QBZ-191 service rifle family

Wrought

Wrought

Junior Member
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Yet that extended magazine well allows its best feature.


That’s actually a simple reason. Transitioning and training. The (production) AK12 I would argue is a poorer clone in concept of the IWI ACE. But they are based on the same idea. If you have an army of conscripts whom have trained on the AK74 or AKM for decades. It’s going to take a while for retrain them on a completely new system. But if what you issue is an iteration rather than a revolution it’s going to be easy.
Done properly maybe an hour in a class room followed by an hour of range time. Of course the Russian army in Ukraine has been known to skip basic training and refresher training all together but still if you have any memory of Conscription service with an AK you should have some idea.

It’s the same idea Sig had when they developed the MCX they used the AR lower and T handle has the basic controls. It’s a new rifle but anyone whom has ever operated an M16, M4, Ar15 series rifle instantly knows how to operate its basic functions.

This is a commercial offering not meant for the Red Army. It’s meant for export and private users.



The AM17 is one another is the Kord 6P67. Both have the potential to serve as a better basis for an Infantry modernization but the Russian army didn’t want to make the changes. However given as we still see the vast majority of Russian troops still using Iron sights and the known issues of Supply and training or lack there in the Red Army… neither option would really be of benefit. It’s the same for the AK 22 and the 6.02x41mm. Maybe down the line a decade or two with real substantial reforms could take advantage of them but with what they have now? Only a dwindling handful have the ability to use it.

The PLA Qbz 191 by contrast shows a willingness to compromise more. They clearly felt the QBZ95 didn’t have the growth potential they wanted for modernization. They were willing to make changes in training as they moved to a completely different manual of maintenance but kept some carry over for those whom had familiarity with the QBZ03 and the logistics of the existing 5.8x42mm magazines + associated web gear. It’s a major step to toss away the existing equipment you have and usually you have some compromise to try and ease that.
Click to expand...

Minor, but the Red Army has been defunct for 30 years now.
 
H

hooly

New Member
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Yet that extended magazine well allows its best feature.
Click to expand...
what best feature would that be?, please elaborate. I think 'rock 'n lock' is a better system than AR style mag well insertion. Just my opinion of course, but there's a reason why the AK platform, to the HK G36 to the QBZ utilizes the rock n' lock and paddle release right? Have you heard about the over insertion problems with the new SIG Spear?
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
hooly said:
what best feature would that be?, please elaborate. I think 'rock 'n lock' is a better system than AR style mag well insertion. Just my opinion of course, but there's a reason why the AK platform, to the HK G36 to the QBZ utilizes the rock n' lock and paddle release right? Have you heard about the over insertion problems with the new SIG Spear?
Click to expand...
The AR magazine system is the best feature. Feel free to disagree. However based on the adoption and users it seems the vast majority of 5.56 NATO users agree.

No the G36 doesn’t use the rock and lock. It has a magazine well. The magazine is inserted directly up like an AR. it’s just the latch is using a lever as opposed to a Button. Well the two types are not compatible HK did design and offer a different magazine well module to swap in.
HK went with the G36 magazine in part copying what was on both the Sig 550 and Styer AUG. as they wanted polymer for weight, to allow an easy round count, to Jungle mount additional magazines, and at the time the Aluminum magazine type standard for the AR type was troubled. HK among others would offer Steel magazines built to STANAG spec on many of their rifles that was 1996. Today Germany has begun replacing its G36 with HK416 and limited numbers of HK433 and 437s both use AR style drop free magazine releases based on the AR15 design. The intervening almost 3 decades more modern polymer magazines and better springs, followers have corrected the AR magazine issues meaning that they are more reliable than ever.

Next I know Brandon Herrera had such an issue with his Sig SPEAR in .308 and there were other problems. Those issues appear to have been early production runs. Thats kinda why the process takes a while issues get ironed. If course the Internet is like your haunted regretful memories at 3 am…
 
Saru

Saru

Junior Member
Registered Member
Aniah said:
It's protruding just enough that it can't. We said this a few pages ago but it will most likely require a new upper that is taller or a redesigned gas chamber to fix that.
Click to expand...
Which honestly they can redesign by themselves
 
RedMetalSeadramon

RedMetalSeadramon

Junior Member
Registered Member
TerraN_EmpirE said:
The AR magazine system is the best feature. Feel free to disagree. However based on the adoption and users it seems the vast majority of 5.56 NATO users agree.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Rock in mags give a positive response to correct insertion, where for a slide in sometimes have over insertion problems. They also tend to be more natively ambidextrous than push in mags

The primary advantage of the slide in thus far is currently in manufacturing. An aluminum STANAG magazine is effectively two pieces, and the lock system for it is a simple notch in the mag. Comparatively a Kalash mag is multiple pieces including foraging. Now with polymer magazine this advantage is less relevant than it use to be, but i still think it should be lowest common denominator when it comes to mass produced items like magazines and ammos.

