made in 37mm. This is a divide of military 40mm v police 37mm (and in many jurisdictions civilians may legally own 37mm launchers and (nonlethal) ammunition as collectibles). Naaman Brown (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

RPG Does not stand for Rocket Propelled Grenade

It actually stands for "Ruchnoy Protivotankovyy Granatomyot" or Hand-Held Anti-tank Grenade launcher. The statement currently on the page is an false urban myth. I would appreciate it if this could be changed. :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.215.162.21 (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about your broken fingers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Attached vs Underslung

The U.S. Military invented the Attached Grenade Launcher. The U.S. Army Feild Manual[1] clearly refers to it as "attached". However, a user insists on calling this class of weapons as "underslung" based on a source[2] referring to specific grenade launcher called the "Underslung Grenade Launcher (UGL)". The UGL is manufactured by Heckler & Koch and is fitted to the L85 rifle. I believe that "Attached" should be used as the correct terminology. As calling this class of weapon "Underslung Grenade Launcher" would be the equivalent of calling all sports cars "Corvettes".

Also, a simple Google search for the term "Underslung" shows that it is most associated with "Battlefield" video game series, whereas the term "Underbarrel" is the common name used in the firearms industry, firearms publications and encyclopedias. Such as Small Arms Survey,[3] Jane's[4] and OPFOR WORLDWIDE EQUIPMENT GUIDE.[5] Russia's Izhmash calls their GP-34 an "underbarrel grenade launcher".[6] It should be noted that Izhmash is not an American or even a western source.

I have also reviewed the H&K product website for 40mm systems[7] and they refer to their product as "add-on grenade launcher" they do not use the "underslung" designation. It appears that the term "Underslung Grenade Launcher (UGL)" is nothing more than the British military designation for the specific type of H&K grenade launcher which they use.[8]. Also, the Australians[9] and the Canadians[10] do not use the "underslung" designation. --RAF910 (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Herr Gruber

The following was left on my talk page by Herr Gruber (talk)...

"In general the only sources that call the Japanese knee mortars grenade launchers rather than light mortars (which is what they are) are quoting the translation of the Japanese name. A device that fires literal hand grenades is not within the normal definition of the term, and shoehorning in a very borderline example that maybe kinda qualifies isn't really something that should be done in an article defining a piece of technology. Really rifle grenades shouldn't be there either since many attach to a muzzle piece that's only a "grenade launcher" if you're a politician trying to ban the SKS. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)"

He appears to be arguing that devices which launch actual hand grenades are not Grenade Launchers. And, we should not call them such for fear that the politicians will ban them. I disagree, I believe that Wikipedia should provide accurate information.--RAF910 (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact is the only reason the Japanese knee mortars are called "grenade projectors" is they can fire actual hand grenades: they are otherwise short, low-velocity, high-arc weapons launching high-explosive projectiles with the ground as the primary means of absorbing recoil, which are the defining features of a mortar, and their other two types of round were dedicated mortar projectiles. Throwing a gigantic section in the article to describe two borderline cases which are strictly speaking something else is not "accuracy."

Also, find me a source other than a gun-grabber saying the flash hider of an SKS is a "grenade launcher." Even additional parts like adaptors and launching cups aren't usually called that because it's generally used to refer to a firearm with no function other than launching grenades. Herr Gruber (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

TC 9-56, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TRAINING CIRCULAR, SKS RIFLE, SIMONOV TYPE 56, HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, OCTOBER 1969. See... http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/MILITARY/united_states_army_tc_9-56%20-%201_october_1969.pdf Page 1..."The Yugoslav M59/66 has a prominent spigot-type grenade launcher permanently attached to the muzzle and a folding grenade launching sight at the rear of the launcher." I think you will find that every book, firearms encyclopedia, firearms magazine, and military reference guide calls them grenade launchers. Since, you clearly have limited knowledge on subject and you appear to be imposing some sort of anti-gun-grabber POV into the article, I'm going to restore the edit.--RAF910 (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, you're trying to argue word usage for a fairly modern class of firearms based on a document from 1969, before most modern GLs were actually invented? I find most of my reference materials don't call them that, and certainly don't place them in the sections listing grenade launchers. Typically they're mentioned under sections describing the rifles in question stating they had the ability to launch rifle grenades when fitted with such and such a device.

