As a Chinese American I have a hard time standing with Chicom accents, but I did try to get a few key points. They basically built their own version of an external piston AR, made some unique changes, but I questioned if theyÂ’re necessary.
Is cam pin wear on the upper even a problem to begin with? Do FPRP on an AR have an issue to begin with?
Bolt lugs seems stronger, but itÂ’s more like a Mr. Obvious moment now. Anything thatÂ’s thicker and with less lugs is in theory stronger, but thatÂ’s only on piece in the puzzle, especially AFAICT the bolt life of the 191 is still about 20K.
A lot of its design features are likely the result of:
Industrial inertia of utilizing largely AK derived designs for generations. 4 larger lugs in a bolt with worse metallurgical properties is a different way to achieve the same result as a bolt with 8 lugs using a better alloy and may be a cheaper and faster solution than switching established industry to deliver different alloys. Etc.
The continued use of steel cased ammo in 5.8mm and the design considerations that have been developed around its use in previous designs.
Ultimately someone designing a rifle for the PLA has a large list of different considerations than someone building one for a western nation. This is me looking in from 20 miles away.
Yeah, they’re most likely using an inferior steel for mass production. That, plus all the consideration, it’s probably not going to surpass our M4/M16 in terms of bolt life, or at least not by much, and definitely falls behind comparing to an improved AR bolt such as LMT or Knights.
I wasn’t sure what’s the deal with other improvements, though. Do AR really needs a redesign retaining pin system, or dual oblique extractor springs? Maybe it’s still because different calibers and the fact it’s an external piston system, I doubt it.