I would not be surprised if the QBZ-191 has an ability to swap out stock component much like the G3.
That again comes back to how the weapons bolt carrier group reciprocate.
The question is how far does the bolt go in its cycle. G3, MP5 and the legacy HK rifles have a short receiver extension vs AR10, AR15. This short extension means that all you really have is a cap at the end of the extension onto which the stock models are affixed. This means you can fit the double wire telescoping stock like MP5, a fixed stock, M4 style or a folder. If however the extension and reciprocal stroke is longer like an M4 than it becomes more difficult. You can replace the Stock module but it’s all really just a shoe for the receiver extension which is the foot. Unless you conduct some major changes to the extension then the size of the stock module is limited to a fixed minimal size. Like trying to fit a size 6 shoe on a size 9 foot, unless you are into foot binding it’s not an option.
If we were talking about CS/LR 17 rifles or QBZ03 okay no problem good to go. These are designed around a mechanical system that evolves from the Type 81 rifle they were designed to have a folding stock capacity.
the QBZ191 though it seems is based on a different concept. The suspected early prototype of the system had an implied recoil cycle like an AR. This demands a larger stock boot.
farther I would point out that during the launch of the new rifle and what we have seen of the type we have three versions. The compact, the Carbine and the DMR. All three have the same stock. Troops in the parade who might have been issued an even smaller version of one was available had SMG with wired telescoping stocks.
That makes me more so suspect a fixed degree of flexibility in the furniture here. First because it’s so new, Second because realistically for a weapon that will only be built for the PLA why make it more complicated?.
