QBZ-191 service rifle family

Kejora said:

China seems to prefer using 5.8mm for short and medium range use and lightweight 12.7 mm weapons for long range firepower.

Does PLA have firearm chambered in .338 Lapua or something similar for long range sniping or they just rely on 12.7x108?

Click to expand...

I believe some of them still use the Sino copy of the Dragunov but those are mostly second tier units, first tier units seemed to have moved to the 7.62x51 NSG-1/lr4

AZaz09dude said:

Dummy training rifles have been distributed, looks like to Armed Police SOF

Click to expand...

I think they might be the real thing. That transparent magazine was likely filled with training rounds, but the rifle itself I believe is real.

As an aside, note the number of notches in the adjustable buttstock in the first image:

Not sure how I feel about that blade charging handle. Would rather it be less blade and more handle

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Not sure how I feel about that blade charging handle. Would rather it be less blade and more handle

Click to expand...

I'd imagine it's a relatively easy thing to fix, if or when they think it warrants a change.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Not sure how I feel about that blade charging handle. Would rather it be less blade and more handle

Click to expand...

The chagrining handle does not seem to be shaped too differently from that of an AK, so I doubt it'll be a significant problem especially if the new rifle has a a bolt release.




This is the chagrining handle that my VZ58 has, and I never really have any problems with it. In fact I like it even better compared to my AR-15 if I am not using the bolt release.

In my opinion, the shape of the chagrining handle (skinny or fat) does not really affect the "felt ergonomics" of the bolt, I believe the length and the location of the charging handle matters more.

Sufficient length of the charging handle ensures that you can get more than 1 finger, or using the palm of your hand when pulling it back during reloads. If you are using 2 fingers or the palm of your hand to pull back the charging handle, it is typically not a problem. If the charging handle is too short, and you can only pull it back using 1 finger, it can get pretty painful pulling it back after a couple of reloads.

I have used the Type 97 (export version of QBZ95 in .223, dimensions are identical except for the mag well) and my biggest complaint is the length and the location of the charging handle.


On the Type 97, the charging handle is too short and its location is too awkward to be operated comfortably. If you have used it, you will notice that when you pull it back, you are mostly using the force of a single finger due to the short length of the chagrining handle and the awkward carrying handle above it. This is okay initially, but after a few reloads your finger is gonna be extremely sore and you do not want to use that charging handle again.

Most of the other guns have charging handles that are placed in locations in which I can utilize much larger portion of my hand to operate, so I never felt uncomfortable reloading them. In fact, I don't even think about the charging handles on many other guns (Tar-21, UMP, G36, Type 81, AKs, AR-15s...), but the charging handle on the Type 97 is pretty problematic that it is the first thing I begin to notice after a few reloads.

So for the new rifle, honestly, the charging handle does not look too bad. I feel like I'd enjoy using that charging handle if I'm switching from a Type 95. No more sore fingers, hell yea.

You can also use after market upgrades on it if it really is a problem, a lot of Russian Spec Ops use this thing on their AKs, looks pretty neat.

by78 said:

I think they might be the real thing. That transparent magazine was likely filled with training rounds, but the rifle itself I believe is real.

As an aside, note the number of notches in the adjustable buttstock in the first image:

Click to expand...

I have a couple of observations.

In the first picture (which is two images in the same pic), does it seem like the rifle in the first image in the first pic seems to lack a barrel? I'm not sure if it was just removed in that image or something, or if it's just an optical illusion. It surely isn't that short, because even the carbine variant of the rifle doesn't have *that* short of a barrel.


In the second picture, that cart full of rifles looks like they have longer barrels than the carbine version, but I'm not sure if it's just the perspective of the rifle. I.e.: is that cart carrying a number of the full length assault rifle variants (which we haven't gotten many good pictures of compared to the carbine variant)??
However, I'm not sure if the rifles in the second picture have the same length of barrel that was actually previously documented in the few pics of the full length variant we've had before, yet at the same time they look convincingly longer than the carbine.


full length variant:


carbine variant



edit, looking more closely at the "full length" variant rifles on the cart, it looks like they may be some examples of the "older" test articles we had pictures of late last year, which could be identified by having a their gas block being "within" the handguard whereas the newer production versions (of both the carbine and full length variants) have their gas blocks extending out of the handguard as well as both having longer barrels.
(also written about here: PLA New Assault Rifle family )

A pic of the "older" "long barrel" variant. So, I suspect the picture of the cart with QBZ191s that appear like they have longer barrels than the carbine variant yet shorter barrels than the full length variant, are actually the "older long barrel" rifles that were presumably tested in previous years -- if you look carefully at those rifles on the cart you can also notice how they don't have their gas blocks visible outside of the handguard similar to the older developmental rifles.
So that picture of the QBZ191s on the cart were probably taken quite some time ago.

