Is the zero drift only affect the rail or it also affect the iron sight?
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Except they have since made modifications to the design including an updated receiver and handguard with now over 2000 units and a new variant now in adoption. That’s by the way how it’s generally done . Early block prototypes. Feed back, improvements, early block test builds. Improvements feed back production.
It’s very telling you still used the XM7 designation.
Are you talking about the one where they removed the folding stock, or is there a newer one I don't know?
I haven't heard of any problems with the iron sights. They're screwed to the inner metal handguard, so there shouldn't be any issues.
The problem with the plastic guide rail is that it's still softer than metal, the connection with the LAM will inevitably loosen gradually under the impact of recoil.
Last edited:
Well the point is not the rail itself moving, it's that the rail will inevitably deform because it's still plastic, and you don't need a top pic rail for lights, you can just use the side rail sections for that, you have an inline rail in the top rail for a very specific reason
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
The PIE yes.
I assume you're referring to the XM8 not to be mistaken with the 2000's model the XM8 supposedly fixes a lot of the core problems with the gun based on US Army surrounding the length and weight of the gun, the XM7 supposedly didn't function well as a Universal weapon system so they left it as battle rifle only some argue it functions well as a DMR instead of replacing it.
If I remember It right.
The PIE version seems worse than the original from all the reviews coming in. Almost all the users I've heard from have said nothing positive about it.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Sig’s XM8 is not a replacement for the M7. It’s a supplements it.
It’s a shorter lighter version for troops who may find that more useful. It’s also not a replacement for the M4 across the board.
Yet that means another caliber in the logistics.
The HK XM8 was more closely aligned with the QBZ 19 family. One core set of components that with a few parts swap fills multiple roles. A compact PDW with a 9 inch barrel , a Carbine with a 12.5 inch barrel and a DMR that doubled as an automatic rifle with an 18 inch barrel. This was more or less just a derivative of the G36. As a rifle of the late 1990s it would have made sense in concept however it was far from future proof and frankly doomed by the simple fact that it couldn’t do anything the M4A1 already did just perhaps not as glamorously.
The M4A1 proved more adaptable to modern advances. So rather than the tactical tuna the U.S. Stuck to the M4 pattern and frankly it seems like everybody else agrees. It seems like every year now a country the was a Bullpup user has dropped it for a weapon that either is an M4 derivative or emulates it.
Mostly what we have is still the controversy of “is it needed”
“Why is it so heavy?”
“What about my ammo count?”.
It’s a shorter lighter version for troops who may find that more useful. It’s also not a replacement for the M4 across the board.
It’s not supposed to be. The M7 is meant to be a battle rifle. The XM8 is supposed to support it. They are supposed to share the 6.8x51mm cartridge in Infantry formations by M250. However the scope of this is predominantly for the rifles the infantry and combat arms. The M4 returning to its original position as a PDW. The M7 resembles a DMR because doctrinally it it aligns with it. The U.S. Army doesn’t have a dedicated DMR in its Infantry TOE. The DMRs were an ad hoc solution. The want was a common caliber across the Infantry rifle platoon. Including for the designated marksman. However as the U.S. went though the GWOT it became clear that the 5.56x45mm wasn’t the optimal choice for such. So the U.S. and many other NATO countries moved up to 7.62x71mm.
Yet that means another caliber in the logistics.
The HK XM8 was more closely aligned with the QBZ 19 family. One core set of components that with a few parts swap fills multiple roles. A compact PDW with a 9 inch barrel , a Carbine with a 12.5 inch barrel and a DMR that doubled as an automatic rifle with an 18 inch barrel. This was more or less just a derivative of the G36. As a rifle of the late 1990s it would have made sense in concept however it was far from future proof and frankly doomed by the simple fact that it couldn’t do anything the M4A1 already did just perhaps not as glamorously.
The M4A1 proved more adaptable to modern advances. So rather than the tactical tuna the U.S. Stuck to the M4 pattern and frankly it seems like everybody else agrees. It seems like every year now a country the was a Bullpup user has dropped it for a weapon that either is an M4 derivative or emulates it.
I haven’t heard anything like that but as the Army only started getting the Sig XM8s at the start of this month that seems a bit premature. Without word of the PIE having moved forward just yet.
Mostly what we have is still the controversy of “is it needed”
“Why is it so heavy?”
“What about my ammo count?”.
Here's a video from 7 months ago regarding all the issues of the new carbine. It's not the only channel that had hands on with it, I remember seeing a few others that had the same issues being said here.