Sure, but the centrifugal fuze accomplishes the same safety feature. It can only be armed when it is launched. Setback fuzes use the force of the launch to arm the fuze instead of the spin imparted from the rifling but effectively they’re the same. I’d imagine they found it’s safe enough as is and doesn’t need the added cost of a second fuze.
isn’t it also setback armed on top of that?
Possibly but why would they? The centrifugal fuze is sufficient.
It does seem to use both setback and centrifugal safety (M433, with M550 fuze) https://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/grenade/40mm_ammo.html actual TM-whatever would be a better source, but i’ll take this
Well you learn something new everyday. To be fair I might have learned it ~20 years ago and just forgotten it but interesting nonetheless.
It’s additional safety factor that is easy to implement, and NATO armies take safety seriously
even russians are capable of doing it
Sure, but the centrifugal fuze accomplishes the same safety feature. It can only be armed when it is launched. Setback fuzes use the force of the launch to arm the fuze instead of the spin imparted from the rifling but effectively they’re the same. I’d imagine they found it’s safe enough as is and doesn’t need the added cost of a second fuze.