QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
cn_habs
Junior Member
A full set of screen grabs of troops wielding QBZ-191s during a tundra exercise.
I wish most PLA foot soldiers will be similarly equipped in the near future. Do most of them even have scopes and those elbow and knee pads?
Part of the new modernization. I believe these will be the new norm for soldiers within the next few years.
It just occurred to me something about this rail. The center part of the handguard, I don't believe it's able to accept any rails correct?Drum magazine on the DMR variant? Maybe done to give it some kind of squad automatic role when the occasion calls for it?
What do you mean by center part.
The handguard slots look like they are m lok (or something very close to m lok), meaning they can either design accessories explicitly meant to fit in the m lok slots, or they can put on rail pieces that fit in the m lok slots to allow picatinny rail accessories.
Either way, the whole point of negative space mounting systems is to be lighter than rails while being able to accept the same variety of accessories as picatinny rails (by mounting rail pieces where needed to the m lok slot), or an even greater variety of accessories (ones which mount directly to m lok).
I'm 99% sure that its m lok. My Type 97 Gen 3 is also mlok, and it is of course built by the same company (Norinco). The use of mlok saves huge amounts of weight compared to a full rail, since you can mount only as much as you actually need. Mlok is an open standard where all the specs are published. Previously, the Type 97 Gen 2 was using a keymod rail, but mlok seems to be more popular these days. There wouldn't be an incentive for PLA to design something other than mlok. It isn't rocket science.
...elbow and knee pads are like under $100 for a full set of mil-spec, and mil spec scopes can be under $500. Pretty sure you can equip multiple divisions with kneepads and scopes for the cost of 1 J-10.
LOL, I might have the same mag couplers as the PLA. They are definitely superior in combat though, as you wouldn't go into your molle to pull out another clip, since you can just reverse the first one you emptied. The downside of course is your system is a few pounds heavier since you carrying another loaded mag on your gun. In terms of modernization, the PLA is definitely "trendy", in that the doctrines look pretty much identical to tier -NATO now. Maybe the engineers have been playing too much video games or surfing too many TFB blogs. LOL.
There wouldn't be an incentive for the PLA to adopt something unique or different, but at the same time it's not exactly like China has a civilian firearms market for them to see any advantage in adopting the same exact dimensions as M lok either.
Personally I think it would be better if it was the same as M lok just for the sake of making it easier for us to describe it if anything -- but if the slots are different by just a couple of millimeters then technically it isn't M lok but a different "M lok-like" system. Unfortunately the photos aren't enough to tell us that level of detail.
E.g.: looking at HK's H Key system and looking at Key mod, one might think they were the same as well, but actually they are dimensionally different and therefore technically different systems.
====
I think the bigger issues with those kind of couplers is the real chance of damage and dirt affecting the feed of the coupled magazine, especially if you're shooting prone.
I suppose it's nice that the option is there, but I'm not sure if it would be used by most soldiers long term.
It looks like a Streamlight TLR-2G, and I have seen it mounted like that on some AR setups, especially with FSP rails that extend past the front sight post. I tried it myself once but didn't like it, preferred a purpose built rifle weapon light on a Quick Detach lever mount. I also prefer pistol lights on pistols and weapon (rifle) lights on rifles.
In the USMC, I had a Trijicon TA-31RCO-M4 ACOG and a PEQ-15 mounted 12 o'clock like that on my issued M4 Carbine. Since that specific ACOG is 4x, the PEQ doesn't even interfere with sight picture. I really have to focus on the PEQ in the optic for it to be distracting but 4x is powerful enough for it to be a non-issue. Though that TLR-2 is higher profile than a PEQ-15, if that new optic is 3 or 4x and the soldier is focusing on the reticule then it should be the same case as my M4. I am hoping that the PLA will adopt a quad rail or MLOK handguard instead to allow more room for accessories, they need to make an equivalent to the PEQ-15 or Russian PERST-3 standard issue for night ops.
Why would they use a polymer rail for a service rifle?