| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:RPG-7: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| (54 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Additional Variants= | |||
==Screen-Used Variants== | |||
[[Image:RPG7-Screen-Used-BHD.jpg|thumb|none|500px|Screen-used RPG-7 from [[Black Hawk Down]]. Image courtesy of Forgotten Weapons]] | |||
==Other Variants== | |||
[[Image:RPG-7V1 small.jpg|thumb|none|400px|RPG-7V1 with PGO-7 scope - 40mm]] | |||
[[Image:RPG7Thermo.jpg|thumb|none|400px|RPG-7V with PGO-7 scope and TBG-7V thermobaric rocket - 40mm]] | |||
[[Image:RPG7Ammo.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Source image for the above and two of the images on the main page. This shows an RPG-7V fitted with with a PGO-7 sight, with common ammo types below it. Top to bottom these are PG-7VM (1969 single-stage HEAT), PG-7VL (1977 single-stage HEAT), PG-7VR (tandem charge HEAT), TBG-7V (thermobaric) and OG-7V (antipersonnel fragmentation). It is worth noting that the OG-7V is a ''projectile'' rather than a rocket, since it has no flight motor.]] | |||
[[File:Type 69 RPG tube.jpg|thumb|none|400px|Type 69 RPG - 40mm]] | |||
=Discussion= | |||
==Diameter== | ==Diameter== | ||
How should the weapon's Diameter be measured? It has a 70mm diameter warhead, but a 40mm tube where the rocket is inserted. I always said it was a 70mm, but it is changed back to 40mm on this page constantly. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]] | How should the weapon's Diameter be measured? It has a 70mm diameter warhead, but a 40mm tube where the rocket is inserted. I always said it was a 70mm, but it is changed back to 40mm on this page constantly. - [[User:Gunmaster45|Gunmaster45]] | ||
*I think it's the same as any other gun, the diameter of the tube / barrel is what matters, since that's what matters when you're working out what you can actually put into the gun. [[User:Vangelis|Vangelis]] 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | *I think it's the same as any other gun, the diameter of the tube / barrel is what matters, since that's what matters when you're working out what you can actually put into the gun. [[User:Vangelis|Vangelis]] 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
* Just to add to this it is a 40mm, as the diameter of the warhead is variable with different types. Current warhead diameters are 93mm for HEAT, 105mm for tandem HEAT and thermobaric, and 40mm for the anti personnel fragmentation warhead.--[[User:Commando552|Commando552]] 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
It's what they call "overcaliber rounds". Similarily, you would say that the M1 Garand's caliber is a 7.62 even if it's used to fire 75 mm rifle grenades; or that a tank's main gun is a 120 mm even if it fires a 40 mm saboted AP rod.--[[Special:Contributions/109.252.15.58|109.252.15.58]] 13:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
::You measure by the diameter of the launching tube. Munitions can CHANGE per type of payload but the launcher remains the same. The RPG launcher is a 40mm tube. the M72 LAW tube or the AT-4 Tubes enclose the rocket, thus their 'interior diameter' doesn't change with the payload. [[User:MoviePropMaster2008|MoviePropMaster2008]] 16:11, 1 May 2011 (CDT) | |||
== Rocket Launchers in general == | == Rocket Launchers in general == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 27: | ||
:Except a single LAW wouldn't do jack against a tank. It's effective mainly against APCs or unarmored vehicles. --[[User:JEESUS|JEESUS]] 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC) | :Except a single LAW wouldn't do jack against a tank. It's effective mainly against APCs or unarmored vehicles. --[[User:JEESUS|JEESUS]] 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC) | ||
::- LAW rockets seem to have done fine for 1950s/1960s-era tanks, since that was the time it was introduced. It was intended to perform the same as the original RPG-7. Though we have newer and more effective anti-armor launchers, the LAW still has it's viable uses and advantages today. But the point is you can't compare the performance of 40+ year old Anti-tank rocket systems against modern-day heavy armor, because the result is obvious, and a bit misleading. I doubt original RPG-7 warheads are much good against MBTs today either. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
