Is there a tactical reason for this or did he went full gangsta?
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Probably because he is shooting at extended range with a red dot. Tilting it sideways allows for unobstructed view/better compensation for bullet drop compared to traditional aiming position, where the barrel and/or any attachments might obstruct his view of where rounds are landing.
by78
General
I believe this might be called Center Axis Relock, which is mostly used for close-quarters combat. However, the soldier in the photo is pressing the rifle butt to his chest area, probably done to better control recoil? More knowledgable members, please chime in. I'm curious as well.
Last edited:
Yes.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
No and Yes. No if you are designing a gun from scratch with that feature.
Yes as the QBZ191 doesn’t have that in the main configuration meaning that they have to make more extensive modifications to the production.
I would say yes, as in even going from starting from design, the cost of the tooling, production, and resources to do a free floated handguard in the way that would be practical (basically a single piece handguard, milled piece of metal) is going to be more expensive than the non-metal (polymer) handguard they have.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I think the choice to not have a free floating barrel on the standard model was probably a decision made on durability grounds rather than cost, specifically the ability for the rifle to mount and use bayonets.
Yes, free floating barrel will give you better accuracy, but just how relevant is that difference if you are only planning to operate up to ranges of 400-500m against man sized targets? Even that is probably pushing the envelope in terms of the range PLA general infantry are supposed to engage enemies at, since Chinese infantry doctrine seems to focus more on mechanised infantry tactics where you drive up in your IFVs and only jump out at close range to shoot the enemy in the face at near point blank range with automatic fire to overcome body armour.
Against armour targets, sitting at 400-500m and taking pot shots really are a lot probably game since even if you do hit them, odds are their armour would be able to comfortably stop the rounds and you will be there all day.
American infantry combat tactics (rather USMC) favour such long range engagement because they are facing unarmored targets and have undisputed air dominance. At those ranges, enemy incoming infantry fire is effectively unless against their own armoured infantry in cover, while allowing them to maintain comfortable separation of forces for easy target acquisition and engagement by friendly air assets. The fact that even against unarmored opponents such long range rifle fire against targets in hard cover is unlikely to produce much in the way of enemy casualties is largely irrelevant since the purpose of said rifle fire is to keep the enemy pinned in place for air strikes rather than trying to destroy the enemy outright.
Yes, free floating barrel will give you better accuracy, but just how relevant is that difference if you are only planning to operate up to ranges of 400-500m against man sized targets? Even that is probably pushing the envelope in terms of the range PLA general infantry are supposed to engage enemies at, since Chinese infantry doctrine seems to focus more on mechanised infantry tactics where you drive up in your IFVs and only jump out at close range to shoot the enemy in the face at near point blank range with automatic fire to overcome body armour.
Against armour targets, sitting at 400-500m and taking pot shots really are a lot probably game since even if you do hit them, odds are their armour would be able to comfortably stop the rounds and you will be there all day.
American infantry combat tactics (rather USMC) favour such long range engagement because they are facing unarmored targets and have undisputed air dominance. At those ranges, enemy incoming infantry fire is effectively unless against their own armoured infantry in cover, while allowing them to maintain comfortable separation of forces for easy target acquisition and engagement by friendly air assets. The fact that even against unarmored opponents such long range rifle fire against targets in hard cover is unlikely to produce much in the way of enemy casualties is largely irrelevant since the purpose of said rifle fire is to keep the enemy pinned in place for air strikes rather than trying to destroy the enemy outright.
I wonder if anyone is suicidal enough to want to fight a land battle in China. Isn't the most probable use case for the rifle to be used in foreign deployment where heavy weapons ain't available and they will be in the same situation as USMC.
I think that the 5.8mm cartridge was specifically designed for longer range.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Even for foreign deployments the PLA will retain its mechanised infantry tactics. Hell, that’s where such tactics would be even more important if they cannot call upon heavy artillery and air strikes as they could on Chinese soil. Just look at the kind of hardware the PLAMC deployed to Djibouti, which is supposed to be a garrison force in a safe deployment. Just imagine what kind of toys they would pack for an actual combat deployment.
As for 5.8, well it does have better ballistic performance compared to 5.56, but that doesn’t mean it can reliably penetrate level IV plate at extended ranges. Not unless you want to issue Tungsten core AP rounds as standard, which will be massively expensive, even for China, and even then it’s probably not going to be enough at 400m.