Mk-19 Grenade Launcher at Sea

U.S. Army service members setting up and firing a 40mm Mark-19 automatic grenade launcher aboard a vessel during a live-fire target practice training exercise at sea.

The Mk 19 grenade launcher (Mark 19) is an American 40 mm belt-fed, air-cooled automatic grenade launcher. The Mk 19 can launch its grenade at a maximum distance of 2,212 meters (2,419 yd), though its effective range to a point target is about 1,500 meters. It fires 40 mm grenades at a cyclic rate of 325 to 375 rounds per minute, giving a practical rate of fire of 60 rounds per minute (rapid) and 40 rounds per minute (sustained).

Credits: U.S. Army video by Staff Sgt. Matthew Veasley

The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.

Derivative works: Military Archive

â–ºSubscribe Now — https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT4layPPCzgR_99g5VYYvmQ?sub_confirmation=1

â–ºKnow a second language? You could help bring videos to a wider audience via the following link below — https://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_panel?tab=2&c=UCT4layPPCzgR_99g5VYYvmQ

** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **

Author: phillynews215

HOSTING BY PHILLYFINESTSERVERSTAT | ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2024 | ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. POST QUESTION OR INQUIRIES SEND ME AN EMAIL TO PHILLYNEWSNOW215@GMAIL.COM (www.phillynewsnow.com)

49 thoughts on “Mk-19 Grenade Launcher at Sea

  1. Machine guns are so unreliable and so ragged in utility…need more smoother and quick loading…in actual fight imagine the situation..a seconds can make a difference 😳

  2. I'd rather want to have a M134 Minigun instead of a 40mm grenade launcher aboard a vessel. Even a 50 cal machine gun would be better than the grenade launcher, because it's got more ammo, better range, accuracy, etc.. What could a 40mm grenade launcher do against threats like helicopters or missiles? Machine guns have much better chance of defending a vessel against all kinds of threats with better range and accuracy.

  3. Of course these WASTEFUL WASTE MIS MANAGERS, THE NAVY..DUMPS SPENT CARTRAGES AND THE "PUMPKIN" RIGHT INTO THE SEA. DEPLETED URANIUM, GARBAGE, PLASTICS RIGHT INTO THE SEA W NO CARE OR WASTE MANAGEMENT. THEY CANT BE BOTHERED TO CONSERVATE ANYTHING OTHER THAN DEAT

  4. Hooooold up. There is a lot going in here. Looks kinda normal but this is a fuckin leprechaun. Naval vessel? Check. Interdiction weapons training. Check. Here’s what’s mind bending. Those aren’t Marines. I would expect 100% a Marine Instructor. Instead there is a CW2 (Chief Warrant Officer Grade 2) and a Specialist, both Army. Warrant officers are primarily known to be in combat aircraft roles. They are officers, but not in the officer corps as most know it. In regular units, they live in the ether. Between Enlisted and Officers. Here one day, gone for weeks at a time, and reappear with no discernible timetable. PT formation? Maybe? 2 weeks straight, gone a month, 3 days, gone 8 days, there and gone. Like a shadow. Having been in the realm of the E-4, Warrants were like Sifu. Try and grab a little glimpse, a move or a few words. E-4 can sham, but Warrants were fucking Ninja.

  5. Dang, you would think these boys would have massive ammo boxes to draw from, the fact that they don't just stinks. If we were in a war right now like we had in world War II they would have to be reloading every 10 seconds. You'll never win a war that way. These boys should have 25,000 rounds to draw from at any given moment

  6. You could put a Mk-19 on a rowboat and probably take on the entire Spanish Armada in it's heyday and come out on top. Shit, you could probably do that with an M2 too.

Comments are closed.