QBZ-191 service rifle family


Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
....not being able to use 2 out of the 12 types of magazine and then subsequently having the most overall stoppages almost across the board.

Well at least you're not sourcing youtube, so, progress.

The problem is your argument is irrelevant. We're not discussing magazine compatibility.

In fact, I already told you my personal experience of FTFs using aftermarket mags on the 416.
 

Hickok

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Well at least you're not sourcing youtube, so, progress.

The problem is your argument is irrelevant. We're not discussing magazine compatibility.

In fact, I already told you my personal experience of FTFs using aftermarket mags on the 416.
I don't understand, so you're knocking me for referencing a video on YouTube but use your personal anecdote as gospel... At least those series of videos were documented.
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
The Costumer was asking for it.

lolz, yea. That's kind of the point.

The Enhanced M4 was created from work Colt had done in its attempt at the SCAR. They had both an Internal and External piston option. They chose to submit the external as the internal would have just been a tweaked M4
The Durability and reliability aspects fall into the issues with M855A1. These issues have less to due with the type of gas system and more to due with the length of system in regards to gas pressure. The 416 was one of the guns that suffered with M855A1. The feeding was the big deal. But the lugs was the bigger. The problem is the gassing. The external piston taps at the same point as M4 but the length of the tap to piston is short so it’s over gassed hence the strong impulse on recoil despite being heavier.
M4’s internal piston means that the gas has to move from the tap to the gas key reducing pressure. M16 has a longer gas tube so the pressure is even less. The IURG adopted by SOCOM moved to a mid length gas system to try and buy back some of the pressure point. As a general rule military arms are over gassed vs their civil cousins. The shortening of the gas tube or placement of the valve degree of opening of said valve effects the operation affecting durability and reliability as is the system is too over gassed it places wear on the bolt causing shearing it bounces on lock preventing proper cycling causing either a miss fire or double feed.
None of the Submitted IC rifles matched the required mean rounds between stoppages to justify replacement of M4 beyond what M4A1 was doing with M855A1. This is why M4A1 is still the standard issue today. If Colts Enhanced M4 had done as that paid for advertisement had said the Army would have adopted it. Period.
Colt wouldn’t have needed CZ to buy it. Farther they offered that package for export and couldn’t sell it. So no piston doesn’t win. They neither is inherently superior.

I provided a source which quoted Colt's reasoning as better durability + reliability. Where's your citation for this entire essay? Your argument that the piston options weren't better "enough" to justify the billions spent on replacement is irrelevant. The fact is that they were better.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
If they were better then why did they not Take the IC? Your argument is irrelevant as it’s emotionally based. It’s subjective. You quoted a Paid advertisement those are florid and meant to SELL. Colt was hoping to win the IC and seal a guarantee of a lifeline. The Army wasn’t looking for an M4A1 based option as they were using M4A1 as the baseline and were intent on a comparison between M4A1 and the IC bids. An IC M4A1 would have simply been folded into the PIP.
history of the IC Colt
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
IC comp
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
M27 issues
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
URGI
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Why the M27 was not the best choice.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
I don't understand, so you're knocking me for referencing a video on YouTube but use your personal anecdote as gospel... At least those series of videos were documented.

??? I gave you a citation, which Terran said was "biased" and then I gave him another one, to which he responded by rambling on with a random essay with zero citations (as he usually does.) My "personal anecdote" wasn't meant as any proof. That was just my own experience.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Your citation is an article written as an advertisement. Many in the gun industry due that. DR is a defense sheet full of product pushing. Though interesting it’s paid for. Might as well quote the shake weight commercial.
 

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
That’s our Mohsin!!
he totally glazed over the bolt failure which it completely unrelated to the magazine.

...?

I was actually replying to his direct quote which only mentioned magazine related problems.

If they were better then why did they not Take the IC?

Because neither your government nor your Army can get its act together. The whole program ended up as another clusterfuck. First you people say "we want X" then you can't agree on requirements, and your politicians say they can't justify the cost, and the whole thing goes sideways. Remind you of anything else that happened recently, over the last 20 years? lolz

By the way, here's an interesting article which highlights how screwed up the M4's replacement plan has been:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Your argument is irrelevant as it’s emotionally based. It’s subjective.

lolz, that's cute Terran, coming from you.

Any other rants in your future?

Oh, great, here's one:

You quoted a Paid advertisement those are florid and meant to SELL. Colt was hoping to win the IC and seal a guarantee of a lifeline. The Army wasn’t looking for an M4A1 based option as they were using M4A1 as the baseline and were intent on a comparison between M4A1 and the IC bids. An IC M4A1 would have simply been folded into the PIP.
history of the IC Colt
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
IC comp
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
M27 issues
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
URGI
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Why the M27 was not the best choice.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Firstly, the point of that "ad" was that Colt itself made a piston AR and called it the "Enhanced M4".... I mean, you're arguing against Colt while defending Colt....? lolz.

