QBZ-191 service rifle family

supersnoop said:

A few other questions.
Is there a new grenade launcher? I don't imagine the old ones will be compatible.
It looks like there is only a single hole in the front for attaching the sling. Is this a new single point sling design? I could not see clearly in other photos.

Since the new rifles still have full auto, what would the point of IAR be? I imagine LMG/SAW is much more useful (defined as something with belt feed/QC barrel for sustained fire application). I would hope that new fabrication techniques could be applied to new SAW/LMG.

Click to expand...

My apologies for doing an addendum but I was rushing out home for the express bus so...
Alright...to continue...

QLG-10A, as far as my observation goes, there're 2 attachment points to the rifle: the barrel clamp and one point on the unit itself. The barrel clamp seems to be removeable (there's an allen key screw on the base) so it should be just a matter of switching out the part; the problem is the barrel as it is designed to tug nicely with the current QBZ-95-1 handguard, so the only way to make it easier for modification is to make a modified QD-capable firing mechanism for the QLG-10A that gives enough clearance for the bottom rail for the barrel yet does its job.

Or, they do a "QLG-10B" (hey ain't nobody gonna quote me on this one! I merely give that a logical stretch, I could be wrong on this one!), which totally engineered to satisfy the possibility/constraints provided by the bottom rail (yay), no barral clamp so to let it remain free-float (yay), in this case, it could be a modification from the QLG-10 (designed to fit the QBZ-95), the front handguard should be long enough to cover most of the launcher, if the "normal" handguard (we only see the carbine version so far) doesn't have that long a bottom rail, they can always have a "grenadier" handguard...the problem is that much trouble won't they do it like AG36 instead?

As for IAR question...we may look at the USMC with their M27 IAR for clues. Besides from their excuse to introduce HK416 into the arsenal, for them the IAR isn't to replace the SAW but to supplement it; IAR has the advantage to make the squad SAW gunner indistinguishable from the rest of the squad at range, and he does his job by burst fire pinpoint suppression instead of dumping it downrange. Also, depending on the interchangeability of magazines between QBZ-95 series and the new series (we know via patent document that the new magazine is interchangeable for all), the ammo drum for QBB-95-1 can be carried forward to the new gun, will need a long heavy barrel for that role of course. That is, if that's what they'd do and not adopting a new belt-fed SAW.

MwRYum said:

QLG-10A, as far as my observation goes, there're 2 attachment points to the rifle: the barrel clamp and one point on the unit itself. The barrel clamp seems to be removeable (there's an allen key screw on the base) so it should be just a matter of switching out the part; the problem is the barrel as it is designed to tug nicely with the current QBZ-95-1 handguard, so the only way to make it easier for modification is to make a modified QD-capable firing mechanism for the QLG-10A that gives enough clearance for the bottom rail for the barrel yet does its job.

Or, they do a "QLG-10B" (hey ain't nobody gonna quote me on this one! I merely give that a logical stretch, I could be wrong on this one!), which totally engineered to satisfy the possibility/constraints provided by the bottom rail (yay), no barral clamp so to let it remain free-float (yay), in this case, it could be a modification from the QLG-10 (designed to fit the QBZ-95), the front handguard should be long enough to cover most of the launcher, if the "normal" handguard (we only see the carbine version so far) doesn't have that long a bottom rail, they can always have a "grenadier" handguard...the problem is that much trouble won't they do it like AG36 instead?

Click to expand...

