QBZ-191 service rifle family

MwRYum

Major
Looks like QBZ-191 didn’t met a lot of users expectation here. If PLA was trying to overhaul infantry equipment and modernize everything from ground up, then why did they cheapen up & compromized on different aspect of new rifle for cost cutting for few billions? Its not like they are buying expensive rifles from other nation like India. Heck China give way more money as donation to poor nations for various reasons. Even Turkish new rifle looks more advanced than QBZ-191, while Turkey’s economy is in shambles. This doesn’t look good for world’s 2nd richest nation.
Picatinny rail adopted for a standard general issue platform is by itself a landmark improvement, as it will open the door for furthermore improvements. It'll take time, but in a few years we should see more optics and kits dialed in for 5.8mm ballistics become available and spotted on PAP kits, then standardized kits come available to PLA in general.
I think there's a difference between meeting "expectations of people who want a rifle with all of the trimmings" and "expectations of a service rifle meant to be issued to the world's largest standing military (and other services like armed police".

When you are designing a rifle intended to be used for a nation that large, used by that many service personnel, small design decisions and extra features do end up costing you quite a lot in terms of procurement, ease of manufacture, and depending on the design decision it can influence upkeep as well.



The only "issues" with QBZ-191 that I see, are:
1. non free floated handguard
2. single sided charging handle
3. reciprocating charging handle


I would say that 2. and 3. are not entirely fair criticisms. I believe 2. and 3., if implemented would result in greater cost and more difficulty in manufacture -- and more importantly, I believe 2. and 3. are not features that the PLA brass desired either. It is not unreasonable to say that 2. and 3. would be quite a deviation from the standard PLA manual of arms that they've been used to since the Type 81 and 03 in terms of conventionally configured rifles. That isn't to say the PLA are unwilling to change -- the QBZ 95 as a bullpup, and the bolt release on the QBZ 191, show that clearly there are some things they believe to be worthwhile changing for.

As for 1., I think a proper free floated handguard issued as a standard rifle is likely going to be excessive for your standard soldier. A free floated handguard is useful for a few things, but perhaps most notably it is for IR lasers/aiming devices. Your average soldier in the PLA is not going to be equipped with such equipment. There are of course some benefits for accuracy as well to having a free floated handguard, but again, your average soldier probably isn't going to be able to make full use of that bleeding edge improvements in accuracy when equipped with just the standard 3x prism sight. In the case of the standard QBZ-191, they've clearly considered the effect of their polymer HG solution on stability which is why they've taken so much lengths to have a forward iron sight housing that helps to stabilize the HG with the gas block. Not as good as a proper FF HG, but it does mean it was a conscious decision.
Then there is the issue of cost. A proper FF HG would have to be milled and machined, meaning it will be more expensive by a decent margin compared to the standard 191's polymer handguard. If money was no object, then perhaps they could do it. But money is most certainly finite, and the ability of the average soldier to effectively make use of the benefits of a FF HG is even more finite. So I can understand why this feature was omitted.
Fortunately, the QBZ-191 design means that they can quite easily produce upgrade kit for existing QBZ-191s by changing the barrel nut and changing the handguard to a FF HG. Or they can design and produce a QBZ-191 variant with FF HG -- which they've already really done with the QBU-191 that features a longer and heavier barrel and a FF HG. The design of the QBZ-191 means producing an upgrade kit or a designing a new variant of it with a new FF HG is very easy to do. However it depends on the need.

Personally, I think that going forwards once the standard QBZ-191s are more common place and widely issued, it would make sense to produce either an upgrade kit or produce new factory fresh variants of QBZ-191, to give it a new FF HG and new barrel nut (basically just a shortened QBU-191 handguard).
Such rifles would become standard fit for SOF/TZBD, rapid response units, airborne, maybe recon elements of normal brigades, who would be equipped to actually adequately make best use of a FF HG.
But would giving a FF HG to everyone be needed or cost effective? Probably not.