The advantage of a reloadable system when updating or upgrading is easier because only the warhead needs to be changed and the launcher doesn't. This is a cost-effective solution because stockpiles of existing launchers are still usable and the old warheads can be expended in training and exercises. As for performance against modern MBTs, the RPG-7 can be surprisingly effective, even with the original warheads. The user has to more creative in getting a shot into the side or rear armor or to try a top-attack from an elevated position such as the balcony on an apartment block. Since the rockets and warheads are relatively cheap, multiple shots from different angles on the same target is a tactical option. Used officially by 40 countries (and more unofficially) and manufactured in 9 of them (including Iraq, explaining why so many are available there) there will be no shortage of rockets and launchers for current and future conflicts. | |||
:- 'Side or rear armor' or 'top shot'? That's not the same thing. A LAW can be used effectively in any of those spots as well. Again, it's a bit misleading. I just didn't like the offhand, vague, and slightly ignorant comment that a LAW isn't quite that effective. Anyway, to the original point, as Hughjefender said, it's all about what role you intend the weapon to play specifically, same as any weapon (among other things). As the above comment stated, there are numerous advantages to reloadable systems. But there are advantages to non-reloadable ones as well. Whether a launcher is outright 'better' if it's reloadable or not is a somewhat inane question that can't be answered in that manner. It's like asking if a revolver or a pistol is better and expecting a clean answer either way. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 05:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::I was mainly commenting on the usage of the singular, a single LAW probably wouldn't do much to a modern tank, I would assume it would need a perfect hit to a 60s tank too. Back in the army (Finnish) the LAW (M72A5) carrying "tank buster" teams or "suicide squad" were instructed to fire several LAWs in rapid succession to just disable a tank, and this was mainly used in emergency situations. The main unguided AT rocket we used was the APILAS which is somewhat similar to the AT4. --[[User:JEESUS|JEESUS]] 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
::- Almost all of the past or current light anti-armor weapons are ineffective against tanks over the frontal arc, and have limited effectiveness against APC/IFV and other lighter armored vehicles. Either the armor is too thick, is made composite armor (Chobham used on M1 Abrams), reactive armor, or spaced armor, will lessen or nullify the effect of HEAT warheads. Tandem warheads (developed as an upgrade for the RPG-7) will increase the chance of damaging the tank. The advantage the M72 has is light weight and is still used for that reason. Which is better? Depends on the role and availability. If weight is an issue, the M72 is a clear winner at 2.5kg complete. The RPG-7 weighs 7kg for the launcher and 2 (fragmentation), 2.5 (single stage HEAT), or 4.5kg (tandem HEAT or thermobaric) for the warhead. But if flexibility, anti-armor performance, and range are more important, the RPG-7 is the better option. | |||
::: - Well anyway, there you are. They both have pros and cons, and that's all I was getting at. As said, it all really depends on what you want out of the weapon, same as any other weapon. That said, the RPG-7 is/was a better launcher as an active main weapon for a soldier (or a team) that's meant to go after armored vehicles and other certain targets, given the reload-ability function allowing it to use other more specialized and newer warheads (And I appreciate a little extra info on them, as well as clarification about the present overall effectiveness of 'light' anti-armor launchers in general). Anyway, the LAW and newer AT-4, with their considerably lighter weight and (In the case of the LAW) better compactness are easily one-man carryable/operable launchers, and what I consider more as an secondary weapon for 'just-in-case' antiarmor situations. In that regard, I wouldn't say it's fair to compare the RPG-7 with the LAW, as one being a reloadable system and the other not makes them unequal - The M3 system or something of the like would probably be better to compare to the RPG-7, especially for the present day. That all aside, again, being reloadable or non-reloadable isn't something that makes a launcher inherently better or worse, it all depends on what you're looking for out of it overall. [[User:StanTheMan|StanTheMan]] 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC) | |||
== A few warhead questions. == | |||
Just curious, but is the ammunition for the RPG-7 and the Type 69 interchangeable? I would imagine so, what with both being 40mm, but I just wanted to be sure. For that matter, did the Chinese military ever adopt any other warhead types? I've only ever seen it loaded with the PG-7VM (or something very like it). Lastly, does anyone know if the Chinese made warheads are exact copies of the Russian ones (if so that would kinda make my first question unnecessary), or are there minor differences like with the launcher? [[User:Jimmoy|Jimmoy]] 19:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Acronym == | |||
