QBZ-191 service rifle family

vincent said:

Pretty sure the PLA doctrine calls for mortars to engage enemies beyond 200m

Click to expand...

200m? I guess the idea is that if the enemy is beyond 200m, they are probably much more further beyond that.
However, 300m, 400m, that's within visual distance especially with optics, certainly you could close in much closer if laying down cover fire. Probably faster than setting up a mortar for sure.

ohan_qwe said:

Is there a tactical reason for this or did he went full gangsta?

Click to expand...

not sure why he's doing it here but that's a solid shooting position if you're shooting over cover and want to minimize yourself

Found live footage of the previous pictures we've discussed.

Also, the brass really flies far. Guess it keeps the tradition of sending them back to China after use.

Aniah said:

Also, the brass really flies far. Guess it keeps the tradition of sending them back to China after use.

Click to expand...

They use steel casing, which means "recycling" for the case is to throw them into the smelter.

And look at all those left-hand shooting postures...demonstrated case ejection setup makes QBZ-191 also left-hand shooting friendly.

More screen grabs from the international shooting competition in Russia.

More...

Its been more than 2 years since type 191 was displayed in the parade but its still not distributed widespreadly across military. Is it still in testing phase ? Normally how long does it take to completely issue new rifle to all servicemens ?

MrCrazyBoyRavi said:

Its been more than 2 years since type 191 was displayed in the parade but its still not distributed widespreadly across military. Is it still in testing phase ? Normally how long does it take to completely issue new rifle to all servicemens ?

Click to expand...

It is definitely not in the testing phase and is more or less in service. Various SOF units and conventional units are using the QBZ 191 rifle and its derivstives. As for why it isnt widespread, there is no official reason why the distribution is the way it is. However we can infer from the PLA's small arms distribution history. For example, for the QBZ 95 rifle, it was first seen in 1997 among the PLA units sent to garrison Hong Kong, but for several years many units were still using the Type 81. To this day some units are still holding onto the 81. Another example is the QBZ 95-1 variant. It is significantly better than the original one, but not all units adopted it. Some of the SOF units are still using the original version. So, for the current 191, based on what we know and the above observations, the PLA most likely doesnt need to immediately have the rifle and is distributing them in batches.

The 191 rifle is definitely a major improvment in almost every single way over the 95 rifle, but it isnt revolutionary like the new infantry kits, which is being widely distributed to various units across the PLA. I believe it will take several years for the 191 to be become the main workhorse of the PLA.

plawolf said:

I think the choice to not have a free floating barrel on the standard model was probably a decision made on durability grounds rather than cost, specifically the ability for the rifle to mount and use bayonets.

Yes, free floating barrel will give you better accuracy, but just how relevant is that difference if you are only planning to operate up to ranges of 400-500m against man sized targets? Even that is probably pushing the envelope in terms of the range PLA general infantry are supposed to engage enemies at, since Chinese infantry doctrine seems to focus more on mechanised infantry tactics where you drive up in your IFVs and only jump out at close range to shoot the enemy in the face at near point blank range with automatic fire to overcome body armour.

Against armour targets, sitting at 400-500m and taking pot shots really are a lot probably game since even if you do hit them, odds are their armour would be able to comfortably stop the rounds and you will be there all day.

American infantry combat tactics (rather USMC) favour such long range engagement because they are facing unarmored targets and have undisputed air dominance. At those ranges, enemy incoming infantry fire is effectively unless against their own armoured infantry in cover, while allowing them to maintain comfortable separation of forces for easy target acquisition and engagement by friendly air assets. The fact that even against unarmored opponents such long range rifle fire against targets in hard cover is unlikely to produce much in the way of enemy casualties is largely irrelevant since the purpose of said rifle fire is to keep the enemy pinned in place for air strikes rather than trying to destroy the enemy outright.

Click to expand...

There is a ton of inference here, not all accurate. The leading driver to free float on the AR15 series is not to try and take targets at extreme ranges by general infantry. If that was the Case for the USMC then the M27 would be based on HK417 not HK416.
The free float came about as the M4 system began getting more and more accessories. As the rifles were fired primarily by SF teams M4A1 in long rapid burst (both in field and training) and the barrels lost heat treat the added weight of accessories on the RIS system was placing an additional load of stress. The hand guard on the AR15 was just a hand guard at most the original design was meant to have a bayonet. By the 2000s soldiers were adding flash lights lasers NOD and more to rail systems that were unsupported. When new rifles were introduced post 2000 engineers realized that systems like lasers and NOD to be used optimally need a zero. Like a dot sight. This lead to monolithic rails and free floating barrels. Less for accuracy as M4A1 or M4 are only required to a 2moa. Which is about the norm. Same for M27. The M27 adoption by the marines was done so as to give the corps a weapon more able to be used from kissing distance to the accepted max infantry firing range able to be used in house clearing yet with automatic fire.
It’s NGSW that is looking to shift to longer range fire. Both vs armored and unarmored.

ohan_qwe said:

I wonder if anyone is suicidal enough to want to fight a land battle in China. Isn't the most probable use case for the rifle to be used in foreign deployment where heavy weapons ain't available and they will be in the same situation as USMC.

I think that the 5.8mm cartridge was specifically designed for longer range

Click to expand...

It’s still an intermediate cartridge the original Chinese doctrine was to create a cartridge with better penetration of barriers and light armor at 300m vs SS109. Of course SS109 has been supplanted in many western armies because it dates to the 1970s.

plawolf said:

Even for foreign deployments the PLA will retain its mechanised infantry tactics. Hell, that’s where such tactics would be even more important if they cannot call upon heavy artillery and air strikes as they could on Chinese soil. Just look at the kind of hardware the PLAMC deployed to Djibouti, which is supposed to be a garrison force in a safe deployment. Just imagine what kind of toys they would pack for an actual combat deployment.

As for 5.8, well it does have better ballistic performance compared to 5.56, but that doesn’t mean it can reliably penetrate level IV plate at extended ranges. Not unless you want to issue Tungsten core AP rounds as standard, which will be massively expensive, even for China, and even then it’s probably not going to be enough at 400m.

Click to expand...

For that you need a bigger bullet. No steel cored ammo below a .30 caliber class will AP level IV or equivalent. Your best bets are to either target at open points which means a fire control system like NGSW. Try to hit with a round that hits with enough kinetic energy so as to create a casualty by blunt force of impact. Or bring a weapon that is light enough to squad carry yet packs a round that can AP level IV like say a .338 Machine gun.