QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
That’s a long stroke system but not a direct AK derivative.
Also the Sig 540 didn’t exist until 1977 the Galil came out in 1972 with the Valmet launched in 1965. So unless time travel was involved…
Last edited:
you seem to know thing about galil very well
can i ask a question about vertical charging handle ?
it a truely good design ? i never use it before but at first sight i think it may offer quite few advantage
if soldiers familiar with reload magazine and charging the rifle all with right hand (shooting hand) then the J shape CH will not feel much different
and if soldiers familiar with western AK manual style : reload magazine and charge the rifle all with left hand (support hand) then the J shape CH will offer a quick way to charge without the need to go under or turn the rifle sideway
that my option , but somehow i don't understand why other nation don't follow suit ?
is there any serious cons come with J shape CH ?
Likely an FN FAL carryover. FALs are charged from the left, the upward handle allows the left hand to reach over and charge it from the top of the rifle.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Exactly, It’s manual of arms.
As to why more AK don’t use it. Well most AK rifles in military applications came with Russian advisers and the Warsaw Pact’s approved manuals.
the Galil came from the IDF which had a more western manual of arms. Most of the country that adopted the Galil came from the Fn FAL.
Farther in the mix is the slow but inevitable rise of optics which is happening in late 70s early 80s but really picks up at the same time as the disillusion of the Warsaw pact. So top mounted charging handles become an inconvenient thing.
You either have to do like the G36 and build the optic and rifle for each other. Or like the QBZ95, FAMAS Felin and G36C.
When IWI does the ACE they designed in a left sided handle. Something common in custom civilian AKs. Military AKs still often have left side mounting rails for Soviet scopes.
As to why more AK don’t use it. Well most AK rifles in military applications came with Russian advisers and the Warsaw Pact’s approved manuals.
the Galil came from the IDF which had a more western manual of arms. Most of the country that adopted the Galil came from the Fn FAL.
Farther in the mix is the slow but inevitable rise of optics which is happening in late 70s early 80s but really picks up at the same time as the disillusion of the Warsaw pact. So top mounted charging handles become an inconvenient thing.
You either have to do like the G36 and build the optic and rifle for each other. Or like the QBZ95, FAMAS Felin and G36C.
When IWI does the ACE they designed in a left sided handle. Something common in custom civilian AKs. Military AKs still often have left side mounting rails for Soviet scopes.
Not a direct AK derivative? Really? From what the guntubers say, they make is sound like the Swiss took a Russian AK and added some Swiss magic to make the Rolex of AK47s. They did what the Russians (and Isrealis with the Galil) can't seem to do, namely adopt the Upper and Lower receiver style of the AR and get rid of that ridiculous chunky stamped receiver and dust cover. Same with the Chinese QBZ, the best part of it is its "AR-ness" ... i.e. modular design, while dispensing with that ridiculous AR style charging rear charging handle and inferior Direct Impingment for the piston system.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Bruh…
The later ACE retains that AK break down because it was intended for sale to armies that have trained around the AK.
The HK traditional position on the left over the handguard easy access for a right handed supporting hand but again for a left requires a reach around and if your using the rail it has to clear the track. If it’s reciprocal than that includes the support hand. A right side version same and now Ambi version same on both sides. Over or under side charging handles would interfere with the rail system unless you build a bridge around it.
The AR charging handle may seem “ridiculous” but right or left handed it works. Sure it can’t be cycled well on the target but it’s non reciprocal so it’s not getting in the way well firing. With the lock open on last round it the charging handle can be bypassed on a reload. Slot the magazine in and hit the bolt release.
As to “Inferior” most of what has been claimed has to do with the ammunition. A lot of it is recycled claims based on events that happened in Vietnam. In the early years of the AR15 adoption for Vietnam the AR15 used a very proprietary propellant for its ammunition. When the DOD adopted the AR15 as the M16 the DuPont company couldn’t keep up with demand so the Army made a short cut they used more prevalent Ball powder. They also didn’t issue cleaning kits or chrome line the rifles so issues happened and the rifle was blamed. It was a huge scandal Congress got involved and even Eugene Stoner was put on the stand. He recommended changes that fixed the problems then.