Where should we add the note that the Russian acronym РПГ stands for both rocket-propelled and hand-thrown anti-tank grenades?--[[Special:Contributions/109.252.15.58|109.252.15.58]] 13:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
== Since the debate's over, can we get this unlocked now? == | |||
It's an awfully common weapon to have a locked page, after all. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] 07:27, 1 May 2011 (CDT) | |||
== Aiming the RPG-7 == | |||
What would you pick in aiming the weapon? Flip up the iron sights aim and then fire or attach it with the PGO-7 scope look through it, aim then fire? Most RPG-7's are fired by aiming with the iron sights and most of them are used with no scope. The Russians and some combatants have a PGO-7 scope attached to it. For me i like them both! Its easier to aim with the iron sights just flip them up and aim then fire. Almost every RPG-7's are used with no scope. But it looks way more cooler when its attached with its PGO-7 scope and using it is slighty more accurate when you use its scope. Just attach it on its side mounted rail, aim then fire! But i like using them both. | |||
[[User:Dangerclose96|Dangerclose96]] | |||
'''Please reply!''' | |||
:What are you, a terrorist? ;) - [[User:Mr. Wolf|Mr. Wolf]] 13:53, 8 May 2011 (CDT) | |||
:There's some upgrade kits available that allow mounting of red dot sights and other modern optics to the weapon via RIS rails. In fact, if you look on the RPG-7's Wikipedia page, you can see an example of this. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RPG_soldier_and_squad.jpg RPG-7 with red dot scope] [[User:Orca1 9904|Orca1 9904]] 14:45, 8 May 2011 (CDT) | |||
== The correct way to hold == | |||
I just want to verify, the correct way to hold is (assuming user is right handed) right hand on forward grip (with trigger) and left hand on rear grip with the tube on the right shoulder? --[[User:Funkychinaman|Funkychinaman]] ([[User talk:Funkychinaman|talk]]) 02:30, 24 March 2013 (EDT) | |||
==Airtronic RPG-7-USA Operators== | |||
To whom is this modernised westernised version intended for? I can't see the US Military as an end user customer for the Airtronic's RPG. Did they develope it to be sold to allies of the US that are using the Soviet and Chinese RPG-7s and have large stocks of rockets? Afghanistan/Iraq likely? Many users of the original build versions of the RPG-7 locally with or without license. -[[User:Estenwall|Estenwall]] ([[User talk:Estenwall|talk]]) 07:22, 12 August 2013 (EDT) | |||
:Apparently they've had some sales to Peru, it's probably for countries that want a precision-built launcher for their old rockets. Not really particularly sensible, but hey, if it works. Though Airtronic went bankrupt and was bought out last year, which rather suggests it didn't work. [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 07:54, 12 August 2013 (EDT) | |||
:I would assume USSOCOM bought up a bunch of them as well (but then again try to name something they probably ''don't'' buy a few of). It'd be an attractive alternative to the MAAWS, SMAW, or AT4 for situations where resupply is difficult or impossible. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 06:39, 18 November 2015 (EST) | |||
::USSOCOM did buy a number of them, and I believe that they have actually even been tested by the main US Army in the last year or so. It is reportedly a much more capable weapon than the original and when used with Airtronic rounds (actually made by a British company I believe) is more accurate with a longer range. There is even a laser guided round in development that would give it a +2km range. The original intent of this launcher was to sell them to friendly countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is no shortage of launchers already there so I don't think they got much interest from that quarter. What they have done though is to sell a shit load of warheads, with Chemring using a US based factory to build them to simplify the process.--[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 16:20, 18 November 2015 (EST) | |||
Seems that as 2019, Ukraine and Peru bought Airtronic RPG7 a.k.a. PSRL-1.--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 08:03, 9 October 2019 (EDT) | |||
== How to tell difference == | |||
Between RPG7 and RPG16?--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 09:05, 1 March 2017 (EST) | |||
: The warhead of RPG-16 does not stick out of the launcher, it has the same diameter as the tube and fits entirely inside it. Also RPG-16 has a single pistol grip. [[User:Greg-Z|Greg-Z]] ([[User talk:Greg-Z|talk]]) 09:34, 1 March 2017 (EST) | |||
