Sawed off M79

[HorseSoldier]

It was designed primarily as a defensive battle carry round for M79 gunners operating in such thick jungle or similar that they might have to engage close range bad guys without the rifle armed members of their team/squad being able to do that for them. Kind of like the M1 carbine compared to the alternative of a handgun -- the round isn't ideal, but it's preferable to drawing a 1911 from a leather flap holster and engaging with that at spitting distance.

(And I think it was designed on a pretty fast timeline due to an urgent sort of need, followed by the whole idea losing relevance once the M203 and its experimental predecessors started showing up on the scene. Had it been subject to more refinement and development, the end result might have been more impressive. The flechette round might have done just that, but I don't think I've ever heard much official info on it.)

[Legbreaker]

And that's a major concern of mine too about using the sawn off GL in that way. There's just so many better options out there.
Even the noise of it firing is nothing compared to a 12 gauge, barely more than a loud "pop" which isn't going to scare so much as a mouse in most cases.
However, there's nothing wrong with experimenting, which is what I believe they were doing when it was first cut down.

With regard to the actual round itself, my guess is that the 40mm is severely limited by the felt recoil and muzzle velocity issues. The weapon itself is designed for a very slow moving projectile, while a proper shotgun (of any gauge) is designed for higher chamber pressures and therefore higher velocity projectiles.
If the 40mm was designed for higher pressures and velocities, it would be devastating, but, unfortunately (or fortunately if you're the one firing it and soaking up the recoil), it's not.

[HorseSoldier]

And for the most part even the special operations units in Vietnam, much less the less-special guys like LRRPs/Rangers, mostly had to figure out how to make do stuff already in the inventory they could adapt to their needs, without much of a R&D establishment to get them ideal tools for the tasks at hand (+/- some of the stuff the SEALs got out of China Lake). Even something as relatively simple as field gear was mostly modified or repurposed USGI stuff (or things like captured NVA rucksacks) rather than best-answer sort of solutions.

If the same guys had been at the sharp end with the modern R&D apparatus available to SOCOM and the conventional side of things there'd be a optimized solution on the ground within six months that functioned better than an M79 pistol. Back then, guys made do as best they could with much less well thought out support.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Apparently the 40mm flechette was abysmal in performance, the individual flechettes were turned aside by thick leaves and they didn't always hit point first (meaning they wouldn't penetrate at all but would hit side on and bounce off).

As for the low power of the 40mm APers, I can see why this is so, it appears to be little more than a truncated buckshot round. The following website shows it in all it's (less than) glory
http://cartridgecollectors.org/cmo/cmo09sep.htm

Vietnam proved an interesting point in weapons/equipment development.
At the start of US involvement there were still many WW2 era weapons in use and a lot of the gear we take for granted now had its period of development or refinement during/in Vietnam (e.g. remote sensors to detect ground movement, wider issue of NVDs and so on).
I've seen photos in some books showing US special operations guys carrying MP40 SMGs, others in blue jeans spraypainted with black stripes. A lot of the guys at the sharp end probably ended up being quite innovative simply because they needed to be.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The following website shows it in all it's (less than) glory
http://cartridgecollectors.org/cmo/cmo09sep.htm

That is just...pathetic!

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

Only works if you actually know where the enemy is - the Chechens didn't show themselves all the time. Instead they'd raise the rubble just enough to allow a firing slit, take the shot then drop the rubble if they thought they were in danger.
Again, I'm not criticizing the weapon or it's intended employment, I was criticizing the way that Fox news reported on it.

That is where the Thermal Imager on top of this thing comes into play and the 500 meter point target capability.

That Chechen would be a hot spot in that pile of rubble, at night, and American Infantry prefers night fighting with each soldier wearing a PVS-14.

It is a slow phase in, however the PVS-14s replacement is get to the Troop Leaders at platoon level. This new widget combines a Thermal Imager and passive night vision into one view. The advantages of both operating simultaneously.

http://www.nightvision.com/products/...ments/ENVG.pdf

Do the Russians even field a Man Portable Thermal sight? Are Russian Thermals on Armor?

[Legbreaker]

Peripheral vision must absolutely SUCK with that...

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Peripheral vision must absolutely SUCK with that...

You only wear it over one eye. It is a Monocle.

[Legbreaker]

Of course, however you can't exactly see much over to your right can you....
Might as well be wearing an eye patch in that regard.
I'm not saying at all it's a bad piece of kit, provided it's not relied upon too much and proper skills and training ignored.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Of course, however you can't exactly see much over to your right can you....
Might as well be wearing an eye patch in that regard.
I'm not saying at all it's a bad piece of kit, provided it's not relied upon too much and proper skills and training ignored.

Are you pulling my leg?

[Legbreaker]

No, I'm talking about the blind spot the wearer obviously must have over to their right. Sure they can see quite nicely though the unit to their front, but what chance have they got to see anything to their side?

[Panther Al]

Actually, Pretty good. Worn the 14's, and they have the same basic layout. Of course, you don't wear them right *against* your face, though it does perform better that way. When we patrolled with them we had them adjusted so there was half a inch or so from our face, allowing us to look around them. All a matter of training and using them long enough to know the tricks. Besides, it takes a half second to flip them up out of the way if you have to.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Of course, you don't wear them right *against* your face, though it does perform better that way. When we patrolled with them we had them adjusted so there was half a inch or so from our face, allowing us to look around them. All a matter of training and using them long enough to know the tricks.

And there's the training issue I was talking about. If a user was to wear the unit against the eye, or rely soley upon the unit for their night vison (neglecting sound and ambient light) they can be a very bad thing. Used properly as Al has mentioned, they're good. The danger with it, as with any tech really, is an over reliance upon it to solve all your problems and neglecting the tried and true skills developed by centuries of warfare.

My comment on the blind spot is from the point of view of somebody who didn't have the luxury of night vision back when I was in. At best we had one whole rifle mounted scope assigned to the Company, and even that one was on loan from another unit. If you didn't have your eye pressed against it, restricting your field of vision to a narrow "tube", the unit was virtually worthless.

I think it's worth remembering that many of us ex-soldiers didn't have the exposure to the gadgets todays soldiers get to play with.