In more modern time the M4 has been accused of issues but again most of those are the same as back then due to changes in ammunition M855A1 now. And the Shift from the M16’s 15 inches of gas tube to the M4’s 9 3/16ths inches long gas tube often combined with more common use of Suppressors. Many of these could be alleviated by adopting an 11 3/4ths mid length gas system.
Really the Stoner Internal piston system is just more sensitive to changes in pressure. Where external piston systems often have an adjustment valve to modify the flow.
On the other hand even without the receiver extension the AR15 gas system tends to be softer shooting which is part of why more users in accuracy favor it vs even short stroke piston systems. The momentum of the external piston tends to be harsher and snappier with the added weight of the piston and its impact rod’s momentum shifting more to the rifle’s climb.
So it’s all about pros and cons. Rather than “inferior or superior”.
They took the operating system but it’s not like Kalashnikov was the First to develop a long stroke gas piston system. Comparisons are often made to existing or well known examples. Both the M1 Garand and the BREN gun used them. In fact I have even heard the Garand was an inspiration for Kalashnikov
Yes though again the Sig 540 came after the Galil and the FAL already had a shotgun style take down. They (the Israelis on the Galil) chose to use a direct modification of the AK as their starting point. As a result although the IDF didn’t adopt it in numbers a few of the end users particularly in Africa often had AK experience.
The later ACE retains that AK break down because it was intended for sale to armies that have trained around the AK.
Agree.
Disagree and Caveat. Disagree as the T handle is ambidextrous and non reciprocal . It’s not perfect but it’s ahead of the game. If we look at the alternatives. The QBZ191 is the same idea as the QBZ03,Qbz86 and Qbz81. The AK and even Sig 540 and 550 series. To cycle the weapon means the most common dominant hand the right either has to leave the pistol grip and controls or an over or under left handed reach around. Add in optics and it’s not great. The FAL, M7’s (secondary) and the ACE left side system is okay for a right handed shooter but if your a lefty the reverse holds true.
The HK traditional position on the left over the handguard easy access for a right handed supporting hand but again for a left requires a reach around and if your using the rail it has to clear the track. If it’s reciprocal than that includes the support hand. A right side version same and now Ambi version same on both sides. Over or under side charging handles would interfere with the rail system unless you build a bridge around it.
The AR charging handle may seem “ridiculous” but right or left handed it works. Sure it can’t be cycled well on the target but it’s non reciprocal so it’s not getting in the way well firing. With the lock open on last round it the charging handle can be bypassed on a reload. Slot the magazine in and hit the bolt release.
As to “Inferior” most of what has been claimed has to do with the ammunition. A lot of it is recycled claims based on events that happened in Vietnam. In the early years of the AR15 adoption for Vietnam the AR15 used a very proprietary propellant for its ammunition. When the DOD adopted the AR15 as the M16 the DuPont company couldn’t keep up with demand so the Army made a short cut they used more prevalent Ball powder. They also didn’t issue cleaning kits or chrome line the rifles so issues happened and the rifle was blamed. It was a huge scandal Congress got involved and even Eugene Stoner was put on the stand. He recommended changes that fixed the problems then.
In more modern time the M4 has been accused of issues but again most of those are the same as back then due to changes in ammunition M855A1 now. And the Shift from the M16’s 15 inches of gas tube to the M4’s 9 3/16ths inches long gas tube often combined with more common use of Suppressors. Many of these could be alleviated by adopting an 11 3/4ths mid length gas system.
Really the Stoner Internal piston system is just more sensitive to changes in pressure. Where external piston systems often have an adjustment valve to modify the flow.
On the other hand even without the receiver extension the AR15 gas system tends to be softer shooting which is part of why more users in accuracy favor it vs even short stroke piston systems. The momentum of the external piston tends to be harsher and snappier with the added weight of the piston and its impact rod’s momentum shifting more to the rifle’s climb.
So it’s all about pros and cons. Rather than “inferior or superior”.
The AK-47 was not the first gas operated rifle the Soviets made. They had the AVS-36 for example. Which predates the AK-47, is contemporary to the M1 Garand, etc. The main issue was those rifles used regular rifle cartridges instead of intermediate cartridges. So they had a lot of recoil. The 7.62x54mmR round is also problematic because of being rimmed. If you look at the AVS-36 they already used curved magazines because of the rimmed cartridges.