We gave you a reason, you should stop ignoring that if you're gonna ask such stupid questions.
Edit: it's the same guy from before lmao. Here to start something again. Thanks to by78 for pulling that history out because I forgot about this guy.
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Edit: it's the same guy from before lmao. Here to start something again. Thanks to by78 for pulling that history out because I forgot about this guy.
The issue of new rifles and new optics is normally a phased operation. Whilst we cannot understand the exact intent or reasoning behind the current state of rollout of the QBZ 191 and its accompanying optic, here are a few points to consider.
1) Units issued the QBZ 191 or the new optic will require retraining and familiarisation with the new weapon or the new optic. This takes time.
2) Units on the front line may not actually be highest priority in receiving either the new rifle or new optic for the same reason. You cannot simply swap the rifle and say ‘go’. It is actually unwise to swap weapons of a front line unit, when they have perfectly functioning and accustomed weapon systems. You would likely decrease combat effectiveness. The best thing to do is leave what is existing, retrain the next rotation of troops on the new weapon and optic and rotate them around when time comes, so there is no lapse in combat ability.
3) Many non-infantry troops may not receive optics at all. Even front line soldiers that are not infanteers (soldiers expected to fight and close with the enemy) may not receive optics with their QBZ 191 or 192. The 192 (carbine) is likely to be issued to vehicle crews, artillery troops and other support troops due to its compact size, but without optics due to their role.
4) There is plenty of evidence of a decently wide distribution of the new QMK optic, even for QBZ 95s including the new foregrip. Although I agree not as prolific as one would like to see. But it is by no means sparse.
On a separate note, I do believe that optics should be issued en-masse for the QBZ 191 and 192 series. This is because whilst the QBZ 95 has integrated iron sights, the flip up sights on the QBZ 191 and 192 are really back up sights in their nature, and aren’t really going to do well with wear and tear of combat.
In an ideal world, I would give all infantry troops a QMK magnified optic, and all support troops a mix of magnified and red dot (or any collimator sight) sights - red dots are cheap and readily commercially available. I don’t personally believe the flip up iron sights are a viable long term solution. They are there as a back up.
1) Units issued the QBZ 191 or the new optic will require retraining and familiarisation with the new weapon or the new optic. This takes time.
2) Units on the front line may not actually be highest priority in receiving either the new rifle or new optic for the same reason. You cannot simply swap the rifle and say ‘go’. It is actually unwise to swap weapons of a front line unit, when they have perfectly functioning and accustomed weapon systems. You would likely decrease combat effectiveness. The best thing to do is leave what is existing, retrain the next rotation of troops on the new weapon and optic and rotate them around when time comes, so there is no lapse in combat ability.
3) Many non-infantry troops may not receive optics at all. Even front line soldiers that are not infanteers (soldiers expected to fight and close with the enemy) may not receive optics with their QBZ 191 or 192. The 192 (carbine) is likely to be issued to vehicle crews, artillery troops and other support troops due to its compact size, but without optics due to their role.
4) There is plenty of evidence of a decently wide distribution of the new QMK optic, even for QBZ 95s including the new foregrip. Although I agree not as prolific as one would like to see. But it is by no means sparse.
On a separate note, I do believe that optics should be issued en-masse for the QBZ 191 and 192 series. This is because whilst the QBZ 95 has integrated iron sights, the flip up sights on the QBZ 191 and 192 are really back up sights in their nature, and aren’t really going to do well with wear and tear of combat.
In an ideal world, I would give all infantry troops a QMK magnified optic, and all support troops a mix of magnified and red dot (or any collimator sight) sights - red dots are cheap and readily commercially available. I don’t personally believe the flip up iron sights are a viable long term solution. They are there as a back up.
Last edited:
Sporadic, inconsistent, because they don't seem uniform or prioritized.
This.
The possible one when Ladakh heated up and troops were deployed in new 星空 gear.
Combat troops as in troops who might actually face combat, like the ones deployed to Ladakh.
If it weren't, there wouldn't be supply issue would there, and we'd be seeing a more consistent distribution and probably full adoption.
Were you asleep the past 40 years or just hanging out on this forum to not notice China is the world's factory?
I'm not the one who's full of themselves constantly throwing snark around because they post a few pictures they steal from twitter and weibo, so be kinder to yourself and stop projecting. It's also funny you link to a situation that vindicated my supposed stupidity when after that exchange the PLAMC dropped the blue uniforms. I thought we agreed we wouldn't talk to each other anymore, yet you were the first to reply yet again. I think I'll post as much as I like, on whatever I like, and leave it up to you to control yourself. Is that something you can do?
What exactly am I starting here? If my post is so stupid, you can just ignore it.
We have standards here. Keep that up and you may just go.
So only by78 gets to throw insults at people at moment of inception and continue to do so even if the other person makes an attempt to defuse it, failing that if they defend themselves or say anything, they are in the wrong? Is that the "standard" you are upholding here? All my other posts were fine, but once by78 is involved, it's a no go? If I blindly agreed with him, would that be ”fanboyism"?
Do not put words in my mouth. You ask questions that do not have a concrete answer to them and ignore our post when we give our ideas of what is happening. You also refuse to go do some own research when you've been lurking here for over a year now. Your questions have been talked about and answered god knows how many times on this thread already. Unlike you, by78 actually have been here for close to a decade and have contributed to this forum for a long time. Lastly, there is asking questions in good faith and asking for the sake of starting an argument. None of your questions come off genuine and your replies only confirm that. And finally, how do some images of some troops not having the scope somehow mean others within the same group don't have it either? How does that picture you've linked prove anything especially since I doubt that is anywhere close to the front lines? Then what about these pictures?
Maybe people are less argumentive when they aren't being insulted. I get along with everyone else don't I? All my other posts seem to pass the sniff test.
I replied and gave my thoughts to someone else's question and that could've been the end of it but by78 decided to engage me to explain myself, hence I did aka "arguing" because I'm trying to support why I thought what I did, but in his usual fashion, he couldn't not throw in petty insults. So is this behavior ok? Who are other members that act like this?
As for this post itself. We'll get an answer in time once the optics reach full adoption and soldiers and the industry can more openly talk about them. Hopefully they even have a foreign release. I only ever speculated it might be something like reliability and zeroing issues because these are common reasons to go to more reliable irons, hence why BUIS are still a thing and I assume China would be able to manufacture them at a faster rate.
Because making millions of units of equipment takes a really long time? You cant just print them like dollar bills especially since optics require very strict quality control. If you want to toll up to be able to equip all of China in 1 year, then you're at over capacity the next following years.
Troops on the border with India don't have much priority for gear because I don't think China expects having a hot conflict there anytime soon. Sure they built up infrastructure and made sure the J-20 can operate there but that's different. It looks like units closer to Taiwan got better priority for gear. Also PAP on the western border has some nice gear.
Can we discuss without personal insults? I feel like there's a decent discussion here but half of what I'm reading is just bickering.
Optics roll out slowly. Making something that has strict quality controls fast is unwise. Over capacity in manufacturing is unwise. Training, application and improvement of the optics are a process best taken slowly and diligently. Doing it right is better than doing it fast.
We have ACOGs abound in the US Army because we've been making them for 20 years and have a huge supply.
Optics roll out slowly. Making something that has strict quality controls fast is unwise. Over capacity in manufacturing is unwise. Training, application and improvement of the optics are a process best taken slowly and diligently. Doing it right is better than doing it fast.
We have ACOGs abound in the US Army because we've been making them for 20 years and have a huge supply.