QBZ-191 service rifle family


Aniah

Junior Member
Registered Member
I remembered back during the early days when the rifle was revealed that it looked like the full-length version is similar to the American m4 length. This statement is still pretty accurate.
 

Josh Luo

Senior Member
Registered Member
I remembered back during the early days when the rifle was revealed that it looked like the full-length version is similar to the American m4 length. This statement is still pretty accurate.
Well the M4s are about to be replaced with either the M27 or something completely new (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.). I don't know why the PLA planners are so fascinated about the M4, which is in my opinion not the most reliable and lethal infantry weapon as of today. For example, the 14.5 inch barrel of the M4 simply destroyed the very purpose of the 5.56mm round, which was designed to fragment in enemies' bodies as a result of high muzzle velocity (at roughly 3,000-3,200 fps when fired from traditional 18-20 inch barrels). Having said that, I wonder why the PLA adopted the new QBZ-191 rifle given that its shorter-than-QBZ-95 barrel would likely not allow the 5.8mm round to maximize lethality. The 5.8mm has a steel insert, so if the bullet were not travelling fast enough when hitting an enemy combatant, it may fail to fragment and incapacitate the enemy.
 

Aniah

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well the M4s are about to be replaced with either the M27 or something completely new (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.). I don't know why the PLA planners are so fascinated about the M4, which is in my opinion not the most reliable and lethal infantry weapon as of today. For example, the 14.5 inch barrel of the M4 simply destroyed the very purpose of the 5.56mm round, which was designed to fragment in enemies' bodies as a result of high muzzle velocity (at roughly 3,000-3,200 fps when fired from traditional 18-20 inch barrels). Having said that, I wonder why the PLA adopted the new QBZ-191 rifle given that its shorter-than-QBZ-95 barrel would likely not allow the 5.8mm round to maximize lethality. The 5.8mm has a steel insert, so if the bullet were not travelling fast enough when hitting an enemy combatant, it may fail to fragment and incapacitate the enemy.
I understand the lethality issue with such short barrels but almost all combat these days is too close for anything like 18-20 inches. Add with the fact that the PLA is heavily mechanized and uses a lot of vehicle transports and such, the idea of such a long barrel is a no-go. I guess the PLA will put more focus on the handheld railgun they currently have if such problems arise but that is still a long time away.
 

AZaz09dude

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well the M4s are about to be replaced with either the M27 or something completely new (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.). I don't know why the PLA planners are so fascinated about the M4, which is in my opinion not the most reliable and lethal infantry weapon as of today. For example, the 14.5 inch barrel of the M4 simply destroyed the very purpose of the 5.56mm round, which was designed to fragment in enemies' bodies as a result of high muzzle velocity (at roughly 3,000-3,200 fps when fired from traditional 18-20 inch barrels). Having said that, I wonder why the PLA adopted the new QBZ-191 rifle given that its shorter-than-QBZ-95 barrel would likely not allow the 5.8mm round to maximize lethality. The 5.8mm has a steel insert, so if the bullet were not travelling fast enough when hitting an enemy combatant, it may fail to fragment and incapacitate the enemy.
M855A1 has excellent lethality out of carbine length barrels as well as decent barrier penetration performance. The PLA would do well to induct a cartridge with a similar design into service.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Well the M4s are about to be replaced with either the M27 or something completely new (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.). I don't know why the PLA planners are so fascinated about the M4, which is in my opinion not the most reliable and lethal infantry weapon as of today. For example, the 14.5 inch barrel of the M4 simply destroyed the very purpose of the 5.56mm round, which was designed to fragment in enemies' bodies as a result of high muzzle velocity (at roughly 3,000-3,200 fps when fired from traditional 18-20 inch barrels). Having said that, I wonder why the PLA adopted the new QBZ-191 rifle given that its shorter-than-QBZ-95 barrel would likely not allow the 5.8mm round to maximize lethality. The 5.8mm has a steel insert, so if the bullet were not travelling fast enough when hitting an enemy combatant, it may fail to fragment and incapacitate the enemy.

A new bullet and powder was/is developed for the QBZ-191 which we've known about for years.

And it's yet to be decisive if the US Army will adopt a 6.8mm weapon yet, not to mention even if it is adopted the extent will be likely limited.