Would you also argue a bayonet lug is a spear? Do you have any tactic at all here other than farcical appeals to motive to defend your including of a device that was so obviously a mortar that Allied troops recognised it as one even though they had no idea how to fire it?

The fact is there are three types of device that might conceivably be called grenade launchers: rifle grenade launchers are usually called that, specifically, in modern works since the projectiles they fire are called rifle grenades, but it's fairly rare to find their projectors being called grenade launchers rather than things like adaptor, device or cup, and when they are you can generally assume the word "rifle" has been cut off for the sake of brevity under the assumption you're talking about part of a rifle and so it's a rifle grenade launcher. Nevermind the minor issue that all 22mm flash hiders not specifically modified to prevent it can be used to mount NATO rifle grenades. Are all 22mm flash hiders grenade launchers?

Devices for launching hand grenades could potentially be called that, but this also includes things like slingshots and I believe one particularly goony military actually standardised a tiny catapult at one point. The Japanese knee mortars would fit in that group since they were mortars that could use a specially designed hand grenade as a projectile (at the cost of it being a fairly crappy hand grenade, I pity the Japanese soldiers who had to try to throw those uphill). It would also mean the human arm is a grenade launcher.

The modern use of the term refers to a dedicated class of firearms which launch explosive projectiles using an internal firing mechanism.

The thing is, rifle grenades already have their own page (a page which notes they were largely replaced by, um, grenade launchers) and two light mortars don't exactly make a respectable sample for claiming a classification (nevermind what else ends up being a grenade launcher if they are), so focusing on the modern use makes sense. In particular in light of the rifle grenade article, it would make more sense to describe rifle grenades and Japanese grenade projectors as the forerunners of the modern grenade launcher than to insist they're all part of some really poorly-defined category of weapons based on semantics and comparatively ancient manuals.

I'm also not sure why you're insisting on restoring recent gimmicky examples: Metal Storm 3GL was an utter failure that managed to make the Australian AICW even heavier than the American OICW and met with zero success since the weight saving of removing hammer / striker is inconsequential compared to the increase from sticking in two extra grenades (nevermind the ridiculous claim that it "eliminates reloading" when actually it requires the entire barrel be swapped out any time you want to fire a different type of round), and the camera round, while cute, shouldn't be mentioned alongside two standardised and common ammunition types given it's completely new and hasn't been issued by anyone. Perhaps the M203 beehive rounds would be a better "even" since they actually are used, though that section is poorly-worded since the ability to fire in a high arc has nothing to do with direct-fire sponge grenades.

Also, please stop trying the old "tell your opponent you're winning constantly" routine, you'll find it doesn't impress anyone but small children. Herr Gruber (talk) 05:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Your POV is irrelevant. All of the following sources refer to the Japaneses Type 10 & Type 89 as "grenade launchers, grenade discharges and grenade projectors"...

The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, by Chris Bishop, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc., 2002 page 201

The Hand Grenade, by Gordon L. Rottman & Johnny Shumate, Osprey Publishing, Feb 20, 2015, page 34

Japanese Army in World War II : Conquest of the Pacific 1941-42, Gordon Rottman, Osprey Publishing, Jun 20, 2013, page 46

The Japanese Army Handbook 1939-1945, by George Forty, The History Press, Dec 16, 2002

Japanese Infantryman 1937-45: Sword of the Empire, Gordon L Rottman, Osprey Publishing, Sep 20, 2012, page 17

Hell in the Pacific: The Battle for Iwo Jima, Derrick Wright, Osprey Publishing, Jan 1, 2012, page 95

The Big Book of Gun Trivia: Everything you want to know, don't want to know, and don't know you need to know, by Gordon L Rottman, Osprey Publishing, Oct 20, 2013