== Warhead Question == | |||
Is possible to remove the warhead on a loaded RPG? If yes how?--[[User:Dannyguns|Dannyguns]] ([[User talk:Dannyguns|talk]]) 05:43, 23 June 2017 (EDT) | |||
:You can just pull it out, they are only held in by friction I believe. There is a notch at the front of the tube that a projection on the warhead goes into, but this just stops it turning and makes sure that it is at the correct angle for the firing pin to hit the percussion cap on the rocket. --[[User:Commando552|commando552]] ([[User talk:Commando552|talk]]) 17:39, 23 June 2017 (EDT) | |||
== Secondary grip on newer RPGs == | |||
So, apparently, the rear grip is mounted differently on the newer RPG-7V variants.<br /> | |||
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/RPG-7V1_grenade_launcher_-_RaceofHeroes-part2-22.jpg | |||
Instead of being centered, it is mounted to the left, right under the scope mount.<br /> | |||
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/%D0%A0%D0%9F%D0%93_-_7%D0%941.jpg | |||
On the paratrooper model, whose tube can be disassembled into two parts, the rear grip is always mounted to the left.<br /> | |||
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/RPG-7D.jpg | |||
There also seems to be a different scope mount design.<br /> | |||
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/RPG-7_detached.jpg | |||
The posters display the difference as well:<br /> | |||
http://russianguns.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/12459397.jpg <br /> | |||
http://russianguns.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/631628.jpg | |||
If somebody feels like this is worth noting... Sorry for my stupid formatting and potential grammar screw-ups. [[User:DJ von CAHEK|DJ_von_CAHEK]] ([[User talk:DJ von CAHEK|talk]]) 04:36, 13 November 2017 (EST) | |||
:The Russian scope bracket mount has been refined quite a lot over the years, so I don't think that would qualify as a change to the RPG-7 itself, but the rest is interesting. Are you certain it's the V variant this is specific to? [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 04:40, 13 November 2017 (EST) | |||
::According to the Russian Wikipedia article, shortly after its introduction, the RPG-7 got an improved PGO-7V scope, and was renamed RPG-7V since then. It even retained its 6G3 GRAU index. I haven't found when or why the grip design was changed, but it was probably around the same time the AK-74 got the plum plastic furniture. [[User:DJ von CAHEK|DJ_von_CAHEK]] ([[User talk:DJ von CAHEK|talk]]) 12:03, 14 November 2017 (EST) | |||
== AirTronic version names == | |||
I was looking up AirTronic's website and it appears they've named their version the PSRL, short for Precision Shoulder-fired Rocket Launcher, and the lightweight version to the GS-777. [[User:Spartan198|Spartan198]] ([[User talk:Spartan198|talk]]) 10:55, 17 January 2018 (EST) | |||
:Wow, those really sound like fake videogame weapon names :D [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 11:04, 17 January 2018 (EST) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:56, 30 January 2022
Additional Variants
Screen-Used Variants
Other Variants
Discussion
Diameter
How should the weapon's Diameter be measured? It has a 70mm diameter warhead, but a 40mm tube where the rocket is inserted. I always said it was a 70mm, but it is changed back to 40mm on this page constantly. - Gunmaster45
- I think it's the same as any other gun, the diameter of the tube / barrel is what matters, since that's what matters when you're working out what you can actually put into the gun. Vangelis 01:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just to add to this it is a 40mm, as the diameter of the warhead is variable with different types. Current warhead diameters are 93mm for HEAT, 105mm for tandem HEAT and thermobaric, and 40mm for the anti personnel fragmentation warhead.--Commando552 17:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
It's what they call "overcaliber rounds". Similarily, you would say that the M1 Garand's caliber is a 7.62 even if it's used to fire 75 mm rifle grenades; or that a tank's main gun is a 120 mm even if it fires a 40 mm saboted AP rod.--109.252.15.58 13:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- You measure by the diameter of the launching tube. Munitions can CHANGE per type of payload but the launcher remains the same. The RPG launcher is a 40mm tube. the M72 LAW tube or the AT-4 Tubes enclose the rocket, thus their 'interior diameter' doesn't change with the payload. MoviePropMaster2008 16:11, 1 May 2011 (CDT)
Rocket Launchers in general
Are rocket launchers better if they are reloadable or unreloadable?
