QBZ-191 service rifle family

Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
The M27/38 is a headache. It’s not an LMG the marines don’t even issue it with a high capacity magazine.
It’s as heavy as the XM7 despite being an assault rifle and not a battle rifle. With the VCOG now the marines standard issue the M38 pretty much doesn’t exist. As the NGSW proliferation into the U.S. Army goes ahead it’s probable that the M27 will follow the M38 into the history books. With XM250 taking the IAR role as it was designed to in the Army and XM7 takes the rifle and DMR roles.

The USMC call the M27 an Infantry Automatic rifle, what they got was basically an M4A1 with a Piston system, heavy barrel, funky rail system and bunch of proprietary parts. They then back doored it into an infantry rifle. The main reason they did this was urban fighting where the Marines wanted selective fire to allow the squad gunners to have a rifle better suited to close quarters cleaning. They also wanted them to operate as accurately as the rest of the squad so semi automatic fire.

In Magazine vs belt. A box magazine is generally less likely to jam so long as it’s a well designed magazine in good repair vs a belt that can get debris trapped in it. However a drum is the worst of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Yeah, my example for the M27 and M38 is exactly that the whole "DMR" and "IAR/LSW" thing can be fuzzy depending on modern attachments, and that is the case for QBU-191 (which in some ways is a spiritual analogue to M27/38).
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I am not even sure fuzzy works here. The M27 is filling three roles now in the exact same configuration it’s DMR, Automatic Gunner and Rifle.
It’s Mr. Magoo level blind.

Type 191 family has line of distinction. It’s carbine is not the same as it’s rifle and the DMR/LSW line is the only off bit. Yet even then it’s not trying to be everything to everyone.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
I am not even sure fuzzy works here. The M27 is filling three roles now in the exact same configuration it’s DMR, Automatic Gunner and Rifle.
It’s Mr. Magoo level blind.

Type 191 family has line of distinction. It’s carbine is not the same as it’s rifle and the DMR/LSW line is the only off bit. Yet even then it’s not trying to be everything to everyone.
Click to expand...

I'm specifically comparing the M27/M38 with QBU-191, not the QBZ-191 family at large (given the differences in barrel profile, barrel length, and of course handguards).

The only reason for the comparison is to demonstrate that a rifle which is designed for "one role" can appropriately take on other roles without much drama, in reply to post #3148.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
ohan_qwe said:
Would it technically be possible to put the drum in QJB-201 SAW as it's using the same magazine well?
Click to expand...
Sure but would you want too? The feed on drums is rather notoriously unreliable as is. And the feeding system that would feed from a box into a belt feed tend to be finicky as is. Plus those drums tend to be heavier. So the worst of all worlds.
 
S

sabiothailand

New Member
Registered Member
So I saw this clip on Youtube and I'm not sure if it was possibly edited (by the original uploader on Bilbili, of course). Although I believe that the QBU-191 is a pretty good rifle, I think hitting all 10s in full-auto mode just seems impossible.
 
S

sabiothailand

New Member
Registered Member
Aniah said:
That's because one is firing from the shoulder and another is using a bipod.
Click to expand...
Weird, the gun seems to shake more in the bipod clip, but the bullets were more accurate than the ones fired from the shoulder. Do those aspects affect gun accuracy or not?

I don't really know much about guns, so I'm not so bright on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top