Chinese culture emphasizes a dialectical approach to issues—eschewing absolute negation of any single perspective. A shooting stance you might dismiss as flawed could hold contextual validity within our framework, as we assess its utility through practical adaptation rather than rigid dogma.
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Yes, the framework is one called "incompetence".
This has the energy of trading dozens of J-8s for a single F-22.
I think what myself and others have said has already conveyed the point. If you refuse to be straight up and to accept that the PLA/PAP is very lacking in small arms equipment, training and discipline, then that is fine, but you shouldn't be too surprised if other people continue to call you out on it.
The same firing position can be seen in foreign armies as well, and there is little need to consider it an absolutely wrong firing position when it is used without causing injury to the shooter
Considering rifle handling/tactics are also related to the QBZ-191, and the original discussion spawned from QBZ-191 pictures, it'll be difficult to police and draw the line.
At a certain stage people just need to agree to disagree. Ultimately it's not against the rules to have strange opinions on things.
Maybe they are willing to trade pain for accuracy and a gun shouldn't be built like that for a person to resort to such stupid gimmick.
While the solution is bad, You can't do much when PLA has never addressed the outdated ergonomics.
Thankfully it isn't as flawed as the MCX Spear such as Poor Quality, Mag Feeding Issues, Overweight with Ammunition weighting too much, Charging handle accidentally being pulled off, Scratches and dents inside the gun after a few rounds.
No gun is perfect but Heckler Koch is the best company, SIG is overrated lots of quality issues.
Flawed ergonomics, The Buttstock is still horrible and beyond unusable it needs a cheek wielder, handguard is outdated at its best which should be replaced with a MLOK.
While the solution is bad, You can't do much when PLA has never addressed the outdated ergonomics.
Thankfully it isn't as flawed as the MCX Spear such as Poor Quality, Mag Feeding Issues, Overweight with Ammunition weighting too much, Charging handle accidentally being pulled off, Scratches and dents inside the gun after a few rounds.
No gun is perfect but Heckler Koch is the best company, SIG is overrated lots of quality issues.
Starts to get tired of all these arguments. Y'all have it almost everyday.
It's probably just due to the rifle's poor ergonomics, that's it.
As soldiers, they always need to work around equipments and eventually get used to it, it's common sense.
It's probably just due to the rifle's poor ergonomics, that's it.
As soldiers, they always need to work around equipments and eventually get used to it, it's common sense.
Last edited:
Unlike with the Type 21 boots, I've never heard of many complaints about the 191's ergonomics. A adjustable cheek rest and MLOK handguard would both be nice to have but not necessary for the rifle to do its job. IMO the rifle is fine, trying to blame the equipment for bad training is just cope.
I think it's also because the rifle is simply a bit too short, especially its handguard.
If the gun, or at least its handguard is longer, that could lead to better, more comfortable handling.
I disagree. the Rifle isn't fine, stop excusing the poor design, QBZ-95 and QBZ191 has poor ergonomics the Handguard is too short same goes for the QBZ-95. A assault rifle is not supposed to force you into holding the Iron Sight of the gun with your index finger touching the Iron Sight.
It's just uncomfortable and impractical that way.
There's a really good reason you have adjustable Iron Sights it pertains to the users length and comfort to it's best. Almost every Modular Rifle allows you to remove the Iron Sight and displace it.