Talk:Mk 19 grenade launcher

Out of Service
Why is this in the "Out of service 'Obsolete'" section?

--The use of the Mk. 19s, if used at all, is currently highly restricted in Iraq, due to the SOFA agreement. Not sure if that would push it into the "Out of Service"/"Obsolete" section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.97.93 (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This contradicts the portion of the article that says that it "is currently in widespread use in the U.S. Military" under the "Service" section&mdash;so is it in service, or not? Velociostrich (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This should not be in either, because it is still in active service throughout the US military. And it's restriction due to SOFA and other consideration does not mean it is not issued or obsolete. We do not use Minuteman III missiles, but that does not mean they are obsolete. Mushrom (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of Service
Why is this in the "Out of service 'Obsolete'" section?

Agreed. Weapon system is in use in multiple theaters, today.

TrumanLA (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Machine gun vs. grenade launcher
Every military ref I've ever seen (TM08521A/09761A-23&P/2A & NAVMC 1017 TAM search for TAMCN E0994(7M)) lists the Mk-19 as a machinegun, and not a grenade launcher. I'm thinking we should change the article's name... ''' bahamut0013 ♠  ♣  17:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The guy above is correct. It is the MK19 Machine gun. General Dynamics which makes the weapon lists it as a machine gun and global security a pretty reliable information site lists it as a machine gun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.198.79 (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

And the Army is confused about it as well. Yet having owned Mk-19's (in the sense that I was hand-receipted between 3-10 MK-19's for about 9 years in the Army,) its employment is different than a machine gun because it fires Grenades on a ballistic trajectory while a Machine gun tends to fire Line of site with a flatter trajectory normally. The employment was different. Never have referred to the Mk-19 as a 'Machine Gun" MK 19, 40-mm grenade machinegun, model (MOD) 3,

https://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_aa/pdf/fm3_22x68.pdf

https://armypubs.us.army.mil/doctrine/DR_pubs/dr_aa/pdf/fm3_22x27.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.79.13.6 (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"Rocketstan"?
Really, what is that? (Look under the "Unlicensed Versions and Imitations of the orginal weapon" section) &mdash;Velociostrich (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture or first hand report ?
In Generation Kill (TV series), a 2008 HBO television miniseries based on the book of the same name by Evan Wright, it is often reported how many difficulties have to face a Mk 19 Humvee mounted gunner, in order to have his weapon operative. Wright, an Iraqi war embedded journalist, presents the struggle in searching for the proper lubricant, often unavailable for his adventure U.S. Marines journey-mates, as they are firmly convinced a correct lubrication is the only effective measure capable to keep the grenade launcher working at a minimum level. At the patrol's and story beginning, the appropriated lubricant was unavailable and soon the Humvee crew Mr.Wright was part, began to complain with their commander in order to have the "real one". Do you think could be interesting to mention this report, maybe in anecdotal way ? --EH101 (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

ranges
To whoever puts up meters. It's actual ranges are in yards not meters, because this weapon was invented before the use of metric system on US made military equipment. It even says on the weapon itself that it's ranges are in yards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.152.19 (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Current TMs all list the ranges in Meters, because that is the standard unit of measure by NATO. Even our maps were all converted to metric back in the 1970's. The US Army nowadays works almost all distances in Meters. The M-16 well predates the US military conversion to Metric, yet it's ranges are all given in meters. And yes, I was trained originally on the M-16A1, in 1983, in meters. Mushrom (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Unlicensed Immitations
This entire segment should be removed. Not only does it have no references, it is not even accurate. The segment talks about "Korea", while not specifying which Korea. And it also states Turkey and "Kore" use the original weapon, but none of the 3 countries (Turkey, North Korea, South Korea) are listed as users. This is probably all bogus unless somebody can come up with some kind of verification. Mushrom (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it should be removed, I've just done that. On the first place, I think that the data given are false, secondary, there is no need for POV venerating one nation's technology while implying that others are simply dud. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Mk 19 is a belt fed, blowback operated, air cooled, crew served, marshmallow shooting, rainbow exploding, fully automatic weapon that is designed not to cook off."

OK, Really? Mine never shot marshmallows, nor do I recall any rainbows on round impact. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.79.13.6 (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclature
Why is this weapon a "MK" -19 rather than an "M" number?

Basesurge (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Mk 19 grenade launcher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110707174856/http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/upload/200711272151281.pdf to http://www.asianmilitaryreview.com/upload/200711272151281.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mk 19 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/20071012033447/http://www.ara.mil.ar/pnav_infmarina.asp to http://www.ara.mil.ar/pnav_infmarina.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/cache/fdgallery/5b2eef04df_mimohod-b-tehnika-4_750x550.jpg
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101111002310/http://www.mon.gov.pl/pl/galeria/2374 to http://mon.gov.pl/pl/galeria/2374/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531143635/http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Sweden/default.html to http://www.specialoperations.com/Foreign/Sweden/default.html

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) 01:43, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Specifications: Cyclic Rate of Fire. (misleading, 'isolated metric' example)
My first response -- as someone who's shot this weapon extensively was, "Who'd need a full-auto weapon that's slower than most semi-autos?"

When I first read the specifications, I thought it only described the cyclic rate as: - 40 rpm (sustained) - 60 rpm (rapid)

Granted; I hadn't initially even noticed the additional line: 360–390 rpm (cyclic)

But, I've also read about 50 machine-guns specs on wikipedia (I'm aware of the nomenclature debate -- and agree that this is an automatic grenade launcher; NOT machine gun) on wikipedia ... and none elaborated further on their performance such that I thought more information was provided lower. And I'm assuming that I'm not going to be unique in that error.