That depends a lot on what you want them to do. The RPG-7 is actually more of a crew-operated weapon as are most GMPGs and reloadable rocket launchers. If you need one soldier to be able to blow up a tank, you'd typically have him carry a single-shot disposable launcher like the LAW for Vietnam. Hughjefender.
- Except a single LAW wouldn't do jack against a tank. It's effective mainly against APCs or unarmored vehicles. --JEESUS 13:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- - LAW rockets seem to have done fine for 1950s/1960s-era tanks, since that was the time it was introduced. It was intended to perform the same as the original RPG-7. Though we have newer and more effective anti-armor launchers, the LAW still has it's viable uses and advantages today. But the point is you can't compare the performance of 40+ year old Anti-tank rocket systems against modern-day heavy armor, because the result is obvious, and a bit misleading. I doubt original RPG-7 warheads are much good against MBTs today either. StanTheMan 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The advantage of a reloadable system when updating or upgrading is easier because only the warhead needs to be changed and the launcher doesn't. This is a cost-effective solution because stockpiles of existing launchers are still usable and the old warheads can be expended in training and exercises. As for performance against modern MBTs, the RPG-7 can be surprisingly effective, even with the original warheads. The user has to more creative in getting a shot into the side or rear armor or to try a top-attack from an elevated position such as the balcony on an apartment block. Since the rockets and warheads are relatively cheap, multiple shots from different angles on the same target is a tactical option. Used officially by 40 countries (and more unofficially) and manufactured in 9 of them (including Iraq, explaining why so many are available there) there will be no shortage of rockets and launchers for current and future conflicts.
- - 'Side or rear armor' or 'top shot'? That's not the same thing. A LAW can be used effectively in any of those spots as well. Again, it's a bit misleading. I just didn't like the offhand, vague, and slightly ignorant comment that a LAW isn't quite that effective. Anyway, to the original point, as Hughjefender said, it's all about what role you intend the weapon to play specifically, same as any weapon (among other things). As the above comment stated, there are numerous advantages to reloadable systems. But there are advantages to non-reloadable ones as well. Whether a launcher is outright 'better' if it's reloadable or not is a somewhat inane question that can't be answered in that manner. It's like asking if a revolver or a pistol is better and expecting a clean answer either way. StanTheMan 05:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was mainly commenting on the usage of the singular, a single LAW probably wouldn't do much to a modern tank, I would assume it would need a perfect hit to a 60s tank too. Back in the army (Finnish) the LAW (M72A5) carrying "tank buster" teams or "suicide squad" were instructed to fire several LAWs in rapid succession to just disable a tank, and this was mainly used in emergency situations. The main unguided AT rocket we used was the APILAS which is somewhat similar to the AT4. --JEESUS 01:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
- - Almost all of the past or current light anti-armor weapons are ineffective against tanks over the frontal arc, and have limited effectiveness against APC/IFV and other lighter armored vehicles. Either the armor is too thick, is made composite armor (Chobham used on M1 Abrams), reactive armor, or spaced armor, will lessen or nullify the effect of HEAT warheads. Tandem warheads (developed as an upgrade for the RPG-7) will increase the chance of damaging the tank. The advantage the M72 has is light weight and is still used for that reason. Which is better? Depends on the role and availability. If weight is an issue, the M72 is a clear winner at 2.5kg complete. The RPG-7 weighs 7kg for the launcher and 2 (fragmentation), 2.5 (single stage HEAT), or 4.5kg (tandem HEAT or thermobaric) for the warhead. But if flexibility, anti-armor performance, and range are more important, the RPG-7 is the better option.
