QBZ-191 service rifle family

Bltizo said:

Care to elaborate wrt the underlined part

Click to expand...

ACR is a take on the XM8 concept.
ACR and SCAR are improved or simplified iterations of that modular carbine concept.

This is the image you posted to show the PLA modular carbine concept
Every variant illustrated matches to this XM8 display does it not?
Magpul Masada more than the ACR it would become more closley compares to the XM8 in modularity.

Only lacking in an Automatic rifle iteration.

SCAR does so to a lesser degree. It was designed with Special Operations forces in mind so a number of elements were removed as they were deemed unneeded.

HK416 is modular but is only as much as an M4A1 Carbine can be.
To expand this out.

XM8 was designed so that at an armorer level the entire weapon could be reconfigured to any variant of the family. An armorer could take the recever group and bolt of the XM8 And with a few tools build any variant of the weapon in half an hour or less.
This carried through to the ACR but at the User level.
Basically any user of the ACR could turn it from the basic carbine to a PDW in a few minutes with swaping of Barrel, Stock, and hand guard.
SCAR simplified this so that at unit armorer level again in a few minutes they could produce any of the basic variants, But for the more complex iterations like the Compact PDW, Mk20 sniper weapon or HAMR automatic weapon you have to basically get a new weapon because the level of changes to the recever, Stock and Gas system are more extensive. For tge US U.S. the divers of the SCAR were routed in lack of a modern 7.62x51mm rifle and issues with M4A1 issues that were the result of Early M4A1 being little changed from M4 Carbines save for the switch from a 3 round burst (M4) to full auto (M4A1). The issues at heart were corrected by changing of barrels and bolt modifications made by the US Army when it PIP and then switched to the M4A1.
Now HK416 is less modular by design and was only really meant to "Fix" perceived issues with the M4A1, and use with Shorter barrel Carbines 12.5 inches and below.
To reconfigure an HK416 requires a Gunsmith work shop and vice to build a new upper recever group to the requirements. Then that said upper can be dropped on to any M4A1 Or HK416. This level of modularity already existed with The AR15 family of weapons. The only changes made were that HK made the whole weapon Proprietary. So that other than the lower receiver group trigger pack and magazine no other parts are backward compatible. The only really modular part is the quick detach quad rail that can quick attack a M320 Grenade launcher.

So with XM8 an armorer with a work ship and the parts can take any recever and build any version you want.
With SCAR and a few tools you can build most of the basic models as long as it's the right model L or H. But the more complicated requires ordering from factory.
Masada at user level you can build any version you want as long as you have the parts. ACR simplified this modularity in line with ACR where in a unit Armorer would be needed. No LMG versions exist for ACR or Masada.
HK416 Or M4A1 you can build any version you want as long as you order the right assembled Upper recever group built at the factory or gunsmith level.

Based on what we see if the CS/LR17 And the table you produced labeled New AR4. It appears to me that we are seeing an XM8 level of program.

Farther more I draw the line to XM8 as that carbine started it's short life... well it's still in service with Malaysia right? AT least it was circa 2015
It started off as a evolution of the Kinetic energy portion of the XM29. It seems likely to me that the New PLA weapon similarly will have some degree of evolution from QST11 Carbine portion.

The key points that likely draw people away from XM8 were 1) It failed. But it failed as it offered no really overwhelming advantage vs the U.S. M4A1 with its extensive industry. However if a developing country with no preexisting industry it would have likely stood a better chance.
It was also run in a manor contrary to the proper method of procurement for the U.S. Army.
2) PCAPS.
The PCAPS system came about as a method of easy return to zero mounting for the XM8 accessories as opposed to the then established M1913 Mil spec rail system. The advantage of easy universal zero of integrated reflex or Magnified optic with integrated laser and IR pointer. As well as a system that didnt crew into a soldiers hands well shooting because if the cheese grater like Quad rail.
The problem of course is that that system and that maker only had the mounting. The PCAPS was based on an HK proprietary mounting system and HK had to licence a maker.
Where as the established rail system although lacking a factory zero it is easy to get optics and accessories anywhere.
In the aftermath of the XM8 demise. Magpul Masada would introduce the M-Lok system and Vltor the Keymod system. These system offered a rail less mount much like PCAPS but targeting secondary accessories like foregrips, lights, lasers, sling mounts well also being more streamlined and lighter in weight.
The success of M-Lok and Keymod is open source. Neither Magpul or Vltor imposed a restriction on builders.

