QBZ-191 service rifle family

TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
sheen said:
I've heard conflicting rumors on the capabilities of the 5.8 x 42mm cartridge and comparing them to 5.56 NATO. Can anyone elaborate on how well it performs?
Click to expand...
Which is faster a Ferrari or a Lamborghini? Or Chevy vs Ford?
before you answer or say what does that have to do with anything. What I am trying to point out is that your Question falls in the same position. You are missing context. That context is the host weapon and the ammunition spec. 5.56x45mm is a family of cartridges. 5.8x42 is one too both have generations and loadings and varieties that are going to perform differently. Then you have the host weapon factor. Firing M855A1 from an M16A4 is going to differ from an M4A1 vs an Mk18 vs an M249. The same for the Chinese DBP 10 fired from a QBU88 vs QBZ95 vs QBZ191 vs QBZ192 ecta ecta. Barrel lengths rates of twist.
Generally the two are probably going to be equal. The Chinese claim to out perform in general but that’s normally gauged on SS109 which is the default NATO military load but from the 1980s.
 
Aniah

Aniah

Senior Member
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Which is faster a Ferrari or a Lamborghini? Or Chevy vs Ford?
before you answer or say what does that have to do with anything. What I am trying to point out is that your Question falls in the same position. You are missing context. That context is the host weapon and the ammunition spec. 5.56x45mm is a family of cartridges. 5.8x42 is one too both have generations and loadings and varieties that are going to perform differently. Then you have the host weapon factor. Firing M855A1 from an M16A4 is going to differ from an M4A1 vs an Mk18 vs an M249. The same for the Chinese DBP 10 fired from a QBU88 vs QBZ95 vs QBZ191 vs QBZ192 ecta ecta. Barrel lengths rates of twist.
Generally the two are probably going to be equal. The Chinese claim to out perform in general but that’s normally gauged on SS109 which is the default NATO military load but from the 1980s.
Click to expand...
Wasn't there a report a couple of years back on some guy doing research on the DBP10 vs M855, after testing it was shown that the DBP10 has better long-range ballistics and penetration but 1/3 less wounding potential? I'll try to find that report.
 
Maikeru

Maikeru

Major
Registered Member
Aniah said:
I don't think so. The DBP10 is basically like the other global standard in terms of quality. A lot of the problems has been fixed by the release of the DBP10.
Click to expand...
OK they were discussing the earlier versions of the 5.8mm round it seems, with the steel casing and corrosive, not very hot propellant.
 
ChongqingHotPot92

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
sheen said:
I've heard conflicting rumors on the capabilities of the 5.8 x 42mm cartridge and comparing them to 5.56 NATO. Can anyone elaborate on how well it performs?
Click to expand...
Most of the ballistic data we have about 5.8mm is the DPB87/88(heavy round)/95/10. With the exception of 10, most of the 5.8mm cartridges for QBZ-95 are corrosive and low pressured, so they need relatively long barrels (at least 460mm) to generate enough muzzle velocity (930mps in the case of DBP87/85 4.1g bullet). The DBP 10 non corrosive cartridge is slightly slower at 915mps when fired from QBZ-95's 460mm barrel, but the projectile weights 4.6g (more accurate and better penetration against body armor). However at this point, we don't have data for the new DBP-191 cartridge. It should be an improvement from DBP-10, but given QBZ-191's short barrel, I would expect the DBP-191 to have faster burning propellant (thus, higher chamber pressure) to achieve the same velocity (thus, lethality) of 915-930mps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top