- - Well anyway, there you are. They both have pros and cons, and that's all I was getting at. As said, it all really depends on what you want out of the weapon, same as any other weapon. That said, the RPG-7 is/was a better launcher as an active main weapon for a soldier (or a team) that's meant to go after armored vehicles and other certain targets, given the reload-ability function allowing it to use other more specialized and newer warheads (And I appreciate a little extra info on them, as well as clarification about the present overall effectiveness of 'light' anti-armor launchers in general). Anyway, the LAW and newer AT-4, with their considerably lighter weight and (In the case of the LAW) better compactness are easily one-man carryable/operable launchers, and what I consider more as an secondary weapon for 'just-in-case' antiarmor situations. In that regard, I wouldn't say it's fair to compare the RPG-7 with the LAW, as one being a reloadable system and the other not makes them unequal - The M3 system or something of the like would probably be better to compare to the RPG-7, especially for the present day. That all aside, again, being reloadable or non-reloadable isn't something that makes a launcher inherently better or worse, it all depends on what you're looking for out of it overall. StanTheMan 00:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
A few warhead questions.
Just curious, but is the ammunition for the RPG-7 and the Type 69 interchangeable? I would imagine so, what with both being 40mm, but I just wanted to be sure. For that matter, did the Chinese military ever adopt any other warhead types? I've only ever seen it loaded with the PG-7VM (or something very like it). Lastly, does anyone know if the Chinese made warheads are exact copies of the Russian ones (if so that would kinda make my first question unnecessary), or are there minor differences like with the launcher? Jimmoy 19:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Acronym
Where should we add the note that the Russian acronym РПГ stands for both rocket-propelled and hand-thrown anti-tank grenades?--109.252.15.58 13:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Since the debate's over, can we get this unlocked now?
It's an awfully common weapon to have a locked page, after all. Evil Tim 07:27, 1 May 2011 (CDT)
Aiming the RPG-7
What would you pick in aiming the weapon? Flip up the iron sights aim and then fire or attach it with the PGO-7 scope look through it, aim then fire? Most RPG-7's are fired by aiming with the iron sights and most of them are used with no scope. The Russians and some combatants have a PGO-7 scope attached to it. For me i like them both! Its easier to aim with the iron sights just flip them up and aim then fire. Almost every RPG-7's are used with no scope. But it looks way more cooler when its attached with its PGO-7 scope and using it is slighty more accurate when you use its scope. Just attach it on its side mounted rail, aim then fire! But i like using them both. Dangerclose96 Please reply!