Personally I think the QBZ-191 has the right combination of features, and the selected omissions are reasonable. Assuming it performs kinematically in the way the PLA wants it to, it seems like a winner of a rifle design to me.
And the QBU-191 in particular seems like it should be an excellent DMR that can double as a HBAR, as well as a vision of what a more optimized QBZ-191 could look like.
1. is of lesser issue for general purpose, besides if freefloating is that necessary, there's QBU-191 to work from.
2. & 3. ain't necessary the life & death improvement(s) as those has been around for longer, never heard that bothers the Russians (with their AK platforms).
 

wssth0306

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm hoping for an ambidextrous charging handle one the next iteration.
I wouldn't think there gonna be one anytime soon ,left hand shooters for PLA is a none issue , as in I have heard more the one account of retired PLA soldiers, that left handed person will be trained as a right handed.(the same thing happens with writing left handed in school really)
The issue of left hand users are solved doctrinally by training.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Picatinny rail adopted for a standard general issue platform is by itself a landmark improvement, as it will open the door for furthermore improvements. It'll take time, but in a few years we should see more optics and kits dialed in for 5.8mm ballistics become available and spotted on PAP kits, then standardized kits come available to PLA in general.

1. is of lesser issue for general purpose, besides if freefloating is that necessary, there's QBU-191 to work from.
2. & 3. ain't necessary the life & death improvement(s) as those has been around for longer, never heard that bothers the Russians (with their AK platforms).

As I wrote in that post regarding point 1:
"As for 1., I think a proper free floated handguard issued as a standard rifle is likely going to be excessive for your standard soldier. A free floated handguard is useful for a few things, but perhaps most notably it is for IR lasers/aiming devices. Your average soldier in the PLA is not going to be equipped with such equipment. There are of course some benefits for accuracy as well to having a free floated handguard, but again, your average soldier probably isn't going to be able to make full use of that bleeding edge improvements in accuracy when equipped with just the standard 3x prism sight."

And
"Personally, I think that going forwards once the standard QBZ-191s are more common place and widely issued, it would make sense to produce either an upgrade kit or produce new factory fresh variants of QBZ-191, to give it a new FF HG and new barrel nut (basically just a shortened QBU-191 handguard).
Such rifles would become standard fit for SOF/TZBD, rapid response units, airborne, maybe recon elements of normal brigades, who would be equipped to actually adequately make best use of a FF HG.
But would giving a FF HG to everyone be needed or cost effective? Probably not."
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I wouldn't think there gonna be one anytime soon ,left hand shooters for PLA is a none issue , as in I have heard more the one account of retired PLA soldiers, that left handed person will be trained as a right handed.(the same thing happens with writing left handed in school really)
The issue of left hand users are solved doctrinally by training.

They have ambidextrous fire select on the QBZ-191 as standard, so clearly they have some consideration for left handed shooters.

I think they won't have an ambidextrous charging handle because the work to make it so is not worth it, and because the current charging handle set up should still allow a left handed shooter to fire the weapon effectively.
 

Aniah

Senior Member
Registered Member
They have ambidextrous fire select on the QBZ-191 as standard, so clearly they have some consideration for left handed shooters.

I think they won't have an ambidextrous charging handle because the work to make it so is not worth it, and because the current charging handle set up should still allow a left handed shooter to fire the weapon effectively.
It's the over-under method that I think some troops would not like or at least appreciate a more easier way to cocking it. An ambidextrous handle would simply make it easier to cock it and maybe allow the PLA to consider left-handed shooting. Probably being too hopeful here but I was hoping for something similar to the new Chinese LMG style charging handle but ambidextrous.

51537333630_43e789d1b3_o.jpg


51537333640_b96a293dc4_o.jpg
 

allyerse

New Member
Registered Member
It's the over-under method that I think some troops would not like or at least appreciate a more easier way to cocking it. An ambidextrous handle would simply make it easier to cock it and maybe allow the PLA to consider left-handed shooting. Probably being too hopeful here but I was hoping for something similar to the new Chinese LMG style charging handle but ambidextrous.
As with the akm you don't need to reach over the gun to charge, nor under, you can simply use your shooting hand to charge the bolt. Arguably this is the most traditional method, and if needed you can keep the gun pointed where you need it to while doing so for extra operator larping points. For left handed shooters, well the handle is already on the side of your support hand, now with the addition of the ambi safety, big portions of this ergonomic issue has been solved. For an AR which has the ambidextrous charging handle, you would either use your support hand to reach back, or use your shooting hand to reach back, in terms of speed the advantage over something such as a ak74m is that there is a bolt release and the lack of rock & lock. The QBZ 191 has the bolt release, and has somewhat of a work around for quickly releasing the magazine with the shooting hand through the extended pedal, however the simple fact is that it uses the same style of magazine as the qbz95 so it will never compare to an AR in this matter. Whether the usage of this type of magazine is a problem or not depends on the context and intent of the design of the qbz 191. This is something you can see in the new MG that you have posted, and some other small arms posted on here.