And I'm not defending the M27 or the G36 which you mentioned, because they were flawed products from the get-go and HK paid for it. We're talking about inherent advantages of Pistons over DI i.e. well made pistons, versus a well made DIs, in adverse battle conditions with minimal or zero maintenance, ranked in reliability. Officially, all reliability measures in your army require the M4 to be serviced daily and failing that, its stoppage is not considered it's fault, but the operator's:

“The executive summary said that M16s and M4s “functioned reliably” in the combat zone as long as “soldiers conducted daily operator maintenance and applied a light coat of lubricant.”

The obvious common-sense response to this ridiculous statement is by a soldier in the next sentence: "I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too.”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And what backs up the concerns of this soldier are results like the following, which the Army has tried very hard to excuse away, even though it conducted the test itself lolz:

After firing 6,000 rounds through ten M4s in a dust chamber at the Army's Aberdeen test center in Maryland this fall, the weapons experienced a total of 863 minor stoppages and 19 that would have required the armorer to fix the problem. Stacked up against the M4 during the side-by-side tests were two other weapons popular with special operations forces, including the Heckler and Koch 416 and the FN USA Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle, or Mk16.

Another carbine involved in the tests that had been rejected by the Army two years ago, the H&K XM8, came out the winner, with a total of 116 minor stoppages and 11 major ones. The Mk16 experienced a total of 226 stoppages, the 416 had 233.

.....
"This isn't brain surgery -- a rifle needs to do three things: shoot when you pull the trigger, put bullets where you aim them and deliver enough energy to stop what's attacking you," the staffer told Military.com in an email. "If the M4 can't be depended on to shoot then everything else is irrelevant."

The staffer offered a different perspective of how to view the Army's result. If you look at the numbers, he reasoned, the M4's 882 total stoppages averages out to a jam every 68 rounds. There are about 30 rounds per magazine in the M4.

By comparison, the XM8 jammed once every 472 rounds, the Mk16 every 265 rounds and the 416 every 257 rounds. Army officials contend soldiers rarely fire more than 140 rounds in an engagement.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To top it all off, I'll quote another reliable source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here's some quotes from this one:

Not all the problems with the M16 can be blamed on the Army. Buried in the M16’s, and now the M4’s, operating system is a flaw that no amount of militarizing and tinkering has ever erased. Stoner’s gun cycles cartridges from the magazine into the chamber using gas pressure vented off as the bullet passes through the barrel. Gases traveling down a very narrow aluminum tube produce an intense “puff” that throws the bolt assembly to the rear, making the bolt assembly a freely moving object in the body of the rifle. Any dust or dirt or residue from the cartridge might cause the bolt assembly, and thus the rifle, to jam.
Fearing the deadly consequences of a “failure to feed” in a fight, some top-tier Special Operations units like Delta Force and seal Team Six use a more modern and effective rifle with a more reliable operating-rod mechanism. But front-line Army and Marine riflemen still fire weapons much more likely to jam than the AK‑47. Failure to feed affects every aspect of a fight. A Russian infantryman can fire about 140 rounds a minute without stopping. The M4 fires at roughly half that rate.
I was too inexperienced—or perhaps too lazy—to demand that my soldiers take a moment to clean their guns, even though we had heard disturbing rumors about the consequences of shooting a dirty M16.

At 3 o’clock in the morning, the enemy struck. They were armed with the amazingly reliable and rugged Soviet AK‑47, and after climbing up our hill for hours dragging their guns through the mud, they had no problems unleashing devastating automatic fire. Not so my men. To this day, I am haunted by the sight of three of my dead soldiers lying atop rifles broken open in a frantic attempt to clear jams.

p.s. and I really do hope that your Army does not listen to this advice and keeps pretending the DI AR is awesome:

The Army has argued that, in an era of declining resources, a new rifle will cost more than $2 billion. But let’s say the Army and Marine Corps buy new rifles only for those who will use them most, namely the infantry. The cost, for about 100,000 infantrymen at $1,000 each, is then reduced to roughly $100 million, less than that of a single F-35 fighter jet. The Army and the Marine Corps can keep the current stocks of M4s and M16s in reserve for use by non-infantry personnel in the unlikely event that they find themselves in combat.

From the time of General James Ripley to today, the Army has found reasons to deny its soldiers in the line of fire the safest and most efficient firearms. It doesn’t have to be this way. A few dollars invested now will save the lives of legions of brave infantrymen and -women for generations to come.
 
Last edited:

ohan_qwe

Junior Member
Can someone tell again why the chamber pressure is so low for the 5.8x42mm round; yet, still capable of producing 3,000 fps muzzle velocity with a round heavier than the 5.56mm SS109? Sorry, Physics and Chem are my most hated courses in high school and college, so I barely passed them.
SS109 62grain, 5.7mm gives 1.9g/mm2
DBP10 71grain, 6mm gives 1.97g/mm2

Then we have case capacity to area
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Where 5.8 had 2.11 and 5.56 1.87, this means that 5.8 have more powder. The pressure is peak pressure so probably the 5.8 uses a slower powder that have higher pressure after the peak. The force accelerating the bullet is the area under the curve times bullet area.

ballistic_data2.png
 

Top