QBZ-191 service rifle family

Bltizo said:

Ah I see what you mean.

I believe the assertion that CS/LR17 not being adopted for PLA service in 5.8mm was from this picture, which was from a year and a half ago. The picture here shows a rendition of what I suspect is CS/LR17 between the version we saw at Zhuhai 2016 and the one we saw in 2018.

View attachment 54095

Click to expand...

Ok, I see why the saying of "CS/LR17 5.8mm being out of the question".

Your post here made it seem like you were suggesting that the new service rifle could be the CS/LR-17 but chambered in 5.8mm:

Click to expand...

Yes, my post was meant to say "could be".

========

Generally speaking, in fact I would go as far to say that we have no reason to suspect that the new service rifle should be expected to look like CS/LR17, and we had every reason to suspect CS/LR17 was not going to be accepted into PLA service seeing as it was openly shown as a product for export.

Click to expand...

We can disagree here. My line of thinking is that, IF we believe that (pretty certain) the new PLA rifle is to be conventional, it won't look too different between various designs (CS/LR17 or not), there are not much outward differences can be made IMO, remind me again about the CJ10/YJ18 discussion . So to be sure that the new PLA rifle is not related to CS/LR17, IMO would require us to know that the design teams are different. This is not easy to know, but possible because NORINCO's light arm institutes/factories are not very secretive. Wasn't a sniper rifle adopted by PLA was also shown in some exhibition? For example.

Being offered for export while serving PLA shouldn't be an issue, QBZ-95 5.8mm vs. QBZ-97 5.56mm is an example. More interesting is that the export version bears PLA internal designation (QBZ).

I hope we can get a good look at the parade to clear things up. I know QBZ-95 may still be the main show, but at least we can have a better view of the submachine version.

Another thing, is QTS11 a modular design? If it is, could the rifle portion (without grenade launcher) be the PLA rifle? It would make good sense when both are in service.

taxiya said:

We can disagree here. My line of thinking is that, IF we believe that (pretty certain) the new PLA rifle is to be conventional, it won't look too different between various designs (CS/LR17 or not), there are not much outward differences can be made IMO, remind me again about the CJ10/YJ18 discussion . So to be sure that the new PLA rifle is not related to CS/LR17, IMO would require us to know that the design teams are different. This is not easy to know, but possible because NORINCO's light arm institutes/factories are not very secretive. Wasn't a sniper rifle adopted by PLA was also shown in some exhibition? For example.

Click to expand...

Oh I'm not suggesting that it's unprecedented for the PLA to adopt a new weapon that was first offered for export.

However in the case of their new service rifle in particular, the fact that they've been so secretive about its design despite us knowing that it should have gone through many trials to have settled on a final design and should have been in production for a while, makes me believe that if it were the CS/LR17, we probably would've had pictures of it in 5.8mm by now.

I fully expect the final service rifle to have similarities to the CS/LR17, however given the preceding state of play WRT what we knew about the new service rifle, about how closely they were guarding it, and about there being various designs tested and investigated, I think the idea of the new service rifle being a CS/LR17 rechambered for 5.8mm should have been doubtful indeed.

What we're talking about here is somewhat different to the CJ10/YJ-18 discussion, because a rechambered CS/LR17 would still be a CS/LR17 in the same way that a HK417 is a rechambered HK416.
However an HK416 is still a different rifle to say a SIG516 to a CAR816 to a MK556 (so on and so forth) -- despite all of those rifles being 5.56mm and having similar action, being modern AR15 gas piston variants, and having very similar designs and so on.


I would be very surprised if the new service rifle didn't look very close to the CS/LR17, with similar features, similar configuration, similar (or even identical) type of action and so on.
But the new service rifle should be as different to CS/LR17 (which itself comes in multiple different calibre variants) as, say HK416 is to MK556. Very similar, easy to mistake for each other, but ultimately different rifles:

(look at the two below and able to tell which rifle is which immediately? I wouldn't be surprised if the new service rifle had a similar degree of similarity to CS/LR17)

Being offered for export while serving PLA shouldn't be an issue, QBZ-95 5.8mm vs. QBZ-97 5.56mm is an example. More interesting is that the export version bears PLA internal designation (QBZ).

I hope we can get a good look at the parade to clear things up. I know QBZ-95 may still be the main show, but at least we can have a better view of the submachine version.

Another thing, is QTS11 a modular design? If it is, could the rifle portion (without grenade launcher) be the PLA rifle? It would make good sense when both are in service.