- What are you, a terrorist? ;) - Mr. Wolf 13:53, 8 May 2011 (CDT)
- There's some upgrade kits available that allow mounting of red dot sights and other modern optics to the weapon via RIS rails. In fact, if you look on the RPG-7's Wikipedia page, you can see an example of this. RPG-7 with red dot scope Orca1 9904 14:45, 8 May 2011 (CDT)
The correct way to hold
I just want to verify, the correct way to hold is (assuming user is right handed) right hand on forward grip (with trigger) and left hand on rear grip with the tube on the right shoulder? --Funkychinaman (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2013 (EDT)
Airtronic RPG-7-USA Operators
To whom is this modernised westernised version intended for? I can't see the US Military as an end user customer for the Airtronic's RPG. Did they develope it to be sold to allies of the US that are using the Soviet and Chinese RPG-7s and have large stocks of rockets? Afghanistan/Iraq likely? Many users of the original build versions of the RPG-7 locally with or without license. -Estenwall (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2013 (EDT)
- Apparently they've had some sales to Peru, it's probably for countries that want a precision-built launcher for their old rockets. Not really particularly sensible, but hey, if it works. Though Airtronic went bankrupt and was bought out last year, which rather suggests it didn't work. Evil Tim (talk) 07:54, 12 August 2013 (EDT)
- I would assume USSOCOM bought up a bunch of them as well (but then again try to name something they probably don't buy a few of). It'd be an attractive alternative to the MAAWS, SMAW, or AT4 for situations where resupply is difficult or impossible. Spartan198 (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2015 (EST)
- USSOCOM did buy a number of them, and I believe that they have actually even been tested by the main US Army in the last year or so. It is reportedly a much more capable weapon than the original and when used with Airtronic rounds (actually made by a British company I believe) is more accurate with a longer range. There is even a laser guided round in development that would give it a +2km range. The original intent of this launcher was to sell them to friendly countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, but there is no shortage of launchers already there so I don't think they got much interest from that quarter. What they have done though is to sell a shit load of warheads, with Chemring using a US based factory to build them to simplify the process.--commando552 (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2015 (EST)
Seems that as 2019, Ukraine and Peru bought Airtronic RPG7 a.k.a. PSRL-1.--Dannyguns (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2019 (EDT)
How to tell difference
Between RPG7 and RPG16?--Dannyguns (talk) 09:05, 1 March 2017 (EST)
- The warhead of RPG-16 does not stick out of the launcher, it has the same diameter as the tube and fits entirely inside it. Also RPG-16 has a single pistol grip. Greg-Z (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2017 (EST)
Warhead Question
Is possible to remove the warhead on a loaded RPG? If yes how?--Dannyguns (talk) 05:43, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
- You can just pull it out, they are only held in by friction I believe. There is a notch at the front of the tube that a projection on the warhead goes into, but this just stops it turning and makes sure that it is at the correct angle for the firing pin to hit the percussion cap on the rocket. --commando552 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2017 (EDT)
Secondary grip on newer RPGs
So, apparently, the rear grip is mounted differently on the newer RPG-7V variants.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/RPG-7V1_grenade_launcher_-_RaceofHeroes-part2-22.jpg
Instead of being centered, it is mounted to the left, right under the scope mount.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/%D0%A0%D0%9F%D0%93_-_7%D0%941.jpg
On the paratrooper model, whose tube can be disassembled into two parts, the rear grip is always mounted to the left.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/RPG-7D.jpg
There also seems to be a different scope mount design.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/RPG-7_detached.jpg
The posters display the difference as well:
http://russianguns.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/12459397.jpg
http://russianguns.ru/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/631628.jpg
If somebody feels like this is worth noting... Sorry for my stupid formatting and potential grammar screw-ups. DJ_von_CAHEK (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2017 (EST)
- The Russian scope bracket mount has been refined quite a lot over the years, so I don't think that would qualify as a change to the RPG-7 itself, but the rest is interesting. Are you certain it's the V variant this is specific to? Evil Tim (talk) 04:40, 13 November 2017 (EST)
- According to the Russian Wikipedia article, shortly after its introduction, the RPG-7 got an improved PGO-7V scope, and was renamed RPG-7V since then. It even retained its 6G3 GRAU index. I haven't found when or why the grip design was changed, but it was probably around the same time the AK-74 got the plum plastic furniture. DJ_von_CAHEK (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2017 (EST)
AirTronic version names
I was looking up AirTronic's website and it appears they've named their version the PSRL, short for Precision Shoulder-fired Rocket Launcher, and the lightweight version to the GS-777. Spartan198 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2018 (EST)