All in all, the way I see it the QBZ-191 is basically a sino-HK416 rather than a sino-M4, with appropriate design features and tradeoffs made for the PLA's purposes. Given how many military forces there that have recently adopted new 5.56mm weapons of a similar configuration (either HK416 or variants, or other modern AR-15 pattern weapons) and barrel length and continue to look to adopt such weapons, I don't think there's any issue at all with the PLA adopting a new conventional configuration 5.8mm weapon.



So no, I don't see why one would wonder why the PLA adopted the QBZ-191. Given the PLA's stance on new small arms technologies and the PLA's priorities, it seems to me like a weapon similar to QBZ-191 was almost inevitable, a no brainer.
 

Kejora

Junior Member
Registered Member
Well the M4s are about to be replaced with either the M27 or something completely new (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.). I don't know why the PLA planners are so fascinated about the M4, which is in my opinion not the most reliable and lethal infantry weapon as of today. For example, the 14.5 inch barrel of the M4 simply destroyed the very purpose of the 5.56mm round, which was designed to fragment in enemies' bodies as a result of high muzzle velocity (at roughly 3,000-3,200 fps when fired from traditional 18-20 inch barrels). Having said that, I wonder why the PLA adopted the new QBZ-191 rifle given that its shorter-than-QBZ-95 barrel would likely not allow the 5.8mm round to maximize lethality. The 5.8mm has a steel insert, so if the bullet were not travelling fast enough when hitting an enemy combatant, it may fail to fragment and incapacitate the enemy.
Because M4 is a mature platform that has been combat proven in war. Most of M4 weaknesses stem from design flaws (DI operating system, size of bolt head, durability of ejector spring, location of charging handle, magwell and magazine shape, rigidity of lower receiver, durability of bolt cam pin) that difficult to fix without changing the design, but that might introduce interchangibility problems with existing weapons and spare parts for something that simply an improved M4. While US decided to design new weapon to replace M4, China decided to based their new weapon on M4 design while avoiding as many aforementioned M4 weaknesses as they can.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Because M4 is a mature platform that has been combat proven in war. Most of M4 weaknesses stem from design flaws (DI operating system, size of bolt head, durability of ejector spring, location of charging handle, magwell and magazine shape, rigidity of lower receiver, durability of bolt cam pin) that difficult to fix without changing the design, but that might introduce interchangibility problems with existing weapons and spare parts for something that simply an improved M4. While US decided to design new weapon to replace M4, China decided to based their new weapon on M4 design while avoiding as many aforementioned M4 weaknesses as they can.

Honestly I don't even think that's true.
The QBZ-191 does have elements of another rifle in it, but it's not the M4 -- it's the HK416 instead.


Frankly I'm not even sure where this comparison between QBZ-191 and M4 came from, it appears like it was just a result of superficially similar barrel length (which may or may not even be true).
A far superior and more accurate comparison of the overall guns and their operating system and philosophy, and I think if we were ever able to look into the development history of QBZ-191 in time, would be the HK416 as a reference.
 

Kejora

Junior Member
Registered Member
Honestly I don't even think that's true.
The QBZ-191 does have elements of another rifle in it, but it's not the M4 -- it's the HK416 instead.


Frankly I'm not even sure where this comparison between QBZ-191 and M4 came from, it appears like it was just a result of superficially similar barrel length (which may or may not even be true).
A far superior and more accurate comparison of the overall guns and their operating system and philosophy, and I think if we were ever able to look into the development history of QBZ-191 in time, would be the HK416 as a reference.
HK416 is basically an attempt to fix some of the problems with M4 that introduce some interchangibility problems (different bolt carrier, different handguard, different upper receiver, different sight height), but it didn't go far enough. QBZ-191 could be considered inspired by HK416 just like FN Scar, ACR and CZ Bren was inspired by AR-18.
 

Bltizo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
HK416 is basically an attempt to fix some of the problems with M4 that introduce some interchangibility problems (different bolt carrier, different handguard, different upper receiver, different sight height), but it didn't go far enough. QBZ-191 could be considered inspired by HK416 just like FN Scar, ACR and CZ Bren was inspired by AR-18.

My point is that if QBZ-191 is to be compared to any other rifle as having an influence, HK416 is probably the most appropriate one, rather than M4, and that it seems odd to me that M4 as a rifle is being compared to QBZ-191 as a rifle when the only reason M4 was brought up in the first place is because of the possibility that it may have a similar barrel length.
 

MwRYum

Major
Higher quality images not from Sina.

The wear and tear on the rifle is evident, likely a very aggressive conversion/familiarization training regimen to put that much wear in about a year's (?) time.
 

Top