QBZ-191 service rifle family

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
How about a center mounted grenade launcher but with a side mounted trigger somewhere around the position of the charging handle?
Awkward design and easy to misfire if you drop your rifle on the side where the trigger is.
 

steel21

Junior Member
Registered Member
oke, someone prob gonna tell me my idea is retarded.
But how about a side mounted grenade launcher
Side mounting distorts the centerline weapon balance.

Since a M203 is used 95% of the time as a M16A2, it is an excessive sacrifice for.

Also, side mounting the GL would also distort the recoil of firing 40mm. By side mounting, you are essentially going a gansta:
1612189387721.png

1612189440374.png

By doing this, you will negate any benefit while adding a shit load of training and operational complications.
 

steel21

Junior Member
Registered Member
More than likely, it will be an underbarrel configuration. When we consider the PLA's new focus on weapon system modularity, more likely than not, they will either attach a UGL to the mounting points below the handguard or they will introduce an alternative handguard more suitable for the mounting of a UGL. For instance:
View attachment 68165
View attachment 68166
Of course a UGL on a rifle will always be more cumbersome than the standalone rifle. With people bringing up arguements that it will be suboptimal in CQB. And indeed it is a suboptimal solution, but the cost benefit of being a little less wieldy for the firepower and capability a grenadier can deliver to a squad is well worth it. The handguard of the DMR version (QBU 191?) would look quite suitable for such a UGL to be attached.

A separate GL is also a solution, but a UGL allows a soldier to bring the firepower of a grenade launcher to bear on the enemy almost immediately, without having to go through your bag to fish out a separate GL that is in itself too bulky to be stored in pouches on your vest.
GL is useful not as a reflex shooting weapons, due to fragmentation radius, and most important of all, arming distance.

So it is unlike to be used in a manner like in BF3
maxresdefault.jpg

And used more in line with target or area suppression from a tactical halt, from behind cover. You will often see guys using it to suppress a window or room from across the street.

2923501427_0bdff191a7_o-1200x640.jpg

Which is why we increasing see M320 used as a separate module, independent of MK18 or M4A1.

b4a3ce2965785b4fce03934a416c17e5.jpg2lyz1x7jvw741.jpg
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
well originally the M79 was more replaced by the M203 mounted on either an M16 or later M4. The M1911 was replaced by M9 now M17/18.
Althoughthe M320 is partially made of polymers it’s not “plastic”. It weighs more than M203 mounted or stand alone. It main advantages are that it’s more easy to use in both configurations than M203 acceptable for longer 40mm rounds and as a pistol can be easily holstered compared to the blunderbuss on steroids.
The weight and bulk is the reason why it’s preferred as a pistol. The USMC based on this preference issued their lots in that form. That said M320 mounted on Carbines are issued aim the army. Part of this back and forth on both types has to do with the M320 design vs the M4A1 and HK416 based M27. The M4A1 doesn’t have the proprietary mounting system HK designed for their 416 rail systems that allows quick detach so they mount to the rifle in a semipermanent mount like the old m203. The Marines have the rails but prefer to use the lower sections for a bipod and grip. Besides M27 is already 10lbs vs M4A1 8Lb base weight.
 

steel21

Junior Member
Registered Member
well originally the M79 was more replaced by the M203 mounted on either an M16 or later M4. The M1911 was replaced by M9 now M17/18.
Althoughthe M320 is partially made of polymers it’s not “plastic”. It weighs more than M203 mounted or stand alone. It main advantages are that it’s more easy to use in both configurations than M203 acceptable for longer 40mm rounds and as a pistol can be easily holstered compared to the blunderbuss on steroids.
The weight and bulk is the reason why it’s preferred as a pistol. The USMC based on this preference issued their lots in that form. That said M320 mounted on Carbines are issued aim the army. Part of this back and forth on both types has to do with the M320 design vs the M4A1 and HK416 based M27. The M4A1 doesn’t have the proprietary mounting system HK designed for their 416 rail systems that allows quick detach so they mount to the rifle in a semipermanent mount like the old m203. The Marines have the rails but prefer to use the lower sections for a bipod and grip. Besides M27 is already 10lbs vs M4A1 8Lb base weight.
Yup, thanks for the correction.

Also, the M320 uses a "double action" trigger, in case the fist primer strike was a bit weak. Previously, in the M203, you had to re-cock the tube, exposing the shooter to potential delayed discharge.

Had no idea regarding the rail integration issues. Seems like a quick "airsoft" mod to fix, but hey HK part ain't cheap.

The whole M320 is a bit unwieldly under the an AR platform.

Back in 2003, I remember my troops had a laser range finder attachment to the M203 that resembled a giant "U". That thing was HUGE! I think it was an earlier version FN FCU.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Remember that both the rifle and launcher have a recoil element to them. Any modifications have to be able to take the impulse of both that and the soldiers who use them. Airsoft parts are not built anywhere near the same level ruggedness.
The 416 rail system was designed specifically for the 416 receiver and visa versa. The M4 receiver system wasn’t designed for the launcher mount either so you would basically need a engineering design change for an upper receiver replacement set with integral mounting system in a new hand guard, it could happen but seems unlikely due to NGSW AR.

However this is a bit OT to the QBZ191.
Obviously Norinco will if required cook up a dedicated mount and launcher. Likely modified off of either the launcher on the QBZ95 possibly redesigned akin to how FN changed the F2000 launcher to the Mk13 or the Launcher from CS/LR17 probably with a dedicated mount that like those on Army M4A1 with M320 would require an armorer.
 
Top