Discord-logo.jpg Join our Discord!
If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here.

Talk:Heckler & Koch AG grenade launcher series

From Internet Movie Firearms Database - Guns in Movies, TV and Video Games
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Additional Images

Airsoft L85A2 fitted with Airsoft L123A2 grenade launcher. This can be distinguished from a genuine L123A2 by the presence of pins on the pistol grip, the location of the front screw on the barrel shroud, and the lack of the wedge shaped piece which partially shrouds the top of the trigger guard on the real launcher.


From what I can tell from looking around, if it doesn't have a folding front grip it's not an M320, it's either an XM320 (the prototypes don't look to have had it) or an AG36. Vangelis2 12:31, 13 March 2011 (MSK)

AG-C and AG-NL variants also don't have the vert grip. Spartan198 11:39, 28 December 2011 (CST)
AG-C can have the vert grip, but if it does it's mounted to a front rail rather than directly to the launcher. Newer AG36 also has it, mounted directly to the launcher (Wikipedia has a picture of a Latvian soldier with one like this on a G36) but the AG36 is attached to a special handguard so that's the giveaway there. Evil Tim 11:59, 28 December 2011 (CST)

Battlefield 3?

The M320 is in Battlefield 3. Why isn't it on this page? Jeddostotle7 9:07, 1 February 2012 (PST)

PEQ box vs radial sight on a carbine

Does the radial sight prevent mounting of PEQs on the top rail of an M4's handguard or is it offset enough to fit both? Spartan198 (talk) 09:12, 26 October 2013 (EDT)

It wwas developed for the US-Military, and the first point it had to fullfil was full compatibility with AR15-pattern rifles.

Also, on the HK-Website, it is shown being attached to an M4. So there must be a way to do that without too much fiddling about.--Maxmali (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2014 (EST)

I'm pretty sure the standard ladder sight stands out enough to the right to clear any kind of PEQ you would put on top. With the Day/Night Sight (DNS) I think that if it was mounted next to the PEQ there is a possibility that it would block off access to the battery compartment of the DNS, or possibly even stop it from being set with much of an incline. However, possibly for this very reason, the DNS mounts to the M320 farther forward than the standard ladder sights, so that the rear of it doesn't protrude back past the back of the front sight block (see here for a pic). Here is a pic of both the ladder sight and DNS mounted to an M4 with an AN/PEQ-2 and as you can see both sights are clear of it (having both mounted does turn the rifle into a bit of a monster at the front end though, pretty much tripling the width of a bare M4). --commando552 (talk) 06:53, 7 November 2014 (EST)


How on earth can this be described as an "updated version" of the HK69? They're two totally different designs. You wouldn't describe the M32 as an "updated version" of the M79, would you? The M16 as an "updated version" of the M14? How about the M1 Abrams as an "updated version" of the M60 Patton? Or IMFDb as an "updated version" of Wikipedia? Spartan198 (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2014 (EDT)