U.S. War Department Intelligence Bulletin, Military Intelligence Service, Vol. I, No. 9: May 1943, Japanese Grenade Dischargers

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number19.pdf

http://www.guns.com/2012/10/31/japanese-type-89-knee-mortar/

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=298

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Japanese+%22knee%22+mortars.-a0206794260

http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30025469

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=517

http://www.carbinesforcollectors.com/japkneemortar.html

--RAF910 (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is because that's the direct translation of their Japanese designation. You're fixating on semantics, I can't help noticing several of those links also have "mortar" in the title and several include statements that it's a "mortar-type launcher," and the freelibrary link outright says "Today, both the Japanese Type 10 and Type 89 launchers would be called light weight "patrol mortars"" so good job posting things that agree with me. Also militaryfactory is about as far from RS as it gets, it's the same site that claims the Ukranian military uses the XM109. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Herr Gruber is purposely mischaracterizing the http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Japanese+%22knee%22+mortars.-a0206794260 reference. I encourage everyone to read it. The first sentence states..."Let me start by saying that the World-War-II-era, Japanese Type 89 launcher is no more a "knee" mortar than the German World War II-era MP40 submachine gun was a "Schmeisser."

It then goes on for 10 paragraphs explaining why it's NOT a a knee mortar. That knee mortar is only the nick-name given to it by G.I Joe and defining what mortars are.

The 10th paragraph states..."Today, both the Japanese Type 10 and Type 89 launchers would be called light weight "patrol mortars." Both have 50mm bores. The first to be fielded by the Japanese Imperial army was the Type 10 grenade discharger, which is quite a rarity in any Japanese World-War-II-era military small arms collection."

This is where Herr Gruber took the first sentence of the 10th paragraph out of context and proudly declared the Type 10 & Type 89 mortars. However, what Herr Gruber fails to mention is the 11th paragraph which unequivocally states that..."It's a true "grenade" launcher, as it was designed specifically to propel the Type 91 fragmentation grenade, to which was added an adapter that principally consisted of a finned tail boom assembly. Of smoothbore design, it was intended to bridge the gap between hand grenades and mortars. Small and compact, it weighs only 5.25 pounds, with an overall length of 20 inches. The launcher tube is 9.5 inches in length, which is the length also of the entire unit when broken down with all of its components stowed inside the tube and carried in a leather harness over the shoulder. The purported range was approximately 175 yards, but I think that would be really stretching its maximum potential."

Herr Gruber apparently that believes that the nick-name of "knee mortar" is the correct name. And, he refuses to accept any source or reference to the contrary. I have provided 16 references to support that they are grenade launchers. He has provided none to support his POV and misrepresented the above reference.--RAF910 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you illiterate? The first sentence is about how it is not a "knee" mortar, that's why it has the quotes around the word "knee" rather than the whole phrase. It also puts quotes around the word "grenade" which is because it is noting it fires hand grenades, which as I pointed out is not the normal use of the term. It thoroughly agrees with what I've been saying; these devices are light mortars which happen to be able to use a specific type of hand grenade as ammunition, which makes them "grenade" launchers in a sense other than the one normally used. As it says, in so many words, under modern weapon classifications both weapons would be regarded as lightweight mortars. Indeed, later on it specifically describes the Type 89 as "The rifled-tube Type 89 (1929) 50mm mortar" and states it "represented a significant advance in Japanese small mortar technology," I don't see how anyone who actually read the text rather than skimming it would arrive at your bizarre misreading of it.

At no point have I said "knee mortar" is the correct designation, I have said the weapon is functionally a light mortar. That's a strawman you've got going there.

It would also be nice if you addressed your posts to me rather than some invisible audience. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Cosmetic feature?

