Home » Blogs » Ten Years Later . . . Army Deploys M26 Shotgun

Ten Years Later . . . Army Deploys M26 Shotgun

Robert Farago - comments No comments

“Army equipment officials recently fielded the first of its M26 Modular Shotgun Systems to the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Ky,” kitup.military.com reports. “The M26 is the straight-pull, bolt-action shotgun the Army began designing almost 10 years ago for mounting under the M4 carbine. It weighs 3.5 pounds, has a 7.75 inch barrel and fires 12-gauge shells from a five-round magazine. . . . Army officials maintain that the M26 is the ‘most reliable, durable, rugged shotgun in the Army inventory.'” kitup isn’t down with that. “That sounds impressive, but I just can’t help wondering — if the M26 is so great, then why hasn’t the special-operations community adopted it?” Or, for that matter, FPSRussia.

Tags Shotguns
Photo of author

Robert Farago

Robert Farago is the former publisher of The Truth About Guns (TTAG). He started the site to explore the ethics, morality, business, politics, culture, technology, practice, strategy, dangers and fun of guns.

0 thoughts on “Ten Years Later . . . Army Deploys M26 Shotgun”

  1. If I had to carry the extra weight on my rifle, I would prefer the M-203 (40mm grenade launcher). The 40 mm shells have a 400 yard effective range, 5-yard lethal blast radius. Shells are high explosive, white phosphorus, armor piercing, buckshot or flechettes. Boom.

    Reply
    • Far from an expert, but one thing I can see is that this thing has 5 (5+1?) rounds vs. 1 round for M-203. Plus, I’m pretty sure 12ga ammo is cheaper than those buckshot M-203 rounds. Depends what you need it for.

      Reply
      • Price isn’t a consideration for the military. They get considerable increases in funding and each year they desperately need to find more pet projects to toss cash at.

        The biggest reason I’m thinking they have this over a M203 is for door breaching. In Iraq, many soldiers ended up carrying a pistol grip shotgun AND a M4. It’s heavy and just bad times.

        Reply
  2. wouldn’t it have been easier (and cheaper) to have designed an insert for the M203 that held a 12ga shell for door breaching and the like?

    and that is one high speed pic.

    Reply
  3. So this would be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense”, so under U.S. v. Miller we have a Second Amendment right to own it, correct? 😉

    Reply
    • I don’t know how much reading you’ve done on the Miller case, but from where I sit it’s a shocking case of judicial malpractice.

      Miller wasn’t even REPRESENTED; his lawyer basically just sent copies of what he used for the previous court level.

      Also, if I recall correctly, Miller was already dead at that point.

      Reply
      • Hence the winkie. 😉

        I had in mind Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in
        Printz v. United States.

        Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court’s invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “contribute to the common defense.” Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

        Reply
  4. Another solution desperately in search of an actual problem, funded by our tax monies.

    Anyone remember the OICW? They could have further tried to justify the weight of that white elephant by coming up with a door-knocker in 20mm….but instead, we get morphodite shotguns hung off the M4.

    At the rate the DOD is pissing money away on white elephant projects, in 10 years, our armed services will be attacking the enemy with pointed sticks… because that’s all we can afford.

    Reply
  5. The example shown has a ‘stand off’ device on it for door breaching. Beats carrying a separate 870. Could breach a door with an M203 but it wouldn’t be pretty. The M26 isn’t an “attack shotgun,” but a utility device.

    Reply
  6. I’ve seen Infantrymen try breaching doors with M203 rounds. They stand too close and the round bounces off the door because it didn’t arm in time. Then they have to wait around for EOD to come deal with the possibly live 40mm HE round on the ground.

    Reply

Leave a Comment