So…it’s basically an AR with some minor mods, an AK-style trigger and furniture to mask its obvious AR heritage? I understand copying an AR, but what was wrong with the QBZ-95?
QBZ-191
So…it’s basically an AR with some minor mods, an AK-style trigger and furniture to mask its obvious AR heritage? I understand copying an AR, but what was wrong with the QBZ-95?
The QBZ95 was a 'good enough' rifle from its inception. It was designed to first be easy to mass produce for an army that was still armed with a ramshackle mix of reverse engineered AK and SKS derivatives, and be a good combat rifle second.
It could be modernized, but eventually it just became more costly than it was worth to do so. The rifle never really made that much use out of its bullpup configuration in terms of cartridge power or anything of that sort either.
The 191 is a mix of AK and an HK416, really.
Some unique additions, but otherwise it is very much a 'standard 21st century assault carbine'.
>long stroke gas piston
>AK trigger
>rock and lock magazine
>unique chink caliber
>basically an AR
ok
ar buffer tube
ar upper lower layout
Basically an AK47
There's no buffer tube here
The stock itself IS the buffer tube, more or less.
It is definitely an AR derivative, more specifically the HK-416.it uses an AR-15 style bolt, buffer tube, buffer assembly, firing pin, and carrier. Piston is similar to that of a 416, short stroke, not long stroke. The patent for the QBZ-191 also specifically mentions both the AR-15 and HK-416.
honestly, it's intriguing. potentially best both worlds. i know i know we are not supposed to praise any chinkery but i want one
The QBZ95 was a rush job, they forced it into service in time for the Hong Kong handover. Its fine for what it is, but its mediocre for something youd actually go to war with. Now that china has had time to reflect and is also facing heightened tensions in the SCS and around taiwan, its appropriate that they adopt something more suitable. Whether the 191 is more suitable or not remains to be seen, but that's the intent.
>mediocre
From a ergonomics standpoint it's a utter shitshow, and it's design is absolutely baffling considering the Chinese had multiple rifles to take inspiration from (FAMAS/SA80/AUG) and somehow they ended up with a shitty rifle whose sole redeeming quality is that it is reliable as fuck.
>best design
A long stroke AUG/FAMAS with a removable barrel (great for the light machine gunners) and uses rifle grenades so the Chinese can spam fucktons of grenades.
>somehow they ended up with a shitty rifle whose sole redeeming quality is that it is reliable as fuck
Things haven't changed much. The 191 seems to be a mishmash of the worst features present in other globally mainstream platforms with a bunch of weird "Chinese characteristics" thrown in.
Like their trigger pack for instance.
Look at the thing and tell me it's not overcomplicated and underbuilt.
They fell for the low HOB meme
Its chinese and Im racist
If they’re going to base an AR off the HK416 it’s not a bad choice.
A shame they're replacing the QBZ-95. The A1 variant looked really cool, specially when it was riced up with rails and tacticool shit.
Personally I liked the look of the qbz903(I believe that was the name) the conventional layout AR that was circulating at the same time the qbz95 was but mainly for I believe border guards
>but what was wrong with the QBZ-95?
It was a bullpup.
The 191 has so many immediately obvious faults it's unreal that anyone would bring it into mass service in modern day.
It's fucking ridiculous and makes me mad as an engineer.
China should have been able to build something better.
>no dust cover, hole directly behind bolt allowing ingress directly into reciprocation path, in a country that is literally HALF windswept desert
>anti rotation catch is a spring loaded lever that relies on a steel plate embedded in the upper to allow the bolt to rotate into battery.
>if the spring loses tension (ALL SPRINGS DO THIS WITH USE) and the lever sticks down, the fucking bolt rotates out of battery and the gun jams immediately.
>If sand enters the bolt track THROUGH THE GAPING HOLE and causes the lever to stick down the bolt rotates out of battery and the gun jams immediately.
>For some reason charging handle path was determined to be a necessary location to seal.
>charging handle is reciprocating, even though it's not attached to the bcg directly
>COVER NEEDS TO RECIPROCATE NOW, FOR SOME STUPID FUCKING REASON.
>LET'S MAKE THE STUPID CH PATH COVER RECIPROCATE INTO THE STOCK
>FUCK NOW OUR STOCK NEEDS TO BE A WEIRD TRAPEZOID SHAPE TO TOLERATE THIS STUPID SLIDING COVER
>let's make a two piece receiver set for easy disassembly.
>no let's not make the split a straight line, let's make it have three distinct 90 degree angles so any slight variation in tolerance across our manufacturing run results in an obvious poor fit from front to back, exacerbating the gap between sections
>FUCK WHY IS THIS HUGE UNSEALABLE GAP HERE BETWEEN THE RECIEVER HALVES WHAT THE FUCK
>should we have a removable rear sight for optic clearance?
>NO LETS INTEGRATE IT AND MAKE IT NON-FOLDING OR REMOVABLE SO ANY DMR VARIANTS NEED A TWO INCH RISER SO THE SCOPE EYEPIECE CAN CLEAR THIS STUPID FUCKING NUB ON TOP OF THE RECIEVER
I CAN GO ON.
I'VE GOT SO MUCH SHIT TO SAY ABOUT THIS TRASH.
I respect your pride about the art but you should be glad that the gun ends up jamming and saves the life of some not-a-fucking-commie
The cartridge it fires (DP87) has a chamber pressure of only 41,000 PSI
Source: https://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/dbp87-5-8x42mm-chinas-high-velocity-caliber/248020
DPB87*
DP87 is old.
DBP10 is the new cartridge rolled out along side the new carbine.
Is it hotter? The cartridges they put in these always actually seemed decent, at least on paper.
It is probably the equivalent of M855A1.
AKA, we cut the barrel down a lot and now have to increase the pressure to make up that performance loss.
So I don't think it'll be some wunderpatrone, but should at least mimic the velocity of their current stuff at the muzzle.
What I do think is that Chinese bullet design is probably decades behind the US's right now.
So I doubt that DBP10 will mimic the lethality of M855A1 or the general EPR bullet design.
>What was wrong wiht the QBZ-95?
LOP probably. It's similar to the AUG and FAMAS (might be even longer), but Chinese people are on average shorter than Westerners, so having that LOP would be less comfortable for them. Especially since women (conscription) make up a more significant part of their military than most Western countries.
China doesnt have conscription anon. They have 1.3bn people, they have enough just through raw volunteers
I want to pay money for one of these and smuggle it into the country so I can reverse engineer and sell them the way China does to our IP
QBZ 03 looked cooler, and they wanted to ruin that, so they "modernized" it and adopted multicam.
When has it been confirmed this will be replacing the QBZ-95 series? People said the same thing when the QBZ-03 showed up and that never replaced it either.
QBZ 03 was never meant to replace the 95, it was unironically intended as a stopgap for the QBZ 95 after it was already being mass produced. Appearently it was for troops previously armed with a Type 56 or Type 81 derivative so they wouldn't have to train with a completely new type of platform.
warning long videos