stancrist said:

Good questions.  Your guess is as good as mine.  I'd guess maybe four mags. But, I'm pretty sure the magazine pictured is 6-round capacity, not 10-round.

If we follow that - 24 rounds of grenades vs 210 of 5.56? not buying. give me AGL or 30x113 on tripods in the heavy weapon squad. Or have one in the squad. Or maybe in the Fireteam. But no way can you replace the rifle with it.

 Even your "low end" $4,000 kit is beyond my budget ... and indeed needs ... now.

Many thanks for the detailed reply - very much appreciated.

It's currently pretty far out of my reach too LOL...

That said, it is still nonetheless where the first real "sweet spot" in the cost capability curve can be found. In some ways there's stuff around this cost range which is outright better than what you can find on places like tacswap that have "salty" actual service gear that's made it's way onto the civilian market.

As someone whose always been pretty limited by budget I have a pretty standard methodology for any new thing I get into which involves up to 6 months of leg work and research to see what the smart money is running. The smart money, being a reference to the people who have hard core minmaxed performance to value ratio to get a thing that's at least within the range of usable for doing something professionally at a decent level but still costs like entry level.

It genuinely works for everything from dirt bikes to precision rifles to computer hardware and tools and has helped me actually enjoy all kinds of hobbies that should theoretically be two income tax brackets past my reach.

graylion said:

If we follow that - 24 rounds of grenades vs 210 of 5.56? not buying. no way can you replace the rifle with it.

You may be right.  It just seems like 30 rounds (4 + 1 x 6-rd mags) of 40mm HEAB might be a lot more effective, with higher hit probability, than 210 rounds (6 + 1 x 30-rd mags) of 5.56mm bullets in most infantry combat scenarios.

stancrist said:

It just seems like 30 rounds (4 + 1 x 6-rd mags) of 40mm HEAB might be a lot more effective, with higher hit probability, than 210 rounds (6 + 1 x 30-rd mags) of 5.56mm bullets in most infantry combat scenarios.

That is a really intresting question. But it would propably require extensive testing and analysis.

The potential at least ist there concidering that 210 rds 5,56 are ineffective. The last numbers I saw a rifleman barely can carry enough ammo to statistically achieve one kill.

schnuersi said:

...it would propably require extensive testing and analysis.

Fully agree.  It should be thoroughly tested and analyzed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQnaTrLROCE

RAROG's plastic machine gun belts.

stancrist said:

You may be right.  It just seems like 30 rounds (4 + 1 x 6-rd mags) of 40mm HEAB might be a lot more effective, with higher hit probability, than 210 rounds (6 + 1 x 30-rd mags) of 5.56mm bullets in most infantry combat scenarios.

and no suppressive fire?

graylion said:

and no suppressive fire?

If you want the ability to provide suppressive fire, why would you use rifles?

I do really love the idea of rifle grenades, on paper anyway they are definitely efficient pound for pound (and probably dollar for dollar-------little fuzed shells are pricey, and any kind of timed airburst thingy will be crazy expensive).  I think 40mm grenades are ~50% fuze by both mass and volume.  While obviously easier to hit with if you've got it, even a high velocity 30mm cannon won't punch through the kind of armor a good HEAT rifle grenade will.  Massed frag grenades, or the ability to put up a wall of smoke at a distance without calling anyone...... very attractive. 

My only potential beef/question on rifle grenades: can you actually get most troops to actually use them?  Is there a way to mitigate the recoil?  Or is everyone just a wimp but France, Japan, and some plucky Balkanites?  My impression is that while RGs are vastly more efficient in terms of payload delivered, most militaries have gone the 30-40mm tube route because rifle grenades are just so unpleasant to shoot.