The placement is odd since we DO have a page for the HK69. I'm going to move it there. --Funkychinaman (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2014 (EDT)
From H&K webpage of the HK169: "The HK169 was developed by Heckler & Koch as a state of the art successor of the well-known HK69 to meet all the requirements for modern warfare or law enforcement applications." Also, I put it here because it is basically a GLM with a folding stock instead of the collapsing one. It is closer to the GLM than the HK69. - bozitojugg3rn4ut (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2014 (EDT)
"Successor of" and "updated version of" are different. Either way, I've moved it to the HK69 page. --Funkychinaman (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2014 (EDT)
No, I think it should stay on this page since it is just a GLM in a dedicated standalone configuration. I only found it odd that it was referred to as an "updated" HK69 because the two systems have no mechanical relation whatsoever. Spartan198 (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2014 (EDT)
The HK169 should definitely not be on the HK69, it is a successor in name only. Aside from a similar name and the round it fires, it bears absolutely not relation whatsoever to the original HK69, it is simply a variant of the AG-C fitted into a stock, so I think it should go on that page. On the topic, does anybody else think these two pages should be merged? They are essentially the same weapon and in other situations like this we would normally put them on the same page separated by sections. --commando552 (talk) 05:53, 11 May 2014 (EDT)
I was just looking into it, and it appears that there is now the M320 A1 which is being used by the US Army which has the grip attached to a rail, making it exactly the same as the current model of the H&K GLM, so there is in fact no difference between the two. Also, just to throw something else in the mix, I don't think the picture of the M320 fitted to the HK416 is actually a true M320, but rather the AG416 which is a proprietary variant for the HK416 which attaches via a cross pin at the front of the handguard.
Correction, turns out that M320A1 is simply the designation for the launcher fitted with M4 mounting brackets, as opposed to the M320 which has the M16 mounting brackets. In that case, it appears that there is no different designation for the launchers that have the vertical grip fixed to the barrel and the ones with the rail. --commando552 (talk) 12:16, 15 May 2014 (EDT)
Maybe we can merge all of them under a "Heckler & Koch Grenade Launchers" page? --Funkychinaman (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2014 (EDT)
I think we should merge the AG36, AG-C/EGLM and M320 pages (also adding in the HK169 here), but keep the HK69A1 with HK79 one separate as it is a totally different system. The only problem is, I then don't know what to call it as something like "Heckler & Koch Grenade Launchers" sounds like it should include the HK69. I think we should probably call it the "Heckler & Koch GLM series" or something like that, as the GLM is sort of the core weapon that all of the others are variants of. If you want to be technical I believe that the first one that was actually made was the AG36, but from a naming and categorisation standpoint I think GLM works better. I must admit though, I am pretty confused as to what the different variants of this actually are and in what way they differ as there is a lot of incorrect and contradictory information out there, particularly in terms of how they mount, even on the HK USA site. Does anyone know, is there a model of this that actually just mounts directly to the 6 o'clock rail on a guns forearm, and not to any other part? The M320 mounts via brackets which replace the bottom half of the handguard much like on the M203, and the AG416 mounts to a rail but must be secured by a cross pin through a hole built into the HK416/417. Some places talk about the AG-C/EGLM as though it mounts directly to a rail (I think this may just by the old/alternate name for what they call the GLM now) but I can find no specifics on how exactly it does so. I think most of the variants can actually just change into others by swapping out the mounting hardware anyway. The problem is that most airsoft replicas seem to get it wrong, with the launcher just locking via the lever that adjusts the stock, but on a real launcher I doubt that this would be up to the job of managing the recoil (hence the pin at the front of the AG416 and why the recoil of the M320 is taken directly by the barrel nut). --commando552 (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2014 (EDT)
I say just stick with AG36, since that's the base model that all others are derived from. Spartan198 (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2014 (EDT)
The problem with that is that today that doesn't really make sense in terms of coming up with a proper name for the series. Also, I think the origin of the AG36 is that it was designed as the companion the the XM8 which would actually mean by that rationale that we should call it the "XM320 series". --commando552 (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2014 (EDT)
The XM320 was developed from the AG36, not the other way around. Spartan198 (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2014 (EDT)
Do you have a source or something with dates, as I have always heard that the original grenade launcher was the XM320 developed for the XM8 program. If you look at photos of the XM320 on the XM8 you will see that there are some differences such as a slightly different pistol grip and trigger guard shape which are not there on the AG36 or the M320. To me it would make more sense that the XM320 was an original version that was developed on, as opposed to having the original AG36 design, changing it for some reason, and then changing it back when it was developed into the M320. --commando552 (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2014 (EDT)
[1] In May 2005, an announcement was made regarding the selection of the Heckler and Koch system as the winner of an open competition to provide a new 40mm grenade launching system. Designated the XM320, the system has been modified from the prior AG-C system to fit the needs of the U.S. Army. Even the AG36 page here on IMFDb states that the AG-C served as the basis for the XM320. So the AG36 is the base model. Spartan198 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2014 (EST)
Most likely they just had some silly requirements for the XM320 which got dropped when it no longer needed to be a space grenade launcher for a space rifle. Or HK were trying to make the US pay a grand extra per launcher for a rejigged grip, that seems kind of their style after all. Evil Tim (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2014 (EST)

That source is clearly not the complete story, as it makes no reference to the experimental grenade launcher made for the XM8. I would agree that the M320 as adopted was based on the AG36/AG-C as this was the current version at the time. However, for whatever reason I have always been of the belief that the AG36 itself was originally designed as a component of the XM8 program, and there are other sources online that believe as such: "The 40mm single-shot, breech-loading Heckler & Koch HK AG36 ("Anbaugranatwerfer 36") was designed as a possible grenade-launching solution for the next possible American assault rifle. It was further developed and eventually adopted for use by the German Army to complement its HK G36 series of assault rifles which were themselves introduced in 1996" and "It originally appeared as Heckler & Koch's candidate for the US Army's Enhanced Grenade Launcher requirement, evaluated for use with the XM8 and FN SCAR rifles" for example. I and others could very well be wrong though, but the problem is that I cannot find any dates for when the XM320 for the XM8 was designed, or when the AG36 was introduced in its final form (I know that the G36 appeared in 1995 but I do not believe the AG36 was around yet, with the G36 instead relying initially on rifle grenades).

