QBZ-191 service rifle family

Blitzo · Monday at 1:25 AM

QIUSIYU said:
Some of our team members prefer this grip style because it feels more comfortable to them. Happy now? Even though firing 20 rounds could make the gun hot, we never actually reach that count in practice. This grip method has negligible impact anyway.

I don't know how this back and forth discussion between you and By78 began, but in this case it would be easier to just avoid making excuses for bad small arms training, fitout and discipline by PLA/PAP.

You're just really making life hard for yourself by trying to defend an indefensible position.

QIUSIYU said:
用中文来对话，敢吗

Please use English to write on this forum rather than Chinese.
If you want to test each other's Chinese literacy, do it via PMs.

QIUSIYU · Monday at 1:29 AM

Blitzo said:
I don't know how this back and forth discussion between you and By78 began, but in this case it would be easier to just avoid making excuses for bad small arms training, fitout and discipline by PLA/PAP.

You're just really making life hard for yourself by trying to defend an indefensible position.

Please use English to write on this forum rather than Chinese.
If you want to test each other's Chinese literacy, do it via PMs.

I tried to avoid conflict, but someone’s blatant disrespect left no room for courtesy.

Blitzo · Monday at 1:39 AM

QIUSIYU said:
I tried to avoid conflict, but someone’s blatant disrespect left no room for courtesy.

If your argument is fundamentally incorrect, just withdraw from the debate.

Everyone already accepts that PLA/PAP small arms training and discipline and equipment leaves a lot to be desired -- I don't know what you are repeatedly defending them when they don't deserve it.

Just agree "PLA/PAP small arms training and discipline and equipment is inconsistent and has room for improvement" and leave it be.

by78 · Monday at 1:41 AM

QIUSIYU said:
你说你中文很好，那么不可能不知道在中文互联网上相关的问题早就有了答案，在外网还问这种问题简直就是哗众取宠

This is an English language forum, if you're gonna post in Chinese, at least provide a translation.

QIUSIYU said:
Some of our team members prefer this grip style because it feels more comfortable to them. Happy now? Even though firing 20 rounds could make the gun hot, we never actually reach that count in practice. This grip method has negligible impact anyway.

You could have avoided the entire protracted exchange with this simple and honest answer from the outset, instead of trying to defend the practice through evasion, obfuscation, insults, and by giving the misleading answer that it's unique to bullpups due to their ergonomic limitations.

pikusharp1 · Monday at 5:47 AM

QIUSIYU said:
In my eyes, your constant attempts to stir up arguments with these meaningless questions make you come off as nothing more than a clown.All answers are in this video. Good luck understanding Chinese—because there’s no English version.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Even in the video the person admit its an imperfect solution to the problem of too short of a length of pull of some of the firearms model. He has even suggested a rail and foregrip as an alternative. He also admit anything more than 20 rounds will basically burn your fingers. Idk why despite being the one to post the video you cant agree to any of the points.

QIUSIYU · Monday at 5:53 AM

by78 said:
This is an English language forum, if you're gonna post in Chinese, at least provide a translation.

You could have avoided the entire protracted exchange with this simple and honest answer from the outset, instead of trying to defend the practice through evasion, obfuscation, insults, and by giving the misleading answer that it's unique to bullpups due to their ergonomic limitations.

I’ve explained repeatedly that our use of this stance is permitted due to the bullpup configuration of the rifle. Yet you persist in questioning it. Those continuing this stance with the QBZ191 do so purely out of habit formed from years of handling the QBZ95.

pikusharp1 · Monday at 5:57 AM

Aniah said:
Who knows, as the country gets richer and the budget increases, I can see those in charge be kind enough to give a little more for the little guys. Even just a small increase in the budget in the future would help out substantially. Just my opinion on this.

I will be honest if the PLA wanted to they absolutely can put their infantry men into the 21st century standards within a few years if they wanted to but its clear their focus is not on the equipment of foot soldiers. The fact is if you want to deter the world's super power from intervening your next possible conflict top of the line infantry equipment is kinda on the backburner. So no I dont think its a funding issue its a priority issue.

QIUSIYU · Monday at 5:59 AM

pikusharp1 said:
Even in the video the person admit its an imperfect solution to the problem of too short of a length of pull of some of the firearms model. He has even suggested a rail and foregrip as an alternative. He also admit anything more than 20 rounds will basically burn your fingers. Idk why despite being the one to post the video you cant agree to any of the points.

As clearly stated in the video, we do not engage in firing 20 rounds while using this posture. Though tolerated as an emergency contingency stance within our military, it is not actively promoted.

QIUSIYU · Monday at 6:08 AM

Blitzo said:
If your argument is fundamentally incorrect, just withdraw from the debate.

Everyone already accepts that PLA/PAP small arms training and discipline and equipment leaves a lot to be desired -- I don't know what you are repeatedly defending them when they don't deserve it.

Just agree "PLA/PAP small arms training and discipline and equipment is inconsistent and has room for improvement" and leave it be.

You may view this stance as incorrect and unacceptable, but within our military, it has been a tolerated practice due to the unique ergonomics of legacy bullpup rifles. No one emphasizes its 'incorrectness' unless someone is foolish enough to fire over 20 rounds continuously—risking barrel burns—by stubbornly maintaining it. What outsiders deem 'flawed technique' isn’t perceived as such internally. We’re fully aware of the burn risk, yet its use is permitted because it’s largely limited to individual preferences and is more commonly observed during shooting qualification tests under controlled conditions.

Blitzo · Monday at 6:11 AM

QIUSIYU said:
You may view this stance as incorrect and unacceptable, but within our military, it has been a tolerated practice due to the unique ergonomics of legacy bullpup rifles. No one emphasizes its 'incorrectness' unless someone is foolish enough to fire over 20 rounds continuously—risking barrel burns—by stubbornly maintaining it. What outsiders deem 'flawed technique' isn’t perceived as such internally. We’re fully aware of the burn risk, yet its use is permitted because it’s largely limited to individual preferences and is more commonly observed during shooting qualification tests under controlled conditions.

Then that is an error of PLA/PAP small arms competency, in terms of training, discipline and equipment.

There is no need to make excuses for them -- just like how 20-30 years ago, PLAAF and PLAN capabilities and training and equipment in many domains were poor and flawed and limited as well. But there was no need to make excuses for them at the time, because recognition of those weaknesses is what enabled them to progress and advance.

Recognizing limitations in PLA/PAP small arms competency is also useful, so there's no need to try and justify their mistakes. Just agree that they sort of suck, and move on.
Fortunately for the PLA/PAP, bleeding edge small arms competency is not something which typically wins wars.

QBZ-191 service rifle family

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

QIUSIYU

Senior Member

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

by78

General

pikusharp1

New Member

QIUSIYU

Senior Member

pikusharp1

New Member

QIUSIYU

Senior Member

QIUSIYU

Senior Member

Blitzo

Lieutenant General