He's talking about having the gun split into two halves like a survival rifle. This is not something you should have as standard practice. Can lead to many problems.
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Well that's an extreme case, l don't mean barrel detached. But i guess it wouldn't save that much space depend on barrel length.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
That example of a rifle is meant for a downed pilot. This configuration is intended to fit inside the ejection seat escape survival bag. In the field it’s meant to be assembled.
This is a specific role and function not standard practice for the army.
Different armies will have different rules on how they want for support troops.
The German army for example designed the G36 sling so that the stock could be folded and the rifle sling looped to become backpack straps.
Racking up is usually done with someone pulling security.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
That soldier on the left. Shows why it is that the U.S. army M7 and the British L403A1 have barrels of 13 inches (13.7 for the Brit) That being use with a supressor. Something that is set to become more the more the norm in infantry and more and more all the time. They both use such a barrel length because when you add the can it doesn’t end up becoming an awkward length. Mind you the cans for both rifles aren’t that long. The L403A1 can only adds 2 inches to the OAL so it’s a 36.2 inches tip to butt with fully extended stock with the can. The M7 goes from 34.1 inches to 36 inches stock retracted (not folded).
38.8 inches was the length of the M16A1 which was shorter than the M16A2. I have seen a claim that the QBZ03 is 37 inches long and an AK74 is
Now I suspect that the QBZ 191 is using a suppressor similar to that of the U.S. KAC M110. What I mean by that is if you look at a suppressed M110 the suppressor looks huge, but if you take the can off the rifle you realize that half the supressor is just an empty tube with a clamp at the end. This was because the Army wanted to use the NATO standard bird cage muzzle break so Knights Armaments were forced to have to find another way to mount the suppressor. They moved the mounting to the gas block and the mounting clamp had to move back to meet it. Well the muzzle actually sits in the functional portion of the suppressor. The later rifles I pointed to didn’t require the NATO bird cage. The PLA issues Rifle grenades and the NATO bird cage was designed to fire rifle grenades as such that’s likely why the QBZ’s can looks so long. They were probably required to use the PLA equivalent to the Bird cage muzzle device.
Given the similarities between the QBZ191 versions I suspect that they have similar overall lengths to the M4/M16 series this would mean an unsuppressed OAL of (192) ~27 inches, (191) ~34 inches and (QBU) ~41 inches.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
That soldier on the left. Shows why it is that the U.S. army M7 and the British L403A1 have barrels of 13 inches (13.7 for the Brit) That being use with a supressor. Something that is set to become more the more the norm in infantry and more and more all the time. They both use such a barrel length because when you add the can it doesn’t end up becoming an awkward length. Mind you the cans for both rifles aren’t that long. The L403A1 can only adds 2 inches to the OAL so it’s a 36.2 inches tip to butt with fully extended stock with the can. The M7 goes from 34.1 inches to 36 inches stock retracted (not folded).
38.8 inches was the length of the M16A1 which was shorter than the M16A2. I have seen a claim that the QBZ03 is 37 inches long and an AK74 is
Now I suspect that the QBZ 191 is using a suppressor similar to that of the U.S. KAC M110. What I mean by that is if you look at a suppressed M110 the suppressor looks huge, but if you take the can off the rifle you realize that half the supressor is just an empty tube with a clamp at the end. This was because the Army wanted to use the NATO standard bird cage muzzle break so Knights Armaments were forced to have to find another way to mount the suppressor. They moved the mounting to the gas block and the mounting clamp had to move back to meet it. Well the muzzle actually sits in the functional portion of the suppressor. The later rifles I pointed to didn’t require the NATO bird cage. The PLA issues Rifle grenades and the NATO bird cage was designed to fire rifle grenades as such that’s likely why the QBZ’s can looks so long. They were probably required to use the PLA equivalent to the Bird cage muzzle device.
Given the similarities between the QBZ191 versions I suspect that they have similar overall lengths to the M4/M16 series this would mean an unsuppressed OAL of (192) ~27 inches, (191) ~34 inches and (QBU) ~41 inches.
Have 191 been pictured with rifle grenades? China seem to have embraced underbarrel or sniper grenade launchers nowdays.