QBZ-191 service rifle family

Norinco_81

Norinco_81

New Member
Registered Member
EdgeOfEcho said:
I am honestly torn between which one is better, buffer tube vs folding stock. But overall I may actually still prefer a buffer tube over folding stocks.

I have shot 556 from the following platforms, G36, Tar-21, AR-15, Type-97 (556 version of QBZ95), and AR-180.
All of them have pretty low felt recoil, but I feel like AR-15 has even a bit less felt recoil compared to the others (it's super soft shooting), and it is the only one that has a buffer tube.

I have filmed slow motions of me shooting a G36 (18 inch barrel form a default G36E set up) and AR-15 (16 inch barrel, M/P Sport II, not-modified) , and roughly compared the barrel rise. AR-15's barrel rise when shot is a bit lower than G36, and its felt recoil is also a bit less.

Now I am not 100% certain, but from my experience, I feel like a AR-15 style buffer tube really does make felt recoil a lot better. (However, I want to clarify that it's been a while since I've shot my AR-15 because it is banned in Canada :( so my memory may play tricks on me)

That being said, so if it were up to me to design a rifle for PLA soldiers, I'd pick a a buffer tube over a folding stock based on my experience because I believe the advantages buffer tubes offer significantly outweighs the advantages offered by a folding stock.

Anyone else agrees with me? Do you feel like AR-15's are a bit softer than other 556 rifles? If is, do you think it is because of the buffer tube design or because of other things?
Click to expand...
Besides a buffer and spring assembly, the action of an AR-15 is inline as well. That with a simple non reciprocating gas tube results in a recoil impulse that pushes straight back instead of up to the right like AKs do. As much as I hate 7.62x39 ARs, their recoil is also very soft compared to the long stroke gas piston system of the AK. ARs with pistons like LWRC or HK416 will have a noticeably sharper recoil impulse even with 5.56 because of that extra moving mass over your bore.

However, you should try out the AK-74 or even a 556 AK if you ever get a chance. Despite the long stroke piston system and extra moving mass, I feel the smaller caliber AKs have even less recoil than ARs. In fact I can control them better in full auto too! The AK-74 brake does help alot in reducing felt recoil, even on 7.62x39.
 
steel21

steel21

Junior Member
Registered Member
Norinco_81 said:
Are you a lefty?
Click to expand...
No, Im a righty, but switch shoulder alot in MOUT; Weapon-body-wall
Norinco_81 said:
Type 4 malfunctions are very rare in AKs in my experience so I've done it way more with ARs. On ARs, have to do it like the method I just described as the CH is small, flimsy for the most part, I can only wrap my fingers around it. If I ever had to do it with an AK its so much easier since the CH is fixed to the gas piston, not flimsy at all. Just place the stock on the ground, kick the CH downwards and problem solved.
Click to expand...
I think that's because AKs come with a huge claw of an extractor. Also the loose tolerance and simpler rotating bolt allows for easier extraction.
Norinco_81 said:
For both weapons, if that doesn't fix the issue, then better hope you have a long enough cleaning rod and hammer with you lol.
Click to expand...
That probably why you see pics of grunt sticking an assembled cleaning rod in the M16's triangular handguard.
 
by78

by78

General
by78 said:
A much clearer image (of a carbine with silencer). This confirms that the optics are the same as Holosun's, except branded differently.

View attachment 73060
Click to expand...

A better version + one more.

51235277359_4f6db1bcf7_h.jpg

51234498396_d3665977fa_h.jpg
 
EdgeOfEcho

EdgeOfEcho

Junior Member
Registered Member
Norinco_81 said:
Are you a lefty? A fixed charging handle on an AK is mostly non-issue. In fact, I look at AK controls and find it a very left hand friendly rifle. The only issue I can see is the charging handle can poke into your back when slung but then again AK slings points are optimized for righties.

I only find folding stocks useful for compact storage. Just maybe it can be good for extreme close quarters like firing from inside a vehicle. I have tried firing my Bulgarian SAM7SF to friend's CZ Scorpion EVO stock folded, weapon pushed far forward as possible with sling tension, and the accuracy and controllability is just not there.

I'm sure the 191 will have its own trigger pack or trigger assembly, as there is no AR pattern pin holes visible on the receiver. I hope the stock trigger is as crisp and smooth as every Norinco or Polytech AK I've handled.

