QBZ-191 service rifle family

Z

zxy_bc

Junior Member
Registered Member
LawLeadsToPeace said:
I appreciate your concern and to alleviate your worries, I am doing very well! I’m just correcting what I believe to be incorrect jargon. Just to prove my intent, I said:

I said that doesn’t exist. Then you said:

Then I mentioned examples of 5.56 variants of those rifle platforms and explained that a rifle would have to be totally changed from within in order to fire a different bullet.

Now with more context, my answer is that I never heard of that doctrine. I know that the 5.8mm was designed partially due to the concept of denying ammunition to the enemy. But I never heard of that doctrine before. Do you have a citation for that?
Click to expand...
Alright guys cool it off. We don't want any personal confrontation. I think it's settled.
 
Aniah

Aniah

Senior Member
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
well in emergency (in a war that you run out of bullets), thats not a concern at all
Click to expand...
If you're running out of bullets and need to start using foreign bullets in a gun that isn't made to accept it then it ain't an emergency but a battle loss. The idea is ridiculous and I'm sure the designers of the 191 did not take that into consideration when making it because it's simply unrealistic and unnecessary.
 
LawLeadsToPeace

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
zxy_bc said:
Alright guys cool it off. We don't want any personal confrontation. I think it's settled.
Click to expand...
Oh. I’m not being confrontational. I am just trying to understand what he was asking and the context of his question. Now that I understand the context, I responded in kind and in a respectful manner.
 
Z

zxy_bc

Junior Member
Registered Member
Aniah said:
If you're running out of bullets and need to start using foreign bullets in a gun that isn't made to accept it then it ain't an emergency but a battle loss. The idea is ridiculous and I'm sure the designers of the 191 did not take that into consideration when making it because it's simply unrealistic and unnecessary.
Click to expand...
It's less of a doctrine, more like an interesting anecdote or niche fact imo.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
antiterror13 said:
Well, I am aware it is not a common knowledge. But thats the doctrine of PLA at that time when they designed Type 95 that in emergency situation (China under land attack) that Chinese rifle could fire NATO 5.56 and not the other way around
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that "it's not common knowledge".

I'm saying that you are making spectacular claims as if it was common knowledge.

That is to say, I am trying to politely say that your original claim was questionable to begin with, and instead of talking about it as if it were true, you should have asked whether it was true to begin with.


If other people are dog piling you on this, it is because the sheer audacity of the claim and question was so ridiculous to begin with.

Now that you understand that your original claim and belief was false and untrue, then that is all that matters. After all, it's fine to make honest mistakes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top