QBZ-191 service rifle family


Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
For some inexplicable reasons you seems to like to pick on me? Didn't i make my statement across? I was responding to statement above and i meant to say if QBZ191 variants are exported to Canada, Ian would have the chance to get his hands on one for review. How is this off topic? Please make an effort to understand before commenting. Thanks

I write this not as a formal moderator warning, but as advice.

This is the post which began the discussion about the "possibility" of Ian McCollum examining QBZ191, which was from you;

Hopefully one day our resident firearms expert Ian McCollum can show us how it functions. Does have that Galil ACE flavor to it.

Perhaps you meant it without seeking to deliberately cause the thread to discuss the politics and policies that might or might not allow such a thing to happen, and sure I imagine you didn't actively seek to create that post which is more off topic.

But it is also beneficial to actively think about whether a post might likely lead to replies that will end up being off topic, and if you think such a thing might happen, reconsider the phrasing of the post or reconsider if a post itself is necessary to be made.
 

by78

Brigadier
Two QBZ-191s among a a lineup of sniper rifles, assault rifles, and submachine guns. I've cross-posted this image in the Small Arms thread. If you want to discuss the firearms other than the QBZ-191s displayed in the image, please head over there.

 

dankris

Junior Member
Registered Member
Does anyone know why QBZ-191 doesn't have a folding stock? I'm not a firearm expert, but with PLA getting increasingly mechanized, I think a folding stock looks pretty enticing for the cramped confines of the IFV and Mengshi.
 

Kejora

New Member
Registered Member
Does anyone know why QBZ-191 doesn't have a folding stock? I'm not a firearm expert, but with PLA getting increasingly mechanized, I think a folding stock looks pretty enticing for the cramped confines of the IFV and Mengshi.
Because it has buffer tube like AR-15. They might also learned from US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that M4A1 carbines are compact enough for mechanized troops, probably the reason why they use the same barrel length for QBZ-191.
 

dankris

Junior Member
Registered Member
Because it has buffer tube like AR-15. They might also learned from US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that M4A1 carbines are compact enough for mechanized troops, probably the reason why they use the same barrel length for QBZ-191.

Is there any advantage of using the buffer tube instead of putting the recoil spring inside the receiver? Having a folding stock means you can have a longer barrel with the same overall length when in a vehicle. IMO that is a good thing unless you're breaching building often in CQB.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
If go by that post somewhere else, a few years back, by the Canadian importer who deals with Type 81 import into Canada, that likely be a few years away because back then he mentioned the factory representative told him the entire Chinese arms manufacturing will be committed to the new AR series production for a few years...and if I remember correctly, we are about in the middle of that "few years" as for 2020.

Also, QBZ-191 is more akin to AK bloodline the magazine part, so there'll be some major rework at the magazine well to make it fit with STANAG magazine, like Type 97. Certainly it'd be better if NORINCO "keep it original" for their export, right up to offer 5.8mm ammo to export market but that'd too niche don't you think? For almost the whole thing is proprietary except for whatever you want to mount on the Picatinny rail.
If I may be so bold, other than the established line if the Chinese makers were to launch new production for export my bet is they won’t be exporting the Qbz191, but the CS/LR17 and its family.
Is there any advantage of using the buffer tube instead of putting the recoil spring inside the receiver? Having a folding stock means you can have a longer barrel with the same overall length when in a vehicle. IMO that is a good thing unless you're breaching building often in CQB.
reduction in felt recoil, smaller overalls length.
the former is has the bolt doesn’t bottom out as quickly it runs the length of the extension. so the recoil is not as sharp.
The later seems counter intuitive but in weapons with a folding stock to reduce felt recoil they add and inch and a half tot the receiver length that then is added to by the length of the stock. As a result of the stock on an M4 is set to equal length of the G36k stock and the two are laid down next to each other they should be the same length except the G36k has a 2 inch shorter barrel.
although in theory the length is dropped by folding the stock for vehicle use the problem is you have to fold the stock. That action takes time and space both are luxury for armored vehicle infantry.
 

EdgeOfEcho

Junior Member
Registered Member
Is there any advantage of using the buffer tube instead of putting the recoil spring inside the receiver? Having a folding stock means you can have a longer barrel with the same overall length when in a vehicle. IMO that is a good thing unless you're breaching building often in CQB.
Based on my personal experience, folding stocks are not as useful as people imagine it to be in CQB or mechanized infantry setting. Between a overall shorter barrel or foldable stock, a shorter barrel helps with maneuverability much more than a foldable stock. (airborne troopers is another thing, which I have no experience in, so I won't comment on that)

Folding stock works in concept, since you can decrease the overall length of the gun significantly by folding up the stock. But it does not work well in practice. First, if you want the folding mechanism on a gun to be robust and reliable, it is often pretty difficult to fold the stock. I have 3 guns with folding stocks, a UMP, G36 and a VZ58. None of the foldable stocks on these guns, Western of Eastern, are easy to use. Of course, the stock on VZ58 is significantly more difficult to fold than the one on HK guns. I need to flip the VZ58 over entirely and push the pin using my palm to fold my VZ58. The stocks on UMP and G36 are a bit easier to fold, but the push button is so stiff that it takes quite a few seconds to push the button all the way in when I want to fold it. I often cannot do it in one push, and I work out pretty often...

