far as I can tell

This discussion will go nowhere. For now let's agree that this question is probably more complex than any of us have anywhere close to sufficient qualifications to make any meaningful arguments.

worst case they can add a new muzzle device

the only reason you say that is cause you're wrong but ok

Man fuck you

As I said above.

It might turn out that as with all things, there is no easy answer and the best answer may vary greatly by the resources of a country, the locales it might have to fight in, and the place those grenades might have in the doctrines of the army fielding them.

Deadass I don’t think there’s a right answer yet

All of the systems are effective in their own right, it’s not like some other debates

There probably is no true infantry grenade projector master race.

Or at least, not with the current state of affairs.

Bottle launcher with molotov? 🤔

Bottle fields are based on the following principle: a tank drives through a field and crushes several self-igniting bottles, which cause fires and detonate nearby bottles. The tracks throw the burning fluid up on the tank's armour. The tank is forced to stop and is destroyed by tank destroyer teams. A burning field will also cut off infantry from its tanks.
A bottle field can also be used against infantry that is attacking without tank

The same bottles were launched in this Zuckerman bottle launcher

I thought this was <#508382218612375565>

I guess a minefield isn't exactly a gun

The problem with all of your arguments is that you're all trying to figure out which is the best GL system and none of you are taking in to account the role of the GL.

The best GL is the one that fits the current role best, and so far the current role is force multiplier.

It's like a BAR or StG44 in WWII, except you can stick it on all your rifles

So by that metric, you want something that can fire whatever grenade you have for as little cost, weight, and ergonomic disruption as possible

Standalone launchers are niche weapons with few applicable roles, so fucking up your UBGL to make it ammo compatible with a standalone is fucking dumb.

Just make your standalone GL fire purpose built ammo out of a purpose built launcher like the Mikor MGL.

@RoflTank what about a modern BAR? Mag capacity at 20 or 25 to make things a little more easy on the guy that has to carry it, long barrel for standoff engagements, but in a round like 338 lapua to make up for the smaller mag size? The barrel and reciever would be steel to make sure its durable but other parts of the firearm could be made out of high durability polymer to help cut down on weight more

As a force multiplier I think it could work well. I don't intend it to replace the SAW for whatever nation chooses to adopt it so the spergs that are gonna come around and reeeeee about it not being belt fed can fuck off

But... the magazine size and the weight of the gun are some of the main reasons why the gun is obsolescent

That would be heavy as fuck

Also smaller mags add up over time compaired to just throwing belts in a nutsack pouch

These are the same kinda guys who thought bringing back the M14 for use in Afghanistan was a good idea

We had the EBR because we didnt have enough m110s to give out

Suggesting an open bolt box fed machine gun in 338lap is utter silliness

@Innaswamp and the EBR was a failure

It was so fucking shit

Also increasing the magazine size would make it even less useful, since it will get in the way in prone positions

More rounds of a bigger cartridge

The EBR was neat but ineffective

*neat*

*I like the M14 ok*

I know it’s bad and I shouldn’t but I like it

Muh aesthetic

Muh battle rifle*

And Muh aesthetic