Bltizo said:

I have a couple of observations.

In the first picture (which is two images in the same pic), does it seem like the rifle in the first image in the first pic seems to lack a barrel? I'm not sure if it was just removed in that image or something, or if it's just an optical illusion. It surely isn't that short, because even the carbine variant of the rifle doesn't have *that* short of a barrel.


In the second picture, that cart full of rifles looks like they have longer barrels than the carbine version, but I'm not sure if it's just the perspective of the rifle. I.e.: is that cart carrying a number of the full length assault rifle variants (which we haven't gotten many good pictures of compared to the carbine variant)??
However, I'm not sure if the rifles in the second picture have the same length of barrel that was actually previously documented in the few pics of the full length variant we've had before, yet at the same time they look convincingly longer than the carbine.


full length variant:

carbine variant

Click to expand...

I think the gun in the first picture does have a barrel, I think this is the muzzle device although it is a bit blurry?


As for the rifles in the second picture, I also notice a few differences from the previously shown pictures.




1st difference is that the rifles in the blurry picture seems to have a bayonet lug on the barrel but the previous "full length" rifle we have seen does not have this lug. This is kind of weird because I thought the gas regulator on the "full length" rifle already has a bayonet lug.
If the "full length" gas regulator already has a bayonet lug, then the rifles on the blurry cart may, in fact, be a bit longer than the "full length" version we have seen previously, since the size of the bayonet will remain the same regardless of the version of the rifle issued. If the bayonet lug is moved forward, that means the barrel is also extended by the same margin.

2nd, I think the muzzle device may be a little bit different? The blurry pic shows 3 distinctive grooves on the muzzle device, but this is not present on the "full length" version of the rifle we have seen previously.

EdgeOfEcho said:

I think the gun in the first picture does have a barrel, I think this is the muzzle device although it is a bit blurry?
View attachment 59901

As for the rifles in the second picture, I also notice a few differences from the previously shown pictures.


View attachment 59902View attachment 59903

1st difference is that the rifles in the blurry picture seems to have a bayonet lug on the barrel but the previous "full length" rifle we have seen does not have this lug. This is kind of weird because I thought the gas regulator on the "full length" rifle already has a bayonet lug.
If the "full length" gas regulator already has a bayonet lug, then the rifles on the blurry cart may, in fact, be a bit longer than the "full length" version we have seen previously, since the size of the bayonet will remain the same regardless of the version of the rifle issued. If the bayonet lug is moved forward, that means the barrel is also extended by the same margin.

2nd, I think the muzzle device may be a little bit different? The blurry pic shows 3 distinctive grooves on the muzzle device, but this is not present on the "full length" version of the rifle we have seen previously.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a bit hard to tell -- I can see a muzzle device in the first picture but the barrel still seems a bit short.


As for the rifles in the second picture, expanding on the edited post above, I do definitely think the second picture (i.e.: the "longer barrel QBZ191s on the cart" picture) are probably older/early developmental examples.

Back last year I described them as "early" vs "final" configurations, whereby both the short and long variants of the rifle had some common differences between the "early" and "final" configurations.

If we compare the below features with the pictures of the rifle on the cart, there are quite a few of the differences which are common with the "early" variant.
Also, by78 described a further difference last year which was on the buttstock there is that circular thing in front of the space in the stock

(The below picture compares the final short barrel vs the early short barrel but the differences are the same between the final long barrel and early long barrel as well)

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Not sure how I feel about that blade charging handle. Would rather it be less blade and more handle

Click to expand...

I believe this is an experimental product, the final one maybe different. And as Bltizo said, even if they keep it, it's an easy fix.

SteelBird said:

I believe this is an experimental product, the final one maybe different. And as Bltizo said, even if they keep it, it's an easy fix.

Click to expand...

No, I've said nothing about the charging handle; and I don't think it is experimental either. The charging handle on the final product is not particularly different from the early developmental rifles.

I also don't think there's anything particularly troublesome about the charging handle either as it is...