To add onto what blitzo said about the economical factor and complexity factors, the decision to put the charging handle on the right also plays into regular tasks, when held against the body, or on the back, etc the bolt will not snag or make things uncomfortable. The key thing is that unlike something like the AK12, the Chinese have added the key modern features (aside from the rails), in the bolt release and ambidextrous safety, adding a modern feature for quickly reloading and alleviating certain issues for right handed shooters in terms of speedily manipulating the safety respectively.

I think if the designers intended to not use the qbz 95 style of magazines, and go for a modernized ak manual of arms then the most likely of options would be something like an chinese variant AR shooting 5.8mm with new magazines (whether its DI or piston, that's their call). Something like a SCAR seems overengineered and pointless, and you will have the same qualms of the charging handle with its positioning and all the other stuff that has already been discussed here and elsewhere over the years. Why try something like a SCAR when an AR fulfills all needs of ambi controls, and its a design that works well, is mass produced, etc (Norinco even makes such ARs too, it's been used by chinese police, and been used for their competition shooting). QBZ 191 seems like a weapon specifically designed within the context of the PLA, blitzo mentioned how the QBZ 95 was a drastic change for the manual of arms, we have people in china whom have never really had as much experience operating AK style weapons if at all as they do with the bullpup + other newer weapons as a soldier so it is not neccesarily about maintaining the same manual of arms when the manual of arms for the standard issued rifle + other stuff has already changed for 2 decades in many units through the qbz95 generation of small arms.

We can infer several key things that the rifle tries to meet (though I can be wrong of course)

- Cost + Simplicity: 1 side charging handle, no FF HG, a lot of plastic, paddle for mag.
- Compatibility: Old ammo, new ammo, magazines, same old rock and lock as in qbz95.
- Modularity: Accessories, parts modification, default gun is equivalent to US military standard m4, uses the typical rails.
- Ergonomics: After taking into account all the above, this gun must also be in more conventional layout, not bullpup, plus modern capabilities through bolt release and safety switch, no usage of lever like the akm.
- Performance: Does it shoot about the same as any old service rifle while being fed mass produced steel ammo, does it do it well? does the gun actually work for regular grunt? this we'll have to see over time, it's been almost 3 years now, hopefully they'd reach some conclusions at this point internally.

If the PLA and law enforcement stick with this rifle, then expect certain fixes just like how the Americans did with the m16, m4 and so forth. Until we get something fundamentally different for small arms, at this point it will be just tinkering with the same old barrel, accessories (stock, handguard, pistol grip, etc), ammunition, and so forth, small fish essentially.
 

The Observer

Junior Member
Registered Member
Personally, if there's anything on the rifle that I would be concerned about, it would be the gaps that could let in the dirt that might jam the system.

the back of the ejection port and the charging handle slot appears to have those noticeable gaps, highlighted in the picture below.

191-1.jpg

While I believe PLA has done its due diligence and decided it's a non-issue, I still think that removing those gaps/minimizing them would yield better dirt ingress protection.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It's the over-under method that I think some troops would not like or at least appreciate a more easier way to cocking it. An ambidextrous handle would simply make it easier to cock it and maybe allow the PLA to consider left-handed shooting. Probably being too hopeful here but I was hoping for something similar to the new Chinese LMG style charging handle but ambidextrous.

But how often would soldiers actually need to charge the handle in the first place?
If you're loading a magazine into the weapon clean, then yes, you'd need to use the charging handle.

But if you are reloading after expending a magazine you would simply use the bolt release button -- and if you are doing a tactical reload, then you of course don't need to use either.



I also don't see how an ambidextrous handle would allow the PLA to consider left handed shooting when the rifle as it is should already easily allow it. The ambidextrous safety should be indicative of that.
 
Top