Despite factors which confound all machine gun's cyclic rates of fire beyond that of the powder, energy, pressure, inertia ... etc etc ... none of them ever distribute out those differing abilities.

I actually agree that it makes sense to give people a feel for how 'knowledgeable people -- either training or in combat, would -- do, constrained by practicality, instead of the mechanical relationships. However, no other weapon system on wikipedia have I ever seen to provide more than just that mechanical relationship.

If nothing else, reorganizing the specifications to be consistent with wikipedia ... either by making the Mk 19 consistent with the existing pages -- unless someone has the will to provide the physics and practical application information for all the other weapon systems to differentiate:

Sustained: An indefinite rate of fire (assumed 'unlimited ammo') without exceeding temp. parameters.

vs

Rapid: The rate at which heat is steadily exceeding the thermal-transfer capacity of ambient air.

No other weapon system is including the thermal-capacity of the weapon system, per aminution, per theater, and assuming a hypothetical 'unlimited capacity' so reloading time are 'zero'. No variables are factored except the mechanical rate at which rounds are fired for a short but representative 'sample' period -- multiplied by time to provide the rate per minute.

I realize I may be the only person who accosted by this atypical reasoning, but until someone decides to revert this back to this atypical format, I'm going to edit the section, and relocate the effective rates for sustained and maximum fire to be their own paragraphs -- and include a reference to the Army's manual.

If someone does feel the need to revert it, at minimum, at least put these atypical criteria for calculating it below the typical metric.

TrumanLA (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed addition discussing firing rates: Sustained, Rapid & Cyclic
Nearly identical information is provided from both manuals from: U.S. Army & USMC, Machine Guns & Machine Gun Gunnery which defines the rates for sustained, rapid & cyclic, rates.

For best results, recommends the using two Mk-19 initially, which open fire at the rapid rate (60 RPM) at the same time -- irrespective the rate announced. Gunners open and adjust fire at the rapid rate, and transition to the announced rate (sustained, rapid, or cyclic) thereafter.

Factors regulating those choices include: Size, type, & quantity of target -- and availability of ammunition.

Designating 'Rates of fire' and the cause of limitations: • Sustained (40 rpm): The rate which allows indefinite firing without damage from overheating. Announced as: "SUSTAINED."

• Rapid fire (60 rpm): Exceeds the Mk19's air cooling capacity, but can be used briefly without damage. Announced as: "RAPID" [DEFAULT rate = RAPID FIRE ...unless otherwise stated.]

• Cyclic  (~350 rpm): The unrestricted / fastest rate a Mk 19 can be fired for a limited time, only. Announced as: "CYCLIC."

The cyclic average is 350 rpm, with a range between 325 - 375 (depending on the propellant and age of mechanism). This rate may be used when the target or area needs the greatest possible suppression.

Army publication: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN3241_TC%203-22x19%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf

USMCs publication: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/MCWP%203-15.1.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrumanLA (talk • contribs) 06:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Major revision to the history of development of the Mk 19
Navy operations in Viet Nam Provinces of the Mekong Delta, the Rung Sat Special Zone, and the Saigon River, — designed to disrupt weapons shipments and protect the insertion and extraction of SEALs and U.S. Army personnel, conducted in River Boats. RPBs (River Patrol Boats) had frequently been engaged in firefights from both NV Patrol Boats and the shores. The frequency, lethality and importance of these tasks prompted Navy procurement to augment the RPBs firepower.

Rivers are natural choke points and provide a predictable path from which ambushes can be configured. Surviving a well planned and executed ambush is not likely.

In 1963, the Navy developed a hand-cranked, multiple grenade launcher system, called the Mk-18 — developed under the program name, Light Patrol Development. The Mk 18 weapon system’s goals of increase lethality & survivability for SEALs using RPBs fell short. The improvements in 1966 intended to address reliability issues failed to yield the Navy’s goals, however, the Mk 19 Mod 0 variant did have a notable improvement — it had become and would stay, self-powered (recoil operated).

Despite producing only six units in 1972, the the accumulating improvements reached fruition. Now called the Mk-19, Mod 1 — Navy Riverine Patrol Crafts testing in the Mekong Delta — had finally resolved the reliability issues and been proven successful.

The Navy had a reliable weapon capable of the massive firepower needed to gain tactical advantage in firefights along the rivers. As a result of the MOD 1 effectiveness in riverine patrol craft — the Mk 19 found broader applications. In 1973 further Navy developed (MOD 2) yielded improved reliability, safety, and maintainability.

Having developed a reliable and effective weapons system, in 1976 the Navy completed final refinements, resulting in the MK 19, MOD 3 variant; which was subsequently adopted by every branch of the United States Armed Services: USN, USMC, US Army, USAF and even the U.S. Coast Guard.

Usage in the U.S. military is near-ubiquitous. In tactical environments, retrograde, patrolling, area security, urban operations, and special operations. Within infantry units, special forces, and Military Police. Virtually all MP units use them; the (USMC) is required to have either an M2 or the Mk-19 on vehicles for base-security.

TrumanLA (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference Validation
I don’t believe the citation for countries using this equipment is accurate.

The entry for Afghanistan cites a Twitter/X post from the government of Afghanistan with Pashto text that translates to “The new and interesting version of the special forces of the Ministry of Interior of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan”. The wiki citation entry then goes on to claim that the equipment was gifted to Afghanistan and “currently in use”. These are claims better supported by primary sources, which on a quick google search, does not return any credible source. RubyU235 (talk) 17:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)