QBZ-191 service rifle family

Bltizo said:

The QBZ-03 experience is not relevant to the experience of this new service rifle because the PLA has not adopted a new service rifle in recent years with similar ergonomic and modular features to the new service rifle in a way to which the QBZ-03 had.

That is to say; the QBZ-03 was preceded by the QBZ-95. The QBZ-95 was a rifle with a different configuration but otherwise similar lack of ergonomic and lack of modular features. We also had evidence of the QBZ-95 being widely adopted already by the time QBZ-03 started being introduced.

This new service rifle has no preceding "QBZ-95 equivalent".


So there is no logical basis to believe that the QBZ-03 is somehow a relevant experience for the new service rifle.

Click to expand...

If that is so then how much do we know about the level of adoption that the PLA will make for this rifle ? That is the question that I put forward.

Bltizo said:

The QBZ-03 entered service in the mid 2000s and only in small numbers as a complement to the QBZ-95.

It's now 2019, about a decade and a half since the QBZ-03 started being introduced in a limited capacity.

... If you're trying to insinuate the QBZ-03 was an attempt to produce a military wide service rifle then let me categorically say that I disagree with you and is completely inconsistent with what we have seen the PLA go with.

Click to expand...

I will consider it a failed attempt but that is my opinion.

Viktor Jav said:

I am referring to the last two, and I will say that there are some significant redesigns of the weapon we are seeing now compared to the ones we are seen before. So I consider this new rifle a new design, or at least a new variant that the PLA chooses over the earlier ones.
And if we can't agree on that then I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Click to expand...

Do I have to keep repeating myself? As I said, if you had followed this thread at all, you would have known that the last two photos are of competitors being evaluated by the PLA for the new service rifle. That competition is now over. The winner has been selected, which we will finally see tomorrow during the parade.

If we apply your logic to the JSF or ATF program, then YF-23 and X-32 are just another year, another stealth fighter.

Viktor Jav said:

If that is so then how much do we know about the level of adoption that the PLA will make for this rifle ? That is the question that I put forward.

Click to expand...

Because of rumours that have indicated that this is their new service rifle.

More importantly because this rifle has a number of new features that previous generation Chinese rifles (QBZ-95 and QBZ-03) lack.



I would have had no problem if you asked "do we know if this new rifle will be widely adopted" and we could have reached this same conclusion.

But the way you asked the question was loaded with a bunch of preconceptions that were inaccurate.

Viktor Jav said:

I will consider it a failed attempt but that is my opinion.

Click to expand...

If you seriously believe the QBZ-03 was an attempt to replace the QBZ-95 then I don't know what to say to you apart that it is the opposite of everything that we know about the QBZ-03.

dmr version

My take on what we can see from the rifle so far.

Not conclusive or exhaustive.

Bltizo said:

My take on what we can see from the rifle so far.

Not conclusive or exhaustive.

View attachment 54307

Click to expand...

I think we can now conclude the existence of a modular barrel, and the nonexistent of folding stock. I’m wondering could the caliber be changed to chamber say 54r or 762nato

Dfangsaur said:

I think we can now conclude the existence of a modular barrel, and the nonexistent of folding stock. I’m wondering could the caliber be changed to chamber say 54r or 762nato

Click to expand...

I'm leaning towards the stock being non-folding as well.

.... however I wouldn't use the picture of the DMR variant (if it is indeed a variant of the main service rifle) as proof of the stock being non-folding just yet.
The picture of the DMR variant shows a significantly different handguard geometry and perhaps even different handguard configuration.


We've all predicted that the new service rifle would be somewhat modular, but IMO the degree of modularity won't be such that a dedicated DMR can be adapted just by changing out a barrel. From that picture it looks like certain other things were also changed, like the handguard, possibly even part of the upper receiver. It may also be possible that for the DMR variant they also decided to have a non-folding stock.


I'm definitely leaning towards the stock being non-folding on the standard assault rifle/carbine variant, but I would prefer to get a clear look at the stock from both sides first to confirm.

Dfangsaur said:

I think we can now conclude the existence of a modular barrel, and the nonexistent of folding stock. I’m wondering could the caliber be changed to chamber say 54r or 762nato

Click to expand...

Not without a substantially larger receiver. 5.8x42 envelope can fit 5.56 or 7.62x39 not the larger types