What does this mean? If the folding stock is difficult to fold, then it is difficult to do it on the fly when you move through CQB environments or getting on/getting off vehicles.

I practice with my guns quite a bit at home, what I find is that reloading on the move is like 5 times more difficult than reloading when standing still. Essentially, any maneuver with a gun becomes 5 times more difficult when you do it on the move. If I am already having difficulty folding stocks on my HK G36 standing still, I am not gonna have an easier time doing it when trying to mount onto a vehicle or moving in CQB environments.

If something is difficult to perform, then in the field, the soldiers simply will not perform it. I am not gonna waste 10 seconds trying to fold my gun when I am getting shot at while trying to get into an APC, Imma just run in there with the barrel pointing forward and hope I won't get stuck.

Thus, folding stocks works really well in concept, but I believe it is a feature that is only properly utilized when no one is shooting at you. In this case, if you want to increase the overall maneuverability of the rifle in a tight space, shortening the barrel length makes all the difference, and my personal experience confirms this strongly. My UMP and VZ58 both have barrels less than 10.5 inches, and they work wonders in CQB, I never have to worry about poking the wall or door frame with the barrel when I don't want to. But when playing around with my 16 inch barreled AR-15, the barrel becomes a lot more difficult to work with when I try to move through doors and tight spaces.

So yeah, folding stocks sound nice, but their most important function is probably not gonna be utilized in the field when needed, simply because it takes too long and too much effort to fold.

Oh and another thing is that, when a gun is folded, you can't really aim and shoot with it. So redeployment of a folded gun also takes a bit of effort.

So yeah, I'm not gonna worry much about the QBZ-191 being non-foldable. The short barrel version should function extremely well in CQB and mechanized infantry setting, even if its overall length may be longer than a bull-pup QBZ95.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Two QBZ-191s among a a lineup of sniper rifles, assault rifles, and submachine guns. I've cross-posted this image in the Small Arms thread. If you want to discuss the firearms other than the QBZ-191s displayed in the image, please head over there.


This is the first time I've seen QBZ-191s with silencers and red dots on, also angled foregrips.

Given the sheer variety of other weapons, I assume that the QBZ-191s are real, though some parts of them look a bit suspect to me. For example the side picatinny rail piece on the side of the handguard of the QBZ-191 sitting closest to us, it appears a bit different and the guns themselves look a bit... rubbery.
This might just be the picture as I can't see why they would try to put a fake or practice QBZ-191 among other real guns.

But also given the way the other weapons are modified (the flat top QBZ-95s for example), and some of the attachments (AFG, red dot), I have a feeling this probably isn't regular PLA, possibly SOF or more likely even PAP SOF...
 

LawLeadsToPeace

Junior Member
Registered Member
Because it has buffer tube like AR-15. They might also learned from US experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that M4A1 carbines are compact enough for mechanized troops, probably the reason why they use the same barrel length for QBZ-191.
I would argue that the Chinese learned it from their own experiences and training in regards to the compactness aspect and the modularity of the M4/M16 from the US. After all, the US did spearhead the development of infantry equipment.

This is the first time I've seen QBZ-191s with silencers and red dots on, also angled foregrips.

Given the sheer variety of other weapons, I assume that the QBZ-191s are real, though some parts of them look a bit suspect to me. For example the side picatinny rail piece on the side of the handguard of the QBZ-191 sitting closest to us, it appears a bit different and the guns themselves look a bit... rubbery.
This might just be the picture as I can't see why they would try to put a fake or practice QBZ-191 among other real guns.

But also given the way the other weapons are modified (the flat top QBZ-95s for example), and some of the attachments (AFG, red dot), I have a feeling this probably isn't regular PLA, possibly SOF or more likely even PAP SOF...
It could also be a picture of a testing field for the modifications and attachments or even a leaked photo of dummy weapons for a movie or something like that. The reason is that we have never seen PLA SOF and to a certain degree PAP SOF equipped to this extent.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
It could also be a picture of a testing field for the modifications and attachments or even a leaked photo of dummy weapons for a movie or something like that. The reason is that we have never seen PLA SOF and to a certain degree PAP SOF equipped to this extent.

I think we have seen PAP SOF equipped with stuff like this (laser, grip, sight, suppressor combination, on QBZ-95s) but only in very brief passing, and flat top modified QBZ-95s as well.

But it certainly isn't any sort of standard attachment set for PLA or PAP SOF, agreed.
 

Top