Talk:M79 grenade launcher/Archive 1

Old talk
Well, my source was not reliable at all, so I'm not surprised things were changed, I just felt that there should be more so I made a spot decision. As for the field expedient "UBGL," this is common lore, with roughly no support. The closest I've ever seen is a shortened M79 so that it could be easily strapped to a ruck sack. That's it. -- Thatguy96 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture references
I have moved the list of references to films/tv/video games to a new pages and replaced the section with a link to it. This is to keep it the article clean and uniform with other similar articles and List of firearms in video games pages. (see Heckler & Koch MP5 / Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture or MAC-10 / MAC-10 in popular culture) for similar ...in popular culture pages) and also to help with inclusion into the List of firearms in films. Deon Steyn 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If popular culture references: include the film Casualties of War and the New Yorker article about Max Eriksson whose launched grenade hit a hand grenade mid-flight. The film does it fast, too fast, but the article does note this collision. 198.123.56.141 (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphan control
Deathbunny 15:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/M79 Grenade launcher
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/M79 grenade launcher
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/M-79 Grenade launcher
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/M-79 grenade launcher
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/M79
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/M-79
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Thumper
 * Special:Whatlinkshere/Blooper

Operation Iraqi Freedom
I'd like to see a source on the M79's use in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I very much doubt that anyone is still running around with them. Furthermore clearing IED's with a M79 is a very easy way to get yourself killed. Especially if you were to unknowingly shoot a daisy chained IED. It's happened and good men have been killed doing it. There's a very good reason why you call EOD to have IED's cleared. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ultratone85 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Done -- Thatguy96 16:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the link. That's an interesting article.  I'm not entirely sure why they chose to use the M-79 over the more readily available M203.  I also still contend that clearing IED's that way can be very dangrous.  I have heard of soldiers use M203s for IRL clearance, but that dosen't run the same risk.  What I found most interesting about this article is it was written about a Marine unit from Camp Blue Diamond, Iraq.  Blue Diamond is a US Army/Iraqi Army Camp 5 minutes outside of Camp Ramadi (Where I'm deployed to this very moment).  I've never seen anyone here walking around with an M79 (but then again this article was written almost 3 years ago).  But I have seen a Marines walking around with MGL 40s.  I wonder if they were ultimately chosen for use over the M-79 in an IED clearance capacity. Ultratone85 04:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Way late to this party, but... "I'm not entirely sure why they chose to use the M-79 over the more readily available M203." The M79 tends to be more accurate, has better sights, and a slightly longer range.  The point of using a grenade launcher to pop IED's isn't always to set them off, but to use the charge to disrupt the IED and allow for safer disposal elsewhere.  Even if it does go off, the person setting it off is usually 1) prepared and 2) behind appropriate, blast-mitigating cover. 206.27.165.146 (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The reissue of the M79 in the USMC and in the US Army was an interim solution, just like the reissue of M14s. As far as I know the USMC especially now with the M32 has stopped using them, and I'm pretty sure the Army has as well.  I don't think the Army replaced it with anything, but just felt that it wasn't the best option.  On a side note, the M14 and its various cousins are pretty much all replaced now as well, almost universally with KAC SR-25 derivatives (USMC DMRs -> Mk 11 Mod 1, SEAL/USASF M21/M25 -> Mk 11 Mod 0/1 and XM110/M110, US Army reissued M14s -> XM110/M110). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thatguy96 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Interestingly enough we are still using the M14. In fact just before we deployed our brigade recieved a huge shipment of brand new M14s (semi-automatic only version with both wooden and synthetic stocks).  They were ordered for the use of the Armys' "Squad Designated Marksmans".  The only use I've heard around here of the SR-25 is by the Navy Seals.  Ultratone85 06:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure they're brand new? I have not heard of any new M14s being purchased by any service.  All of the "new" DMR, EBR, and other EBR-type rifles currently in service as far as I knew were rebuilds.  The USMC DMRs and USN Mk 14 Mod 0 EBRs definitly are.  The USMC recently decided to purchase Mk 11 Mod 1s with the specific objective of using these to replace existing M14-type weapons still in service.  The Army has continued to make ovetures about eventually replacing all of its M14-type weapons either with the SDM-R or the M110.  I would still say its designed as an interim solution at best, since other services seem to be heading in this direction and its reissue at least in the Army was prompted by the need to get necessary kit to new "designated marksman." -- Thatguy96 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They were so new they still had their packing grease. I've never heard of any of these so called "Squad Desiganted Marksmanship Rifles" in any service.  Before the M14s were given to us, Designated Marksmen used regular M-4s or M16s.  Literally stock rifles.  Recently, as the ACOG became a common issue item, they would give them to "designated marksmen" (but that dosen't make them anything special lots of NCOs get issued ACOGs whether they've had the class or not).  I've been told before by guys who deployed early in OIF that they were trained as Designated Marksman using M145 low power machine gun scopes, and even deployed to Iraq like that. I've never heard of any of these fancy SDM-R models.  Neither do I know anyone who has.  I'm not sure why it would be advantageous to have them.  The M16 can shoot out to 500-600 meters just fine and the M14 can shoot even further and offers the advantage of a more powerful round.  I don't know why you'd want anything else as it is.  The only problem we have with our M14s is that the scopes and scope mounts they purchased for them are definitely lowest bidder.  Can't hold a zero for shit.  Many of our designated markmen completed the course using iron sites.  And some later ended up buying their own commercially sold mounts and scopes.  Ultratone85 13:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I had not heard of anything that suggested new M14s were actually being purchased.  Could this have been a COTS thing by your unit at some level?  Also, I direct you to the following wiki articles:
 * United States Army Squad Designated Marksman Rifle
 * U.S. Marine Corps Squad Advanced Marksman Rifle
 * -- Thatguy96 18:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

