QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Yeah, well, where actually ARE the optics?
For me, a QBZ191 without optics is almost as annoying as seeing a fighter jet with a pitot probe at the front. Almost.
Still being distributed. Trying to standardize a military with optics as large as China's which has never standardized optics before is gonna take a while. All that retraining and replacement of the 95-1, do expect this to take a couple of years.
Nothing weird. A lot of Russian AK12 also only use the iron sight.
broadsword
Brigadier
Against an opponent with optics, wouldn't that be a handicap?
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
It seems like it’s not lack of Options it’s lack of specific models. In the debut of the new PLA weapon series they showed 3 specific options a holographic sight for SMGs, an Lpdvo “Sino-ACOG” and a night vision system.
By specifically choosing models for issue they limited themselves to the availability of those products. A closed model if you will. This has the advantage of locking out potential foreign logistics issues, but makes it vulnerable to immaturity of the internal industry and supply Chain.
The US used an open model when its infantry first adopted optics. Which allowed for rapid fielding but with the cost that it resulted in a hodgepodge of optics. From The type standardized ACOG and Aimpoint models to unofficial models from the same as well as Elcan, Leopold, Eotech, even Israeli sourced optics that were procured either at unit or even individual level with reenbursment from private commercial industry.
With the obvious downsides that said UN standard product needed to be vetted to a degree to ensure it meets survivability requirements, limited interchange of training. Questions on if they need support IE additional batteries for some sights well Acogs don’t or need of mounting devices.
As well as being often built off shore. This system worked for a long time still does for the US. Until the supply chain was established to the point where it could meet the demand with standardized types then improved standardized models.
This rapid fielding model seems to have also been used in a more limited model for some Russian forces pre 2015 but was limited to more professional classes of Russian military. However Russian general infantry is still a hugely varied force with units using residual stocks of AKM next to those with the latest from Kalashnikov concern. Sourcing a standard optic would be a huge headache as the latest rifles have a pic rail well large stocks have either a side rail or no existing mounting interface at all. Then compounded by limited industrial production base and so so Quality of that that does.
Could the PLA accelerate Optics adoption? Maybe but to do so they would likely have to shift to a more common commercially available product sourced from one of China’s OEMs like say Huanic but doing so would mean first shifting away from the “Approved” doctrinally tailored model to a decentralized selection.
By specifically choosing models for issue they limited themselves to the availability of those products. A closed model if you will. This has the advantage of locking out potential foreign logistics issues, but makes it vulnerable to immaturity of the internal industry and supply Chain.
The US used an open model when its infantry first adopted optics. Which allowed for rapid fielding but with the cost that it resulted in a hodgepodge of optics. From The type standardized ACOG and Aimpoint models to unofficial models from the same as well as Elcan, Leopold, Eotech, even Israeli sourced optics that were procured either at unit or even individual level with reenbursment from private commercial industry.
With the obvious downsides that said UN standard product needed to be vetted to a degree to ensure it meets survivability requirements, limited interchange of training. Questions on if they need support IE additional batteries for some sights well Acogs don’t or need of mounting devices.
As well as being often built off shore. This system worked for a long time still does for the US. Until the supply chain was established to the point where it could meet the demand with standardized types then improved standardized models.
This rapid fielding model seems to have also been used in a more limited model for some Russian forces pre 2015 but was limited to more professional classes of Russian military. However Russian general infantry is still a hugely varied force with units using residual stocks of AKM next to those with the latest from Kalashnikov concern. Sourcing a standard optic would be a huge headache as the latest rifles have a pic rail well large stocks have either a side rail or no existing mounting interface at all. Then compounded by limited industrial production base and so so Quality of that that does.
Could the PLA accelerate Optics adoption? Maybe but to do so they would likely have to shift to a more common commercially available product sourced from one of China’s OEMs like say Huanic but doing so would mean first shifting away from the “Approved” doctrinally tailored model to a decentralized selection.
In infantry fight yes. But China may use the AFV/Artillery for everything beyond 300m.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
You phrase that like it’s unique to the PLA. Every conventional army does that if it has the opportunity.
broadsword
Brigadier
Isn't it obvious it is better to be equipped with optics, and the more advanced, the better?