The way I am looking at it is this:
If I were going into combat and had "MY" choice between each item in the two categories it would be rifle grenades over the 40mm and the RPG over the samples given by TR. The reason I feel is simple. RG's nowadays are very lightweight, usually a 1/4 to 2 pounds (depending on construction). With this weight comes "more" explosive power and the capability to do much more damage to structures, machinery, vehicles, bunkers, etc., etc. The 40mm is limited by it own design. You get what you have and nothing else. Add on the launcher (M203) to a rifle and you have a bulky, heavy weapon. With the RG the flash hider is the launcher, the bullet in your weapon is the propelling device, recoil is on par with a 203 if not less and everybody now has the poor man's mortar. You also get acceptable accuracy (ask the Bosnians and SERB's) and any error on your part can/is made up by the wider blast/fragmentation of the warhead.
The same thing can be said for the RPG. With the "enclosed/disposable" AT weapons you are again restricted as to the diameter of the warhead and what it can do. Rockets for the RPG can be almost any diameter theoretically as long as the body where the propellant is contained has been carefully loaded. What I mean by this is that the CG & CP (center of gravity and center of pressure) are very close to one another thus giving it stability over longer range. The problem with "windcocking" is always going to be there with both and all types of RG's, RPG's, rockets, and missiles. Like I stated before, Bulgaria is coming out with better quality, more warhead confirgurations, and lighter weight.
The above is just my opinion with allot of research done on my part and I feel that it could be useful to the QP's. You guys are the "masters" of improvisation. AM's "porcupine" rounds are enough proof to me!
