Oh nice catch, I guess they are the same thing. Ah, I have mistaken a piece of tape as the tablecloth...
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Oh nice catch, I guess they are the same thing. Ah, I have mistaken a piece of tape as the tablecloth...
Just saw this on cjdby.com
The PLA army is contracting digital optics that can see at night, collect images and communicate data, but the request is relatively old, it was posted in Dec of 2019. But I guess the picture just got leaked?
The optic can be fitted on QBZ95 and QBU191 if using a mount.
I really want a look at the internals to understand why there is a gap between bolt and charging handle, seems like it could've been simplified to be 1 cut instead of 2. Is this something to solve the issue with the AK where gunk can get behind the bolt in the gap opened up by the weapon once it's off safe?
Judging by these photos of the 191 charging handle, it doesn't seem like there's any intention to use it as a forward assist since that blade sticking backward would probably hurt like hell to smack.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Forward assist is viewed by many to be a mistake on the M16 series. The idea that if you have a round that won’t chamber you for it to is likely to make a jam worse not better.
I hear there was only opposition because it added complexity and cost to the weapon while being largely useless. With weapons like the AK the forward assist is the charging handle so you could smack the bolt forward if you wanted.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
This is accurate however again the problem is normally if the bolt won’t close it’s a problem with the round in the chamber. Forcing it closed is begging to jam it up worse. if the round is misshapen you are now forcing a wedge into the hole alternatively if for whatever reason the round is sitting out of alignment you can Cause the bullet to drop into the case.
Often the cause of such issues though is lack of proper maintenance. IE not cleaning the rifle. A number of modern and period rifles don’t even bother with it. Stoner didn’t add it to the design the Army demanded it. AK has it as did M14 and M1 Carbine because that (The charging handle) was an extension of their bolt. Having it and needing it are two different things. If the round won’t chamber the best answer is to eject it and try fresh.
Often the cause of such issues though is lack of proper maintenance. IE not cleaning the rifle. A number of modern and period rifles don’t even bother with it. Stoner didn’t add it to the design the Army demanded it. AK has it as did M14 and M1 Carbine because that (The charging handle) was an extension of their bolt. Having it and needing it are two different things. If the round won’t chamber the best answer is to eject it and try fresh.
MwRYum
Major
First of all, it takes time to dig through the site to find whatever newsworthy nugget there.
Second, it's not "The optic can be fitted on QBZ95 and QBU191 if using a mount", the more accurate translation should be "it can made fit to QBU191 via change into suitable mount". In other words the scope mount of the said scope is made to be detachable, unlike the new ACOG scope (?) which comes in 2 versions - for QBZ95 and QBZ191.
Sorry I am not sure what your first point means?
I know cjdby can be filled with a lot of armature fanboy stuff, but this post seems pretty legit. I haven't seen any info in this thread regarding a digital optic being contracted for 5.8mm rifles, I am assuming this digital optic is the one we saw during the parade.
I have yet to see much info on whether or not this digital optic will be adopted. If the picture I posted confirmed that it will enter service, I think it is somewhat newsworthy and relevant to this thread.
If this has been posted before or if you have evidence to show that the post from cjdby is fake, then I apologize, but PLA is watching does include making sense of rumors and info from unreliable sources does it not?
As to your second point, I do apologize for my confusing translation, I want to say "The optic can be fitted on QBZ95, and QBU191 if using a mount"
From the wording of the picture I posted, It seems to suggest that the new digital optic is designed for QBZ95 primarily, meaning it can be installed directly on the QBZ95, but it can also be attached onto the QBZ191 if using a corresponding mount. I assume it act like a Trijicon ACOG, originally designed to be fitted onto the carrying handle of M4s and M16s, but later they added a mount so that you can use it on Picatinny rails.
But, I do not believe the PLA's "ACOG" has a non-detachable mount like you suggested. I believe you are suggesting that there exist 2 versions of the optic with built-in and non-removable mounts. I think there is only 1 version of the optic, but issued with 2 types of mounts, and the mounts are interchangeable and detachable.
I believe this type of mount fits the rail on the QBZ95, notice how there is a steel colored ring between the optic and the mount, and there is a lever attached to the ring on the right side of the optic. The lever can control the tightness of fit of the optic, the old YMA-95 optic issued with QBZ95 has the same feature.
The 2nd type of mount is for Picatinny rails. The mount looks like this.
Now why am I suggesting that the new PLA "ACOG" only has 1 version but with 2 interchangeable or removable mounts? I have 2 reasons.
1st, look at all the 4 red circles I made on the pictures above. I have pointed out where the optic and the mount connects. Can you notice how there is a gap between the optic and the mount, and they are not the same piece. In the case of the first red circle on the optic for the QBZ95 rail, the material used on the optic is not even the same as the mount, their colors and texture differ pretty significantly. I believe this is evidence to suggest that the mount is separate, and easily detachable from the optic using a screw driver and the same optic and be installed on either QBZ191 or QBZ95 if you have the corresponding mount.
2nd, most modern optics come with a default mount, but that mount can be easily switched out for a different one depending on your taste. This design will make the production process a lot easier and make things a lot easier for the end user.
If the new PLA "ACOG" has 2 versions, each with a built-in and non-removable mount, it is a pretty bad design. What if your unit upgrades from a QBZ95 to QBZ191? Do you just throw them out and order complete new optics? Furthermore, this implies that a optic will require 2 parallel manufacturing lines, which is a huge waste or resource. A much easier solution is to have 1 line and 1 design to just built an optic that can be fitted with any mount, and produce the mount required separately, makes logistics and production a lot easier.
This is especially true for the the PLA because QBZ95 will still be in service for quite a bit, but QBZ191 will be gradually rolled out. This ACOG is designed to be fitted on 2 different rail systems, and it most likely will not exist in 2 versions which are not interchangeable. Most modern optics have removable mounts, and I believe this PLA "ACOG" is no different.
MwRYum
Major
For the first, the status of the bid is said to be "purchasing", if my Chinese isn't gone rusty, then that means purchase was underway as of December; we don't know whether those seen in October are of the same model but were the evaluation batches...
There are 2 model designation for the same scope, QMK171 for the QBZ95 series and QMK152 (have to flip back several pages to get a better read on the model number).
Until we see them properly debut the whole set of kit either on TV or open house exhibition (the latter is really unlikely for the next 12 months, especially with COVID-19 still out there and no vaccine available for another 12 months at least, not to mention HK is still a mess), it's impossible to say much in certainty about this.