The problem is recoil and how the weapon mounts. Like all weapons produces recoil. That recoil has to be managed by the mount so as to insure the weapon doesn’t break loose from the host weapon. The barrel clamp system allows a second point of attachment there by aiding in recoil management of the parasite weapon to the host. Rail systems aren’t designed for absorbing recoil via the rails. The rails are at best used as guides. The actual mount would have to be built into the hand guard and receiver.
We know with the CS/LR17 they were working to do such a system. It’s not hard to imagine they could have a launcher based off that system in the works. However it’s just as likely that they deemed a more permanent mount as the better option. As such a specialized mount attached at Armorer level would be my bet.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The problem is recoil and how the weapon mounts. Like all weapons produces recoil. That recoil has to be managed by the mount so as to insure the weapon doesn’t break loose from the host weapon. The barrel clamp system allows a second point of attachment there by aiding in recoil management of the parasite weapon to the host. Rail systems aren’t designed for absorbing recoil via the rails. The rails are at best used as guides. The actual mount would have to be built into the hand guard and receiver.
We know with the CS/LR17 they were working to do such a system. It’s not hard to imagine they could have a launcher based off that system in the works. However it’s just as likely that they deemed a more permanent mount as the better option. As such a specialized mount attached at Armorer level would be my bet.

Click to expand...

And in that regard, adopt the "AG36 solution" - i.e. a "grenadier handguard" with the grenade launcher structurally integrated into the handguard module - would be the more logical course action, then?

Or "pirate gun" solution? Just build a frame for the existing QLG-10 or QLG-10A to be used as a separate kit?

MwRYum said:

And in that regard, adopt the "AG36 solution" - i.e. a "grenadier handguard" with the grenade launcher structurally integrated into the handguard module - would be the more logical course action, then?

Or "pirate gun" solution? Just build a frame for the existing QLG-10 or QLG-10A to be used as a separate kit?

Click to expand...

Or both. Versions of both are found commonly in military use. Despite having a quick attach features built into the M320 and M27 the USMC chose instead to issue the M320 as a stand-alone configuration. Where the US Army does both issuing as a pistol or mounted on M4A1. Both have advantages.
The mounted configuration is heavy but means not having to carry the system as a secondary piece of gear.
the separate configuration allows for the weapon to be issued on its own. It’s lighter for the main weapon and on its own.

MwRYum said:

My apologies for doing an addendum but I was rushing out home for the express bus so...
As for IAR question...we may look at the USMC with their M27 IAR for clues. Besides from their excuse to introduce HK416 into the arsenal, for them the IAR isn't to replace the SAW but to supplement it; IAR has the advantage to make the squad SAW gunner indistinguishable from the rest of the squad at range, and he does his job by burst fire pinpoint suppression instead of dumping it downrange. Also, depending on the interchangeability of magazines between QBZ-95 series and the new series (we know via patent document that the new magazine is interchangeable for all), the ammo drum for QBB-95-1 can be carried forward to the new gun, will need a long heavy barrel for that role of course. That is, if that's what they'd do and not adopting a new belt-fed SAW.

Click to expand...

Excuse me if this is slightly veering off the technical aspect into doctrine...
I think I have kind of neglected keeping up with PLA infantry equipment, but how is QBB-95 issued vs QJY-88 (squad level? platoon level?) Is rifle squad like 10 people?
Going back to reread the previous discussion, do we know how well-received drum mag of QBB-95 was?

Also, is there any solid chatter about replacing QJY-88 in the first place? I realized that this was just an assumption made. Could those pictures just be marketing fluff from the factory?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Or both. Versions of both are found commonly in military use. Despite having a quick attach features built into the M320 and M27 the USMC chose instead to issue the M320 as a stand-alone configuration. Where the US Army does both issuing as a pistol or mounted on M4A1. Both have advantages.
The mounted configuration is heavy but means not having to carry the system as a secondary piece of gear.
the separate configuration allows for the weapon to be issued on its own. It’s lighter for the main weapon and on its own.

Click to expand...

Looking back at QLG-10, I don't see the point of adapting the design, it seems to be compromised to fit the bullpup profile (since the pistol grip/trigger is so far forward). I guess the only question is as above, is this a mounted or separate thing?

supersnoop said:

Excuse me if this is slightly veering off the technical aspect into doctrine...
I think I have kind of neglected keeping up with PLA infantry equipment, but how is QBB-95 issued vs QJY-88 (squad level? platoon level?) Is rifle squad like 10 people?
Going back to reread the previous discussion, do we know how well-received drum mag of QBB-95 was?

