Talk:China Lake grenade launcher

message: The China Lake  Pump-Action Launcher is not the EX-41. The EX-41 was a High-Velocity Pump-Action Grenade launcher built by the Louisville Naval Ordinance Station(NOSL). Several reasonably knowlegable individuals have only refered to the China Lake weapon as the Pump- Action Grenade Launcher. These individuals include former Navy Seal James "Patches" Watson and author Kevin Dockery. The Summer 1995 issue of Fighting Firearms also has an article by one Nick Steadman that details the NOSL EX-41, among other grenade launchers.
--Paulwharton 05:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are numerous sites referring to the China Lake Launcher as the EX-41, but the only thing similar I see originating from NOSL is the Mark 20.  Perhaps you could elaborate using your reference?  --Crimson30 23:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As is often the case on the Internet, one unsourced site will repeat verbatim the information of another website and so on until the false information on the original unsourced website becomes accepted as truth, simply because every other website says so. Various reliable print sources such as Kevin Dockery and Jane's Infantry Weapons have never conflated the China Lake Pump-Action Grenade Launcher and the EX-41mm grenade launcher. The China Lake weapon was a Vietnam-era multi-shot grenade launcher that resembled a pump-action shotgun developed for the Navy SEALs at China Lake that fired low-pressure 40x46 mm grenades. The EX-41 was a post Vietnam-era multi-shot clip-fed (not a box magazine) grenade launcher that resembled a rifle developed for the USMC and US Army at Naval Ordinance Station Louisville and Picatinny Arsenal that fired high-pressure 40x53 mm grenades fitted to a 40x46 mm case. I would put up a picture of the EX-41, but I only have them from copyrighted books. I will write up a separate entry for the EX-41. Pettifogger 15:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a paper reference that confirms this, then could you add the reference, chop any incorrect web references and correct the article, please?  --Crimson30 15:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be most helpful if you could get a statement regarding the copyright status of said photos (as in, a statement releasing them into the public domain would be great!).  --Crimson30 18:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  China Lake Launcher

message: Does anyone have a source for the NATIC name? What does NATIC mean? Is it a reference to a project name? An abbreviation? Is it a reference to the Army's Natick Labs? The only time I have seen the NATIC name is in Wikipedia and on a Japanese Vietnam War re-enactment site. Pettifogger 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help, btw.  NATIC, according to thefreedictionary.com, stands for Naval Air Technical Training Center, which makes it sound like it was mangled into the name, much like EX-41.  If the NATIC part is also some sort of phantasm, we could always make a new article, move all the info and blank or redirect this one.  --Crimson30 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is the story about the designation NATIC? Where is it derived, is it official or jargon? There is no reference to it in the text which makes it even more confusing.. Koalorka (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NATIC name? 

message: I'm really curious as to that opening line of the "history" section. If the '79 was unreliable, 5th SFG(A) wouldn't still use them in Afghanistan three decades after it "officially" was replaced by the M203. 
Yes, the XM148 and the XM148E1 sucked, the M203 had its weak points, but the only flaw I have EVER heard of regarding the '79 was the fact it was a single-purpose weapon in its stock configuration. I have limited live-fire experience with it of course, since I grew up in a M203-equipped Army and got out just as my brigade got the first of the XM320s from H&K.WiseguyThreeOne (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The M79 unreliable? 

message: "The weapon actually weighs 1½ pounds less empty than an empty M79. Loaded with 4 of the 8 ounce rounds, the 4 shot weapon weighs only ½ pound more than the single shot M79."
I call BS, the infobox for the M79 states its weight as 2.93 kg (6.45 lb) loaded, and when empty, 2.7 kg or 5.95 lb. Compare this to the China Lake launcher, which is 4.63 kg (10.21 lb) loaded, and 3.72 kg or 8.2 lb unloaded. Last time I checked, 10 pounds wasn't half a pound more than 5.95 lb, nor was it lighter than an M79 unloaded...should I/someone remove this false information? 220.244.111.207 (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight less than an M79?? 

message: there were a number of recent edits made without any sources cited regarding the prices & production dates of the repro launchers. i searched for a while online to try to find any trustworthy accounts of the amount airtronic invested with trident or even the dates of production and came up empty-handed. 55.170.175.40 seems to be knowledgeable enough about the subject to edit the heck out of this page & im just curious to see where they are getting this info from. 
Dankdevice (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Price edits?