The Wikipedia article on Assault weapons says that grenade launchers are a "cosmetic feature". That's based on citations from the NRA, et al. This article and that one should agree, one way or another, about whether this feature is cosmetic or not. If they are cosmetic, then this article should say so. If they are not, then that article shoul not say so. Let's be consistent. Felsic2 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

What the Federal Assault Weapons Ban actually referred to (or rather, could not possibly be referring to anything other than) was any rifle with a muzzle designed to launch rifle grenades and / or an integral grenade launching sight (specifically aimed at the SKS, from what I can tell, but potentially also dinging anything with a 22mm muzzle device which isn't specifically designed to be incompatible with STANAG rifle grenades), since any actual grenade launcher would not be the same weapon as the rifle (having its own serial number) and would already be covered as a Title II Destructive Device due to the barrel diameter, as would any explosive ammunition for it (the later also being subject to stringent laws regarding the storage of high explosives). This is, in effect, a cosmetic feature since actually firing a rifle grenade requires that you own a transferable rifle grenade to fire, and those aren't exactly common on the civilian market and require their own Destructive Device permit (as bombs / grenades / similar devices). For rifle grenades it's probably more than the rate for transferable HE M203 rounds ($400-500 each + $200 Title II fee and good luck finding one). For most civilians, it's just a thing on the rifle they'll never use, much like a bayonet lug is a cosmetic feature on a civilian rifle since civilian charges with fixed bayonets are notoriously rare and require you to actually own a compatible bayonet, which most people don't.

(What the NRA actually means, though, is that none of the parts listed in AWBs are functional parts of the weapon, they have no effect on the operation of the weapon's action, and this is a truthful enough statement: it's only when taken out of context that it sounds silly since of course a pistol grip does more than just look nice. As the Washington Post puts it, "Guns that fit these categories may look more dangerous; but they aren’t more dangerous." One thing that really helps in discussions like this is to un-bury your childhood reflex to ask "why?" of everything: why does the NRA say this is a "cosmetic feature" and what do they mean that as opposed to?).

I'm not really sure how other AWBs that include flare launchers in the list of banned features are supposed to work since the launcher is a second weapon with its own serial number and doesn't have to be attached to a parent rifle, it strikes me that legislation just amounts to a de facto ban of underbarrel 37mm launchers. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this information could be added, with sources, to the Assault Weapon article. It leaves the impression that the grenade launcher is merely a cosmetic feature. However it's discussed, the two articles should not contradict each other. Felsic2 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

It is a cosmetic feature under the definition that article gives for one, but it's such a minor point that it doesn't really require repeating on every individual article: the fact that a rifle grenade launching muzzle device has no real effect on the functionality of the rifle it's attached to while it's in the hands of a civilian who will probably never see a 22mm rifle grenade is just common sense. As assault weapon notes, even that notorious pro-gun group the, um, Violence Policy Center agreed that the changes made to rifles to avoid the AWB were "purely cosmetic." Herr Gruber (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, then that's what we can say. Felsic2 (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Which you then went on to not say any of. Like I said, it's only when you add "someone says this is a cosmetic feature" without saying what they mean by that that it's anything other than stating the obvious. You, um...added that people say it's a cosmetic feature without saying what they mean by that. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, since you know what "they mean by that", then you go ahead and add that. I'll restore the sourced material in the meantime. Please don't delete it again. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. Felsic2 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

But as I said, noting it is completely unnecessary. You haven't actually addressed that point at all. Herr Gruber (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Whatever. You don't like this material, depsite being sourced. Apparently, you feel that the most important thing you can do to improve the article is to delete it. Yet, there are big sections of the article with few or no sources. Let's see of we can't get rid of unverifiable material before we worry about the verifiable stuff. Felsic2 (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like this material, it's that it's meaningless and doesn't add anything but confusion: I honestly can't think of a way to incorporate that statement into the paragraph and have it flow naturally since people saying it's a cosmetic feature doesn't have anything to do with the legality of grenade launchers, which is what the rest of the paragraph is about. Just being sourced doesn't mean material is relevant, you establish that through discussion. That's the thing where you don't ignore your opponent, cast aspersions on their motives and TL:DR posts that they put actual effort into. So I ask you: why do you think this needs to be here? Herr Gruber (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

We have a section on its legality and place in culture and society. This is material about that aspect of grenade launchers. Why groups like the "Gun Owners of America" or the Jefferson State Shooting Association consider it a cosmetic feature is beyond me.[11][12] But it's a noted and notable description that affects its legality. Felsic2 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material

There are many value judgments, statistics, and other types of information which should be cited, per WP:V. There are only eight citations for the whole article.

• Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

I'm going to see if I can find sources for more of this material. What I can't find I'll tag. Felsic2 (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The fact that you can source this out-of-context statement does not mean it has any relevance to a section on the legality of grenade launchers, since "some people call this a cosmetic features" has nothing to do with whether or not they are legal. Any detailed explanation of what they actually mean by that would create an irrelevant tangent in the article, and once the context is adequately provided, the statement "an integral rifle grenade launching device is held to be a cosmetic feature (def: "something that does not affect the operating characteristics of the weapon") on a civilian rifle in a country where live rifle grenades are rare, legally restricted, incredibly expensive and difficult to acquire" is more or less a tautology.

In addition, the fact that I haven't got around to sourcing this article properly does not mean something you can source automatically belongs here. You might want to look at WP:POINT, particularly point 3 (and 5, in spirit).

Also, a company that makes 37mm flare launchers is a pretty good source on what the law is regarding 37mm flare launchers, especially when they're referencing ATF rulings that people could look up to see if they were lying (protip: they're not), and getting their customers arrested doesn't exactly help their sales or public image. Your idea that company websites are not reliable sources of information about things that company actually does is not in line with any policy. Indeed, if you recall, the RS noticeboard actually said that War-Lock website could be used as an RS regarding AR15 calibres, and this one's far better than that one since it's a page directly explaining the thing being referenced. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the additions. I'll add back the "cosmetic" part, as that's part of the story.

What makes this a reliable source? http://www.ordnancegroup.com/the-law-and-37mm-launchers.html You left a comment, "No, it's a perfectly reliable source for the claim made, a company that makes 37mm launchers is going to know the law regarding them." I'm not gonna touch that comment. There have gotta be better sources than that. Felsic2 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's part of the story, it seems limited in scope to the AWB article where arguments about what these bits and pieces are or are not are relevant. The fact that people say it's a cosmetic feature has nothing to do with it being legal or not, as I've said several times now; you can't just re-assert that it belongs here as if I haven't responded to you at all.

And it's a perfectly good secondary source on the ATF ruling, being a company that is affected by said ruling reporting on it; they would have to know the law regarding the things they sell, it's like quoting, say, a car dealer on what kinds of paperwork are needed to buy a new car: it makes sense in context and is a secondary source on the legislation and so better than just a blank quoting of it from the relevant department (I also added the primary source of ATF ruling 95-3 hosted on ATF.gov, which backs up what Ordnance Group LLC says). If you're "not gonna touch" the argument for it being a good source (or the additional fleshing out of it in the post right above yours), then I can't really deal with any misgivings you may have because I don't know what they are. Herr Gruber (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

This article is not about US civilian firearm legislation/regulations

This is primarily a technical article about a class of military weapons. A large section about civilian ownership rules in only one country is of very little relevance. This website is not the Yankopedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, it could use a more global perspective, though I don't know of many other countries where civilians can own grenade launchers at all. I also need to work in somewhere that some non-English languages have a much broader definition of the term, and that, say, in German the category Granatwerfer also includes mortars. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I eventually got around to changing the section heading to explicitly state what it really is about. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

opening sentence

The opening sentence, especially "is a weapon that fires a specially-designed large-caliber projectile, often with an explosive, smoke or gas warhead" doesn't really distinguish grenade launchers from other types of weapon which would fit the same definition, such as an artillary piece or cannon. Maybe specifying something about the shell's velocity, average size, or trajectory of travel would make this less ambiguous? DirkJandeGeer (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)