Click to expand...

Being offered for export while serving the PLA is definitely not an issue.

What is rarer is for the PLA to adopt a product that was first offered for export and then adopting a variant of the export product for themselves. Of course that does still happen (e.g.: with certain systems like the Wing Loong drones, and for certain types of small arms), however for bigger ticket items like fighter jets or service rifles for mass use it tends to be rarer.


In the case of QBZ95, it would be like if the QBZ97 was first offered for export for two years and then we received confirmation that the QBZ95 was adopted as the PLA service rifle.


edit: the rifle part of QTS-11 from my understanding is adapted from QBZ03.

My speculation for why the PLA wants a new service rifle is because they want one which is relatively modular, more ergonomic, and likely made of much better components than previous generations of rifles.
I wouldn't be surprised if the action of the new service rifle was heavily adapted from QBZ03, but apart from that there shouldn't be much overlap.

For QTS-11, adapting the rifle component part of the weapon as the new service rifle wouldn't really make sense because it won't offer the benefits of why the PLA likely want to achieve out of having a new service rifle.

Bltizo said:

Ah I see what you mean.

I believe the assertion that CS/LR17 not being adopted for PLA service in 5.8mm was from this picture, which was from a year and a half ago. The picture here shows a rendition of what I suspect is CS/LR17 between the version we saw at Zhuhai 2016 and the one we saw in 2018.

View attachment 54095



Your post here made it seem like you were suggesting that the new service rifle could be the CS/LR-17 but chambered in 5.8mm:




========

Generally speaking, in fact I would go as far to say that we have no reason to suspect that the new service rifle should be expected to look like CS/LR17, and we had every reason to suspect CS/LR17 was not going to be accepted into PLA service seeing as it was openly shown as a product for export.

Click to expand...

A large number of changes would have to be made that would justify any PLA rifle as a separate development.
First should be the most obvious the magazine well.
QBZ95, QBZ03, QST11 all use a common magazine that magazine uses an AK style locking mechanism. This is very logical. However when they adapted The QBZ 95 into the 97 they changed the magazine well. Same for what we know of other 5.8x42mm weapons. This is a different take from HK who when they designed the G36 or there older HK rifles designed a new magazine. Or Izmash who when they designed the AK100 series designed a AK style magazine for 5.56x45mm as opposed to adapting the AK for the AR magazine.

When the CS/LR 17 was shown it had to have a specific lower receiver to accept AK style magazines
Most of the rest of the family take AR style magazine. So the first step would be adapting the lower.
Next is the form of stock but that would be depending on if they chose to adopt the receiver extension design or not. If not then it’s just folding, Telescoping or both.
finally you have choices like rail system. In the past the PLA chose to ignore it on the QBZ 95. Now they should see that that was a mistake.

taxiya said:

Ok, I see why the saying of "CS/LR17 5.8mm being out of the question".


Yes, my post was meant to say "could be".



We can disagree here. My line of thinking is that, IF we believe that (pretty certain) the new PLA rifle is to be conventional, it won't look too different between various designs (CS/LR17 or not), there are not much outward differences can be made IMO, remind me again about the CJ10/YJ18 discussion . So to be sure that the new PLA rifle is not related to CS/LR17, IMO would require us to know that the design teams are different. This is not easy to know, but possible because NORINCO's light arm institutes/factories are not very secretive. Wasn't a sniper rifle adopted by PLA was also shown in some exhibition? For example.

Being offered for export while serving PLA shouldn't be an issue, QBZ-95 5.8mm vs. QBZ-97 5.56mm is an example. More interesting is that the export version bears PLA internal designation (QBZ).

I hope we can get a good look at the parade to clear things up. I know QBZ-95 may still be the main show, but at least we can have a better view of the submachine version.

Another thing, is QTS11 a modular design? If it is, could the rifle portion (without grenade launcher) be the PLA rifle? It would make good sense when both are in service.

Click to expand...

The Operating group of the QTS 11 5.8mm portion is likely derived from the QBZ03.
This is like how the XM29 KE portion was based of a modified G36C that evolved into the XM8. Or how the K11 5.56mm portion is likely based off K2.
QBZ03 is also likely the source of the Operating system of the CS/LR17.
Likely with changes have been made to the system in terms of parts.
However we don’t have solids on these new rifles as we know they were experimenting with extending the receiver of a QBZ03 type rifle in order to try tame the recoil.
If they chose that route than we may have a even farther step of differences between QBZ-XX and CS/LR17.

