QBZ-191 service rifle family

I see the ambi handle issue this way

1a. If possible, add another slot/cutout to the other side for an alternative bolt group that has the left side charging handle. This is dubious because the external ejector is right around the area where this new handle would be, and even if it doesn't interfere there might be balance issues due to rotation and ejection, etc.

1b. Design a "mirror" gun that's probably has to have its bolt, bolt group and even lug recesses non interchangeable with the original. Not a realistic option in any way.

VS

2. Left-handers accept charging with their non-trigger hand and the slight discomfort of looking at an ejection that will never hit them. The magazine and and selectors are already ambi.

3. The PLA demand that lefties shoot right handed and quit this counter revolutionary activities or face the consequences

TerraN_EmpirE said:

3. The PLA demand that lefties shoot right handed and quit this counter revolutionary activities or face the consequences

Click to expand...

QBZ-85-1 was designed to allow for better brass deflection to enable left handed shooting more comfortably.
They also have an ambidextrous safety on QBZ-191.

There is no reason for us to continue entertaining the idea that the PLA does not permit left handed shooting, and in the case of QBZ-191 they have a feature that you would only really need for firing with both hands.


The question we should be asking is not "can QBZ-191 be fired left handed" but rather "QBZ-191 can be fired left handed, are there any features that can further improve left handed shooting that is worth the cost/complexity/engineering"?

I meant it in jest @Bltizo, the florid aspect should have flagged that.

I expect they will continue to primarily shoot right handed with left handed shooting taught more as a contingency in tactical situations.

Saru said:

Really wish they could also change the stock to.

Click to expand...

I don't know why people gripe that hard about the butt stock...

Sure it ain't look as good as a Magpul or those SCAR ones, that it has only 3 length settings and certainly looks like can shave off some fat to make it more lean, but it isn't that high on the quality of life improvement list as like the handguard.

MwRYum said:

I don't know why people gripe that hard about the butt stock...

Sure it ain't look as good as a Magpul or those SCAR ones, that it has only 3 length settings and certainly looks like can shave off some fat to make it more lean, but it isn't that high on the quality of life improvement list as like the handguard.

Click to expand...

Aren't there four lengths for the stock?




That said, I agree that to me the stock looks fine as a baseline variant.
I think it compares fine to the standard stock of say, the standard M4s that are issued in the world (CAR-15 style). It's relatively slim and looks lightweight.
If anything, the stock is one thing that I think they got right on the first go.

Strangelove said:

View attachment 87909View attachment 87910View attachment 87911View attachment 87912

Click to expand...

notice the paint chipping , either the training is much more intensive then I think , or the paint isn't that much "grunt proof"

wssth0306 said:

notice the paint chipping , either the training is much more intensive then I think , or the paint isn't that much "grunt proof"

Click to expand...

Should not be painted, but parkerized, or some other coating. The coating either isn't getting good adherence, or maybe is too thin.