As for the slight differences between the XM8 launcher and the AG36, if you look at photos available of the original XM320 (here is a good example) it is not just a slightly re-jigged grip but the whole frame is slightly different. To me the most telling factor that implies that the XM320 might be the original design is the trigger guard, which on the AG36 is enlarged at the front to make it easier to use the trigger and barrel release with gloved hands. To make the trigger guard smaller would be a totally retrograde step, and nonsensical even in terms of government work.

Lastly, I wouldn't trust what we say on this site as a source as we are far from infallible, case in point that same paragraph says that the M320 attaches via a rail which is absolutely not true, with both the M320 and M320A1 attaching with a bracket to the barrel nut just like the M203, with the only difference being rather than a loop around the barrel at the front it locks on to the bayonet lug. Regardless, my point (I think, this was a conversation from 6 months ago after all) about not calling a potential combined page solely after the AG36 was not so much about the fact that it may not have been the original launcher (even if it wasn't, the XM320 would have basically been just a pre production prototype anyway), but rather that the name is not really representative as a lot of the launchers listed would be other things like the M320, AG-C, AG-HK416 or AG-SA80. --commando552 (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2014 (EST)

According to the SA defence article, part of the M320 requirement for the XM8 was that it be an off-the-shelf system, though, so I doubt HK could have entered a completely novel one. Could your source be referring to HK doing the early design work on the AG36 for the ACR program in the late 80s, perhaps?
I was the one who wrote the description, BTW, best I could manage at making sense of what the distinction between models was. I certainly wouldn't regard it as the final word on the subject. Evil Tim (talk) 11:10, 7 November 2014 (EST)
Well, I've emailed HK, I'll see if they get back to me. Evil Tim (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2014 (EST)
Thanks, am curious as to what they will say. I would take the answer either way with a very slight pinch of salt though, as bear in mind that it will probably be somebody in the PR department who answers your question who might not necessarily know what they are talking about. I remember once bozitojugg3rn4ut emailed AI to confirm a possible image of the Arctic Warfare Covert (current one for the AWC on the AI AW page) and they replied that it was, when I am 99.9% sure it is actually some kind of custom AE as it had the round receiver and different bolt.
The confusion with the SA defence article is that they appear to be unaware of (or ignoring) the XM320 of the XM8 and that the M320 they are talking about is the one for the M16 and M4. The competition for an OTS launcher they are talking about only started in 2004 well after the launcher for the XM8 was developed and when the whole program was in its final death throes. At this point the AG-C in its current form had been developed by H&K, so it was an OTS launcher at this point. Even if I am totally wrong, there is still the confusing situation that there are two different launchers that were called the XM320, the first of which is the one that was fitted to the XM8, whilst the second is this one which is the prototype version of the current M320 which had no forward grip and a longer barrel (basically just an OTS AG-C with the potential for a sliding stock).
I think the way the fitting of the different models work (in general terms) is that the AG-C (and some other other ones like the AG-HK416 depending on how HK eff around with the model names) mounts to a rail with some kind of additional forward locking point such as a cross pin through the gas block for the AG-HK416 or a bayonet lug mount for the AG-C on a Colt/Diemaco (such as British L17A1), the M320 mounts to an M16 with the bottom handguard removed kind of like an M203 with bolt on adapters, the M320A1 mounts to an M4 the same as the M320 to the M16 but with different front and rear mounts, and the AG36 and AG-SA80 (L123A1/2/3) mount with whole replacement handguard. --commando552 (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2014 (EST)
No reply, I guess I suck. Evil Tim (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2015 (EST)
Pretty sure they hate you, too. Spartan198 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2018 (EDT)

US-produced M320s

Looks like Capco is going to be making some of these for the military, too. [2] Spartan198 (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2018 (EDT)

Do Not Sell My Personal Information