2 charging handles? No thanks thats just extra complexity and moving parts. One big thing I admire about the AK platform is simplicity, and the new 191 seems to follow that theme as well. Im actually not a big fan of the FAL's charging handle, as I grown to prefer the right side fixed charging handle of the AK and other similar variants. Even modern guns like SCARs or CZ Bren 805/Bren 2 I always ask for the charging handle to be mounted to the right side. Fixed means less moving parts, less chance of things to potentially break, and its always there when you need it, no need to fold it in position. With AR style bolt catches on all these modern weapons including the 191 the CH doesn't have to pulled back after every reload anymore anyway.

Actually, its very easy to cant the rifle for my support hand to manually eject a live round. Same thing if I had to use the CH as a forward assist. In fact, I don't even remember the last time I had to do that on any of my AKs. Even my best ARs cant match the reliability of my AKs. If I get a Type 4 malfunction (failure to extract, typically empty casing stuck in chamber or dented round doesn't go all the way in battery and gets stuck) I use a method known as mortaring. Place the stock perpendicular on a hard surface like the ground, grab the CH and lift the weapon at least an inch off the surface, and in one single motion slam the weapon on the surface and pull on the CH at the same time. Depending on how stuck the casing or round is it can take 1, 2 or even 3 smacks but most of the time it will come out. Type 4 malfunctions are very rare in AKs in my experience so I've done it way more with ARs. On ARs, have to do it like the method I just described as the CH is small, flimsy for the most part, I can only wrap my fingers around it. If I ever had to do it with an AK its so much easier since the CH is fixed to the gas piston, not flimsy at all. Just place the stock on the ground, kick the CH downwards and problem solved. For both weapons, if that doesn't fix the issue, then better hope you have a long enough cleaning rod and hammer with you lol.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with your experience of the folding stocks. Having used a few guns with folding stocks I can say that the only advantage they offer is in compact storage for transportation. You really can't fire a folded rifle accurately and make consistent follow up shots even if you use the "pushing the sling forward" technique, so folders are not that practical in CQB or firing from vehicles.

Even still, a lot of the guns are not that easily transported when folded, especially for side folders. Yes the overall length of the gun is reduced when you fold it, but its thickness can be doubled when you fold it to the side. Unless you have a wire style folding stock like MP7, AKMS or similar, I'm not sure folding a gun necessarily saves all that much space unless your gun case is designed for it to be folded. (some of my gun cases are not wide enough to allow for the storage of folded G36 and UMP, but a folded VZ58 is okay)

With regards to the charging handle I also really agree with your point after a recent trip to the range with a friend. He has a SKS that jammed up real bad, a unfired round will not fully load into the chamber and will not extract. My friend cut up his hand real bad trying to use a knife to get it out and it didn't work. I got it out by re-inserting the bolt and let it catch the round, and smack the living f**k out of the gun onto the ground trying to pull the charging handle back. After a few hard smacks the round finally flew out. If a AR-15, QBZ95 or guns without pronounced charging handles are stuck like that, you need some serious tools to be able to clear that jam.

So the simplistic design of the charging handle (like a AK style) for QBZ191 offers the advantage of allowing the users to smack the f**k out of it (or mortaring, the more civilized way to call it) when a round is really jammed up in there. (you can probably use your foot to kick the charging handle down, that should work as well, as long as you make sure to not put your face in front of the barrel)

Norinco_81 said:
Besides a buffer and spring assembly, the action of an AR-15 is inline as well. That with a simple non reciprocating gas tube results in a recoil impulse that pushes straight back instead of up to the right like AKs do. As much as I hate 7.62x39 ARs, their recoil is also very soft compared to the long stroke gas piston system of the AK. ARs with pistons like LWRC or HK416 will have a noticeably sharper recoil impulse even with 5.56 because of that extra moving mass over your bore.

However, you should try out the AK-74 or even a 556 AK if you ever get a chance. Despite the long stroke piston system and extra moving mass, I feel the smaller caliber AKs have even less recoil than ARs. In fact I can control them better in full auto too! The AK-74 brake does help alot in reducing felt recoil, even on 7.62x39.
Click to expand...