The proliferation of STANAG should be seen as well, a sign of STANAG (standardization) rather than any peculiar positive aspect of the magazine.
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Next I know Brandon Herrera had such an issue with his Sig SPEAR in .308 and there were other problems. Those issues appear to have been early production runs. Thats kinda why the process takes a while issues get ironed. If course the Internet is like your haunted regretful memories at 3 am…
Click to expand...

Herrera reviewed the type 81 and completely forgot about the mag hold open despite commenting on the magazine. He also failed to mention the solid rear sight trunnion. He markets himself as the AK guy but doesn't notice these things, so i don't take his reviews seriously.
 
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
RedMetalSeadramon said:
I disagree. Rock in mags give a positive response to correct insertion, where for a slide in sometimes have over insertion problems. They also tend to be more natively ambidextrous than push in mags
Click to expand...
Fell free yet I reserve the right to disagree with you. The thing is over insertion is fairly rare and can be corrected out by design and training.
The reason I feel the AR system is superior is the ease of loading. The magazine well is a funnel. It leads the magazine into home. The Rock and lock requires a fine understanding of where the well is and to establish the hook and axis of rotation. Although a trained soldier can rapidly force the ejection of a spent AK magazine the drop free of an AR is exceptional fast. Push button and as long as everything is in good condition it drops.

RedMetalSeadramon said:
The primary advantage of the slide in thus far is currently in manufacturing. An aluminum STANAG magazine is effectively two pieces, and the lock system for it is a simple notch in the mag. Comparatively a Kalash mag is multiple pieces including foraging. Now with polymer magazine this advantage is less relevant than it use to be, but i still think it should be lowest common denominator when it comes to mass produced items like magazines and ammos.
Click to expand...
In metal you have multiple parts on an AR magazine it may seem like two parts but it’s actually 4 two stamped shells welded together the spring and follower.
Also France, Germany and Belgium as well as the UK used Steel versions of the magazine not aluminum. This was done because of the way Aluminum deformed. The AR magazine was originally supposed to be a disposable 20 round aluminum type but Colt extended it into the 30 round adding the dog leg. This however wasn’t perfect and created a pinch point. This was made worse as aluminum has elastic deformation. Once deformed that deformation is permanent. It may be temporarily deformed back but the second weight is applied the deformation returns. Steel doesn’t deform that way but it’s heavier.
Polymer has been around for decades and has been looked at for an alternative magazine material but it’s got it’s issues particularly as solvents used in cleaning and maintenance of a gun caused older magazines to melt.
RedMetalSeadramon said:
The proliferation of STANAG should be seen as well, a sign of STANAG (standardization) rather than any peculiar positive aspect of the magazine.
Click to expand...
Which is a pretty questionable position as the STANAG is only the set of dimensions. Farther it was never actually adopted. STANAG 4179 is a draft not ratified which is Why Germany, Spain and Austria had no problem issuing rifles that didn’t use it. Heck even being in NATO doesn’t dictate that you have to comply or can’t issue or use systems that aren’t used by other states.
HK could have put the G36 magazine in the HK433 if they so chose. HK didn’t even us STANAG on its own rifles until after they came into to the British L85A2. It was then they developed their steel magazine which they then used on the HK416.

Hell the XM8 was a G36 magazine not an AR15. The argument that we should “ignore any positive aspect” I think falls flat as you also ignore the negative.
Prior to the turn of the 2010s many makers had no issue not using Stanag on new rifles. Despite its well established nature. Once the PMAG and a new generation of highly reliable STANAG compliant magazines appeared.
RedMetalSeadramon said:
Herrera reviewed the type 81 and completely forgot about the mag hold open despite commenting on the magazine. He also failed to mention the solid rear sight trunnion. He markets himself as the AK guy but doesn't notice these things, so i don't take his reviews seriously.
Click to expand...
The reason I point to him is he is the most visible case of the Over Insertion on the Sig Spear (which by the way is an SR25 magazine because the 6.8x51mm is way outside the AR15 magazine envelope) . The case that gets quoted the most on the internet. The Spear he had at the time was an early batch of civilian “unobtanium” a $5,000 rifle in 7.62x51mm the magazine he used was a .308 PMAG. Since then Sig has made changes to the rifle and Magpul has a 6.8x51mm PMAG.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top