Also, is there any solid chatter about replacing QJY-88 in the first place? I realized that this was just an assumption made. Could those pictures just be marketing fluff from the factory?

Click to expand...

QJY-88 didn't go very far largely because it's trying to do GPMG with a caliber that's usually for SAW - for its length and bulk, I'd have prefer something in 7.62mm or even 8.6mm caliber. In terms of "replacment", there's nothing solid at this time, we know they are working on something but that has even less news than the AR.

supersnoop said:

Looking back at QLG-10, I don't see the point of adapting the design, it seems to be compromised to fit the bullpup profile (since the pistol grip/trigger is so far forward). I guess the only question is as above, is this a mounted or separate thing?

Click to expand...

In the case of QLG-10, it's more akin to Russian's GP-30 (in this case, it has to do with QBZ-95 trigger guard double as front vertical grip, the bulk is too big to work around), while QLG-10A utilized the QBZ-95-1 trigger position to make for an easy reach. There should be enough real estate on the new rifle's front handguard to mount something in the dimension of QLG-10 (with suitable adaptation), or go with long barrel/chamber new grenade launcher in the same manner like EGLM or AG36/M320, as standard barrel version should have the required real estate. Though I suspect PLA won't have the willingness to yet again introduce a whole new caliber and type of rifle grenade at this time, unless the current system's performance warrant such move...

And one more thing...if we go by their design of the smart gear setup, given that the vertical grip also serves as control input device of the said gear, then mounting grenade launcher would take away said device, right? Would that make stronger case for "pirate gun" setup?

In the end, we may have to wait yet longer until they introduce the whole series lineup for proper.

If we look back at the QLG10 early in the PLA had an alternate design that would seem better suited to a conventional rifle.

This configuration resembles the Russian GP25/30/35.
However is also has the downside of the caseless grenade. Muzzle loader meaning that if not used and the barrel is pointing down the shell could fall out. The length of shell is limited and the propellant is exposed to the environment.
Alternatively they I hope would adopt the launcher concept from the CS/LR17.
This is clearly AG36 style allowing a longer cartridge to be loaded allowing longer range or more specialized rounds.
It is true that the Control module would be lost however some of those controls could be mounted to the launcher. The M320 can mount a foregrip although it gets bulky. Presumably a smaller control module could be mounted on the side of the weapon.
Of course we could all be spinning our proverbial wheels here and instead they intend to push full bore on QST11.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Of course we could all be spinning our proverbial wheels here and instead they intend to push full bore on QST11.

Click to expand...

QTS-11 is, in terms of its hardware interface and tech, "old tech" when compare with the smart gear setup this iteration is. Just the eye-piece display that QTS-11 use will add further clutter to the current iteration.

So to make QTS-11 viable as standard squad's grenadier gun, it needs a whole new iteration

• The AR part is based on the new rifle to simplify the overall logistics;
• interface for the grenade launcher need modernisation to be better integrated into the current-gen smart gear

Remember, QTS-11 built upon QBZ-03.

QTS-11 is at best a proof-of-concept, but if the programmable air-burst grenade thing refined into a monster of a gun that is QLU-11, then I don't see if QTS-11 would go that much further, like with new furniture, new chassis and new hardware as part of the new AR family. As you may realise, that could very well be far more than what they may have in mind. Which is why I said they must be quite unhappy with the current rifle grenade types that QLG-10 series used for them to make that much of a leap, at least from an investment standpoint.

Which is basically what I was talking about in the other thread. Forking some of the tech and upgrades displayed into an improved model.

MwRYum said:

QTS-11 is, in terms of its hardware interface and tech, "old tech" when compare with the smart gear setup this iteration is. Just the eye-piece display that QTS-11 use will add further clutter to the current iteration.

Click to expand...

that is one piece of tech that I think has the least barring on what we are talking about here.
We know that the new rifle was seen with conventional optical gun sights and night vision systems as such the eye tracking element doesn’t seem to operate as some form of auto firing system but more likely part of the digital command system, if even. As we didn’t see it in the parade, but in video. It seems like that was more of a work in progress or training aide down the line.