March 4, 2007 edits
I filled out the infobox.

I changed sawn-off to sawed-off. Sawn-off is British English. Sawed-off is American English. The M79 is an American-made weapon, so Wikipedia Style says it should follow American English.

I reorganized the history section so it's chronological. I also added more details about Project Niblick as well a list of countries that have used the M79.

The design section said the front sight is a leaf-type, which is incorrect. The folding rearsight is a leaf-type. I deleted some sentences because the information was already stated in the first paragraph or is in the infobox. I deleted the line about the M79 putting out a steady stream of effective fire, since it obviously contradicts the previous assertion of its inability to put out a steady volume of fire.

I added an operation section.

I think the ammunition section should be eliminated. Though the M79 can fire some rounds that the M203 cannot, all of the ammunition mentioned in the article may be fired by the M203 as well. The M203 can fire the M651 CS, M1006 sponge, and M1029 rubber bullets. The M406 round described in detail in the article is the standard 40mm ammunition in use today and is in no way particular to the M79.

I deleted links off the See Also section. Military technology and equipment and the various lists are generic and could apply to any firearm article. CZW SAG-30 and MEI HELLHOUND aren't particularly relevant either, other than they're grenade launchers and there's a for that. Grenade launcher and M203 are already linked in the article. I added the HK69 because as a stand-alone grenade launcher, it's a comparable weapon.

