QBZ-191 service rifle family

gongolongo

Junior Member
Registered Member
The one thing that kept bugging me in my mind is: battery. It's probably got a microprocessor inside, so the battery life is probably not in the category of "put it in and forget about it". If there is one thing Generation Kill showed us, it was how logistics can hamper an operation. In the beginning, the marines kept asking for laser aiming module batteries without any real success. IIRC it was only resolved when the reporter showed up and they used his civilian status to buy stuff from post exchange without limit.

So, this brings us back to the scope. Anyone knows what kind of battery does it take? AA? AAA? Those weird CR123 thing one can never really find in a grocery store? Does the scope share battery with any laser aiming module or night vision device currently in inventory?


I have a gut feeling that if that ever happens, "QBZ-191 and any variations thereof" along with "QBZ-95 and any variations thereof" will be prohibited by name in the near future by our genius of a prime minister. Why? Gun banning seems to be a vote winner and a wedge issue, also, CHYNA.
I would expect from an engineering point of view, you would use a specific LiPo battery. But knowing the US military, it probably uses some sort of AA style expendable battery because those types are already in logistics and most importantly tried and true.

It's so frustrating how hard my company has tried selling the US military advanced battery technology for it to be rejected in favor of 30 yo technology because of some politician who has some interest in the project (Dick Cheney) and unwillingness to experiment with new technology in this field.
 

gongolongo

Junior Member
Registered Member
The weight game @EdgeOfEcho the weight game. The fact if separate components are going to have separate batteries with separate housing and mounts and the weight goes up. Infantry before the 1960s didn’t wear armor they packed a 40 lbs load. Today with armor they are easily getting to 140lbs. Consolidation and elimination of redundant load in combination with reduced weight equipment and off loading to other mechanized carriers is how you trim the fat to a usable weight. Where the infantry can maneuver and fight. Your IPhone can’t play that game you love but it is a hell of a lot better than trying to lug your PC or console with you on the move. That’s the thing Infantry has to be mobile. Even snipers. Though specialists May keep some of the kit in the end they will likely receive their own versions.

Next armor is cheap for the individual who can afford one set but, the Military doesn’t do small targets it’s masses, the PLA is masses of troops. It’s the Near Peer. Yes the Taliban had forces in plate carriers yet the ring is the US wasn’t the one fighting them. The US operations in Afghanistan had shifted a decade ago it was the ANA who were on the front lines. Farther just because it can fight at long range doesn’t mean it can’t fight at close ranges. Infantry are the tool to take and hold territory. They root out the stragglers. End of the day air and sea may be the prime battles but eventually you need boots on the ground. Even the Taiwan scenario requires boots on the ground.
Is the new caliber based on lessons from Afghanistan? Yes of course. Yet that doesn’t mean it’s not an effective response to body armor of a near peer. Some equipment from and lessons from Asymmetric conflict are adaptable to symmetrical conflicts. Some isn’t. MRAPs for example are not adaptable. But Hard kill Active protection system and counter mine kits are because you will likely face the same threat just repackaged for infantry or armored units. Aircraft self defense systems to counter MANPADS used by insurgents are the same threats from symmetrical units. Light infantry in the mountains is the same as insurgents only they wear a uniform.
Sorry if off topic but why are MRAPs not suitable for near peer?
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Sorry if off topic but why are MRAPs not suitable for near peer?
They were designed for low intensity conflicts from the start. The First MRAPs were developed for South African counter Insurgency operations. They have a very tall stance to allow for the sharp V shaped hull which allows them to survive mine or IED blasts. They tend to be very heavy as well and driving on wheels.
This limits them off road where they tend to bog down. The tall hight of the vehicle means they tend to be easily spotted and targeted by anti Armor weapons like ATGMs. They tend to be designed as infantry transports which limits them from other roles and overlaps with military specific APCs and IFVs which have armor more optimized to face military threats. Basically they are a purpose built swat truck. All of this makes them poor in conventional conflicts.
They might be fine for rear line duties the Ukrainians seem to be driving them ( The US and Australia among others donated a good number of MRAPS) like Battle busses from the rear to forward operating areas. Should be fine for counter mine and EOD operations. Basically it’s a vehicle designed for peacekeeping and not maneuver warfare.
That’s speaking in general though some later MRAP class vehicles were developed to try and bridge back into general military roles. The JLTV for example was designed to offer MRAP protection at a lighter weight, smaller size and more modular design to allow it to fill other missions well also having a suspension and ground clearance capable of going off road.
 

MrCrazyBoyRavi

Junior Member
Registered Member
Looking at how fast pakistan is adopting so many Chinese weapons system for their armed force, I won’t be surprised if QBZ-191 will be purchased by Pakistan. Pakistan seriously need to upgrade their service rifle. Apart from different ammo, I don’t see any other reason Pakistan won’t select QBZ- 191 in the future.
 

by78

General
The is allegedly the heat shield for the hand guard.

52494111300_5bfd2cdc38_o.jpg
 
Top