Clearer but obscured by the poster

Bltizo said:

What we're talking about here is somewhat different to the CJ10/YJ-18 discussion, because a rechambered CS/LR17 would still be a CS/LR17 in the same way that a HK417 is a rechambered HK416.

Click to expand...

A small thing to clarify what I meant to say.

Maybe you did not get what I meant during our CJ10/YJ-18 discussion. I was meant to say something like "CJ10/YJ-18 derived LACM is indistinguishable from outside, therefor we the observers could not be able to tell the lineage". This is also what I am trying to convey in case of CS/LR17.

I meant to say, we could not be sure of

However an HK416 is still a different rifle to say a SIG516 to a CAR816 to a MK556 (so on and so forth) -- despite all of those rifles being 5.56mm and having similar action, being modern AR15 gas piston variants, and having very similar designs and so on.

Click to expand...

because

I would be very surprised if the new service rifle didn't look very close to the CS/LR17, with similar features, similar configuration, similar (or even identical) type of action and so on.
But the new service rifle should be as different to CS/LR17 (which itself comes in multiple different calibre variants) as, say HK416 is to MK556. Very similar, easy to mistake for each other, but ultimately different rifles:

Click to expand...

The HK416/MK556 comparison is exactly what I want to say.

taxiya said:

A small thing to clarify what I meant to say.

Maybe you did not get what I meant during our CJ10/YJ-18 discussion. I was meant to say something like "CJ10/YJ-18 derived LACM is indistinguishable from outside, therefor we the observers could not be able to tell the lineage". This is also what I am trying to convey in case of CS/LR17.

I meant to say, we could not be sure of

because


The HK416/MK556 comparison is exactly what I want to say.

Click to expand...

I do recall that discussion, however similar to the YJ-18 discussion, the designation matters.

For the naval LACM, if the rumours had said that it would be a navalized version of KD-20/DF-10/CJ-10 -- what that implies for the internals of the missile is different to what we're being told now that the naval LACM is a variant of YJ-18.

For the new service rifle, if the rumours had said that it would be a 5.8mm version of CS/LR17, what that implies for the internals of the gun is different to what we currently know about the new service rifle (not a CS/LR17 variant).



I suppose what I'm saying here -- and what I was trying to convey in the YJ-18 discussion -- is that the rumours we have with regards to the designation (and thus the lineage) of a system does give us information as to the internal of a system.
In other words, sure, we cannot be "100%" sure as to what the exact internals of the YJ-18 LACM or the new service rifle is like in relation to other previous systems (YJ-18 AShM+KD-20/DF-10, and CS/LR17+QBZ03+trialled new rifle designs etc), however the rumours we've received should provide information as to what the lineage of a new system most likely is or isn't.


Looping back to the new service rifle, what this means for us is that I think we can basically dismiss the idea of the new service rifle being a rechambered variant of CS/LR17.

Dfangsaur said:

Clearer but obscured by the poster

Click to expand...

Is that a ~10" barrel? I wonder if infantry will get this rifle, the same with longer barrel or sticking with qbz95/03

ohan_qwe said:

Is that a ~10" barrel? I wonder if infantry will get this rifle, the same with longer barrel or sticking with qbz95/03

Click to expand...

Well it's meant to be a new service rifle, so coming with different barrel lengths for carbine and assault rifle should not be unexpected. In time I would expect this to replace the majority of QBZ95, QBZ03 with regular units.

With rumours saying that it's meant to be modular as well, I wouldn't be surprised to see other variants like DMR and so on as well.

I think it’s a little longer than 10” probably 12.5” it’s hard to tell without a length of hand guard but under 10” barrels are troublesome. The preference tends to be a intermediate step between.

Dfangsaur said:

Clearer but obscured by the poster

Click to expand...

One thing that this image does confirm is that the rifle should have ambidextrous fire select.

We can see a fire selector on the right side of the rifle (facing the camera), which is for left handers.
Rifles which are designed for right handers without ambidextrous use in mind, only have fire selectors on the left side of the rifle (hidden in this image).

There are no rifles to my knowledge which only has fire selectors on the right side of the rifle for (left handers), meaning it is overwhelmingly likely that this rifle has a fire selector on the left side of the rifle (for right handers) as well.

This is certainly a meaningful advancement for the PLA in terms of ergonomics (though of course that feature it is very standard for many contemporary rifles for quite a few years now)