I deleted links off the External links section. [ http://www.thevietnam-database.co.uk/Platoons/Grenadier/Gm79.htm ] is a dead link. The Martin Electronics Hellhound stuff is just advertising MEI's Hellhound rounds. Links about 40mm ammunition in general should be on the 40 mm grenade page, not the M79 page. Pettifogger 08:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit is an often-overlooked item on an otherwise fine weapon. I had extensive experience with the M79 in Vietnam, and my left thumb still has the two scars (slow learner!) from the rear sight. Stateside training warned us of this characteristic of the M79, but in the heat, and haste, of a contact situation this was often forgotten. The hand just "naturally" goes to the stock where the sight clamps on, and it generally took a few rounds for the lesson to sink in. Rhilliam 16:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comments are welcome, however the do not belong in the article. While they may be true, they represent original research.  PLEASE before you attack me again, read the article on Wikipedia policy.  If you feel your comments are warrented here or in the M16 rifle article, reference them so they conform.  I'm not entirely sure why you're picking a fight with me. I'm not against you, I'm merely a watchdog for policy.--Asams10 14:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack you? Is that your ego talking? My additions were NOT original research or aneccdotal information, just TRUE HISTORY. And I get called a liar, cheat, and vicious attacker! You have obviously never handled any of the weapons you proclaim to know so much about. It is no wonder at that your articles get taken off the "good articles" list. I had almost ONE MILLION references, and more waiting, on the M16 additions, but you remove them for NO VALID REASON! It is also plain that I have forgotten more about the M16 or M79 than you will ever know. With all the history revisionists around, such as yourself and John Kerry, that the real, and much more interesting than you present, facts about these weapons, and Vietnam War history, will be swept away to satisfy over-inflated egos such as yours.68.63.75.53 19:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

OOPS! I forgot...68.63.75.53 19:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Anybody that's interested should have a look at this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-31/f2331_9.htm

This was the first hit. It's down the page a bit. Also seems to me to be an unimpeachable verification. There was a bunch of others I didn't look at. Rhilliam 22:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Milcor Version
Can anyone find out anything on the Milcor Version of the M-79. I have seen what is claimed to be a South African modified M-79 although I can't confirm it.World of Guns mentions a version made by Milcor but there is no real information and I don't personally trust the source.


 * Jane's Infantry Weapons has had an entry for a M79 modification package by Milkor. It has an OEG sight, a R1 (FAL) pistol grip and a R4 (Galil) folding buttstock installed upside down. D.E. Watters 00:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to add that information to the page as it is a significant re-design and upgrade. Paulwharton 17:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverse copyvio
I confirmed that gunnersden.com copied the Wikipedia article. This is the revision of M79 grenade launcher which has all the material in February 2007 (in slightly different format though). In October 2007, gunnersden showed up with an exact copy as shown here: after copy. The previous edition which did not have it is in Feruary 2007: before copy. Sometime between the two the wikipedia article was copyedited and the prose improved, and that edition is what got copied. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent Use by Australian Forces
Don't know whether its worth noting but the M79 seems to have found some popularity again in afghanistan with Australian soldiers due to their increased range and versatility over the M203. Photo on the Australian defense image library (dated 11/8/2012) http://images.defence.gov.au/20120811adf8178707_125.jpg On a side note I've been told that new users are susceptible to damage to the webbing between the thumb and finger when holding the M79 with the thumb over the top (see photo) due to the safety catch slicing skin during firing from the recoil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.241.157 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M79 grenade launcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080107090628/http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/d50a120f00de543d8525627b006b1fec?OpenDocument to http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/factfile.nsf/7e931335d515626a8525628100676e0c/d50a120f00de543d8525627b006b1fec?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090222181640/http://www.exercito.gov.br/01inst/armtmuni/lancagrana.htm to http://www.exercito.gov.br/01inst/armtmuni/lancagrana.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M79 grenade launcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609223235/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-01/25/c_13149268.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-01/25/c_13149268.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Usage by China
In this series of edits:, the claim is made that China used the M79 in the Sino-Vietnamese War and Sino-Vietnamese conflicts. The source given is:. Using Google translate, it looks to me like the source says that Vietnam was using M79s and that China captured some and studied them, but did not use them in combat nor produce copies of them or their ammunition. I've tagged it with "not in citation given". --IamNotU (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

fact error, production ended in USA in 1971?
hello everyone, i dont understand anything, the production ended in 1971 only in USA, but is still produced or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalininos (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)