Glad you point it out too, AK100s, and the new generation of AKs shoot real smooth, at least from the videos I have seen! I AK103 as well, and it shoots 7.62x39 like it is a 556!
I guess buffer tube isn't everything, the overall design of the gun and how recoil impulses travel down the gun matters as well.

As a terrible example of gun design, I have a UMP-9 at home. I don't know if it is the blowback system or its bolt being so heavy, that thing feels like it recoils harder than a 556, even though it is only a 9mm...

From the videos I have seen of the QBZ191 firing (which is not a lot), it does look like it has a bit more recoil than a M4. But then again, when I think about it, all 5.8mm guns seem like they have a bit more recoil than 556 guns. So I don't know what is a realistic expectation to have about QBZ191's recoil, and how low is reasonably low.
 
EdgeOfEcho

EdgeOfEcho

Junior Member
Registered Member
vincent said:
Is the optic installed backwards?
Click to expand...

These are not the more traditional high powered "sniper scopes" for super long range shooting, so they look like they are on backwards because of their unique design (thick in the back and slim in the front)

This is an example of "traditional" high powered scopes typically used on snipers or DMRs, notice the difference.
1623188513969.png

The scope shown in the photo is not super high powered, it should be between 1-4x or 1-6x adjustable. For these types of scopes, when you shoot at enemies at close range you rotate the power to 1x and it acts like a red dot, and when you shoot at long ranges you adjust the power to 6x and it allows you to engage long distance enemies.

1623188643721.png

I am not familiar with the specific optic mounted in the picture, but the above picture shows a Eotech Vudu 1-6x optic that functions very similarly. Notice how the design of the scope is different from a traditional high powered sniper scope.

These types of optics are interesting, their advantage over red dots is obvious: they offer higher powered zoom magnifications. They also have an advantage over non-adjustable ACOGs or higher powered scopes, is that they allow for the quick and easy acquisition of targets at close range. They offer a good balance in between, although still have a bit of trade-offs (not as good as a red dot at close range, and not as good as traditional sniper scopes at super long range, but they get the job done)

I have used one on my friend's SKS (yes the one that got jammed so bad that I had to smack the living f**k out of it), and I really liked it!

I think they are perfect for a marksman rifle like QBU191.

The original poster of this image on Weibo was suggesting the PLA to develop a high capacity magazine for QBU191, so it can function not only as a marksman rifle but also automatic rifle that can rain down accurate suppressing fire at long ranges. I say that is not a bad idea..
 
Aniah

Aniah

Senior Member
Registered Member
EdgeOfEcho said:
These are not the more traditional high powered "sniper scopes" for super long range shooting, so they look like they are on backwards because of their unique design (thick in the back and slim in the front)

This is an example of "traditional" high powered scopes typically used on snipers or DMRs, notice the difference.
View attachment 73102

The scope shown in the photo is not super high powered, it should be between 1-4x or 1-6x adjustable. For these types of scopes, when you shoot at enemies at close range you rotate the power to 1x and it acts like a red dot, and when you shoot at long ranges you adjust the power to 6x and it allows you to engage long distance enemies.

View attachment 73103

I am not familiar with the specific optic mounted in the picture, but the above picture shows a Eotech Vudu 1-6x optic that functions very similarly. Notice how the design of the scope is different from a traditional high powered sniper scope.

These types of optics are interesting, their advantage over red dots is obvious: they offer higher powered zoom magnifications. They also have an advantage over non-adjustable ACOGs or higher powered scopes, is that they allow for the quick and easy acquisition of targets at close range. They offer a good balance in between, although still have a bit of trade-offs (not as good as a red dot at close range, and not as good as traditional sniper scopes at super long range, but they get the job done)

I have used one on my friend's SKS (yes the one that got jammed so bad that I had to smack the living f**k out of it), and I really liked it!

I think they are perfect for a marksman rifle like QBU191.

The original poster of this image on Weibo was suggesting the PLA to develop a high capacity magazine for QBU191, so it can function not only as a marksman rifle but also automatic rifle that can rain down accurate suppressing fire at long ranges. I say that is not a bad idea..
Click to expand...

That man wants the IAR we talked about a couple of pages back. Maybe not a drum mag but probably one of those thick mags.

Type 191 DMR 7.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top