Right, I understand what you mean now.

Well, the precise level of modularity for the new service rifle is not really known, so I'd be cautious about comparing it specifically to XM8 vs ACR/Masada or SCAR in that domain.

I almost Guarantee that it wouldn't be at user level. Other than special operations I doubt the end user will have much input on their issued weapon. I expect that this will be "Modular" in terms of barrel at brigade, Battalion and regiment Armorer or above. I suspect that accessories and accessory weapons will be more free to unit level. But it's going to be at unit commander discretion.

Are there any rumors of that PLA is experimenting with caseless or polymer cased ammo? It looks like the NGSAR/LSAT rifle will have a significant advantage in weight compared to regular brass cartridges if they can get it to work properly.

Wishful thinking is my bet.
Caseless is impractical at best. Unsuitable to a conventional mode of operation demanding a unique mode of cycling.
Polymer cased however is very viable. NGSW calls for a reduced weight ammo type but that doesn't tie it only to Polymer cased telescoped ammo as that requires a unique mode of operation again.
Polymer metallic conventional cased, Nickle conventional cased Composit metallic cased can gain very similar weight reduction well using a conventional if not existing weapon.

ohan_qwe said:

experimenting with caseless or polymer cased ammo?

Click to expand...

Please look through this thread I already have as it goes over some of the History of caseless and the routes of Cases teliscoped small arms ammo. The videos should also help you gain a idea of the complexity of there methods of operation. https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/firearms-advanced-technologies-successful-and-failed.t8386/
If the CS/LR17, QBZ03, QST11 And occasional prototypes we have seen are any indication at this point in time they seem to be centered on a conventional type of Ammunition. An evolutionary step beyond current 5.8x42mm not a revolutionary step. This doesn't mean they may not adopt a change like Polymer cased or some other case materials. LSAT got a 45% ammo weight reduction from Caseless 43% from CTA. But just a conventional configuration polymer round these days is getting a 20%-30% reduction in ammo weight depending on caliber and cartridge spec. An aluminum cupped Nickel alloy with Nickle plating can offer similar advancement well also being less susceptible to cold weather and both well still being backward compatible. That means that units of the PLA still using QBZ95-I might be able to use the same ammo as units getting the New rifle. Where as a unit in the U.S. Army issued M4A1 wouldn't be able to use the New NGSW 6.8 special type of ammo.

Using the tables offered by @Bltizo and CS/LR17 at this point it seems they want a modular weapons system rather than a Caseless. They seem to be flowing the flow that created the XM8 concept and breaking from Bullpup rifles.
But to make up for the loss of the key advantage of a Bullpup rifle. That being a long barrel in a short package they are hot loading a new cartridges in the 5.8x42mm family.
Likely one optimized for a shorter barrel. So their Standard issue rifle could shift from 18.2 inches to perhaps 17.5 like we see on the QBZ03 or shorter.
A compact PDW carbine,
Marksmen variant
And LMG LONG with heavy long barrel.
This doesn't preclude a totally different ammo type but it complicates it.

After market picatinny top-rails in service with the PAP for the QBZ 95 and QBZ 95-1.

Apologies... wrong thread. Was meant to post this on the small arms thread... silly me.

Sunbud said:

After market picatinny top-rails in service with the PAP for the QBZ 95 and QBZ 95-1.
View attachment 51892

Click to expand...

a copy of the video clip that it's taken from can be found here:

they are certainly among the best equipped PAP soldiers seen before, and it follows a trend where PAP infantry and soldiers on average seem better equipped than their PLA counterparts, which is not exactly illogical but seems counterintuitive at first glance.