That makes me think. What bullpup is modular enough to allow proper cheek rest?And it looks like the cheek rest is tied to the rifle with elastic loops which shows how "un-modular" the rifle is. Thankfully the 191's are entering service, so maybe we'll see some Gucci 191's in the near future.
In this case it’s not the rifle’s modularity. it’s the sights. If you look at the trends in rifles built pre1996 many had high mounted carry handles a feature that had emerged as far back as the 1950s. FAMAS, M16, SA80 pre production, Steyr AUG. try the early 1990s SA80 had moved to an optic. AUG basically by default had an optic but FAMAS and M16 didn’t yet. By 1993 the US was moving to establish the M1913 rail system which came into service about 1994 with the XM4. By 1997 G36, AUG A2, the. Soon after Tavor and FN2000 emerge with the same rail system. Yet in 1997 QBZ95 also launched. The rifle was patterned along those same early 1990s lines pre rail. When the US entered the 9/11 wars early on it became apparent optics weren’t just Gucci but were a real advantage. Retrofits to older weapons appeared either bubba style with a Hack saw and rail section or a true replacement upper for AR. But Famas and QBZ95 couldn’t be modified like that. Mounting optics placed them high up. This is as the carry handle pulls triple duty. Carry handle, “Sight bridge” and charging lever guard.That makes me think. What bullpup is modular enough to allow proper cheek rest?
QBZ-03 also have separate slot for charging handleOne quick question. Why does QBZ-191's charging handle in a separate slot to the ejection port? There're quite a few rifles out there that have a cutout for the reciprocating charging handle on the ejection port (AK and K2, for starters), and those seem to work fine.
I expect QBZ-191's charging handle to be reciprocating too, so I'm curous why the designers decided on separate slots.
That kinda make sense, but it seems strange to me that they're so fixated on what I see as a vestige of AK-style bolt when they were willing to train their soldiers to use and disassemble a bullpup of all things. A removable charging handle is not the end world as proven by other armies (SK even has a conscript army), so why not just use that instead? The tooling change needed?QBZ-03 also have separate slot for charging handle
View attachment 63940
My guess is they want a reciprocating charging handle like ak but didn't want it to be removable like this
View attachment 63941
That require putting the charging handle between upper and lower receiver, but merging the ejection port and charging handle slot will weaken the receiver so they separate it.
View attachment 63942