Its obvious they have rail risers they just never had the opportunity to use it before 191, the riser on the qbz bullpup design would only make the gun far more inaccurate
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Its obvious they have rail risers they just never had the opportunity to use it before 191, the riser on the qbz bullpup design would only make the gun far more inaccurate
This is the first picture we have of it in use on QBZ-191, and it is fairly interesting, so I am saying that your previous reply saying it there is nothing extraordinary or special about it and that is is better off not posting, is completely off the mark.
I for one find it fairly interesting, as it shows us a piece of equipment we haven't observed on the QBZ-191 before, and it doesn't detract from the continuity of the thread nor does it take up much space.
Be careful in future if you seriously want to suggest that a picture or post is "better off not posting" because while the forum of course allows normal members to comment on the quality of contributions of others posts to a limited extent, that sort of accusation is a fairly serious one and reserved for actively detrimental posts, misinformation, or for content that has literally been exactly reposted before on a given thread.
For that picture, which doesn't fit in any of those boxes, saying that it's better off not being posted, is completely uncalled for.
MwRYum
Major
Or, even with aftermarket upper body kit, QBZ-95 still sits quite high for top-mounted optics. While I know Type-97 has some full-length full flush rail kit that sits very low (as in "the height that we're familiar with when compare with Western models"), but so far we see those ever employed by PAP/SWAT/PLA are those that maintain the handle design to a certain degree.
QBZ-191 offers a different story, of course, and certainly they're scouring though all their stores for whatever that once thought as junk, but now can offer a better user experience - more suitable height, for starter.
Some screen shots from an academic paper on an improved buffer design, which reduces total recoil by 33% (from 2250N to 1507N).
Old buffer design:
Improved buffer design:
So more spring inside the buffer? In concept similar to the buffer below, but with regular recoil spring instead of captured one?
