QBZ-191 service rifle family

Norinco_81 · Mar 22, 2021

j17wang said:
I'm 99% sure that its m lok. My Type 97 Gen 3 is also mlok, and it is of course built by the same company (Norinco). The use of mlok saves huge amounts of weight compared to a full rail, since you can mount only as much as you actually need. Mlok is an open standard where all the specs are published. Previously, the Type 97 Gen 2 was using a keymod rail, but mlok seems to be more popular these days. There wouldn't be an incentive for PLA to design something other than mlok. It isn't rocket science.

Im assuming you live in Canada since murica likes to sanction everyone. The only Chinese weapons I have are older MAK-90s converted to look like actual Type 56s, Type 56 SKS, Norinco 1911s and Hawk 982 shotgun. All excellent, reliable weapons that I trust over my murican made guns. Though I despise bullpups, I still would buy a Type 97 for collection purposes.

Is the MLOK on your Type 97 compatible with US or Canadian made MLOK accessories or dimensions are off?

j17wang said:
LOL, I might have the same mag couplers as the PLA. They are definitely superior in combat though, as you wouldn't go into your molle to pull out another clip, since you can just reverse the first one you emptied. The downside of course is your system is a few pounds heavier since you carrying another loaded mag on your gun. In terms of modernization, the PLA is definitely "trendy", in that the doctrines look pretty much identical to tier -NATO now. Maybe the engineers have been playing too much video games or surfing too many TFB blogs. LOL.

I have been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan twice during my 8 years in the Marine Corps (so glad I woke up and got out btw). I don't recall seeing anyone use mag couplers, I'm sure some guys did but I didnt see it. I currently have 2 AR PMAGs that are coupled together that I bought from a coworker and I do like the faster reload. However, the only pouch that would fit something as bulky as that is my dump pouch but I rather not carry loaded mags in there. Personally I like drum mags but only if they are reliable like Magpul D60s or Chinese AK back loading drums. I tried Surefire 60 round mags and they are murican made garbage.

TerraN_EmpirE · Mar 22, 2021

Norinco_81 said:
Why would they use a polymer rail for a service rifle?

Weight and heat. G36, ACR and the Magpul original rails used polymer systems on which rails could be added. The rail it’s self was an aluminum insert in the polymer shell. Like the heat sheilds on the old A2 hand guards
It’s lighter cheaper yet fairly rigid and doesn’t heat up the same way as metal. So if you grab a rifle sitting in the sun with your bare hands you don’t end up with a second degree.

j17wang · Mar 22, 2021

Norinco_81 said:
Im assuming you live in Canada since murica likes to sanction everyone. The only Chinese weapons I have are older MAK-90s converted to look like actual Type 56s, Type 56 SKS, Norinco 1911s and Hawk 982 shotgun. All excellent, reliable weapons that I trust over my murican made guns. Though I despise bullpups, I still would buy a Type 97 for collection purposes.

Is the MLOK on your Type 97 compatible with US or Canadian made MLOK accessories or dimensions are off?

Yep, Canada. I think the only other place Type 97's can be found are Philippines, Pakistan, and maybe Russia for the civilian market. My MLOK is the regular MLOK, remember that my type 97 is basically nothing like the actual Type 95 since its semi-auto and accepts STANAG and has full pic-rail.

Norinco_81 said:
I have been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan twice during my 8 years in the Marine Corps (so glad I woke up and got out btw). I don't recall seeing anyone use mag couplers, I'm sure some guys did but I didnt see it. I currently have 2 AR PMAGs that are coupled together that I bought from a coworker and I do like the faster reload. However, the only pouch that would fit something as bulky as that is my dump pouch but I rather not carry loaded mags in there. Personally I like drum mags but only if they are reliable like Magpul D60s or Chinese AK back loading drums. I tried Surefire 60 round mags and they are murican made garbage.

Its interesting your name is Norinco_81. I'm actually thinking of getting the Norinco 81 LMG up here in Canada. Its $1,499 CAD but looks mean and are new production.

Norinco_81 said:
I have been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan twice during my 8 years in the Marine Corps (so glad I woke up and got out btw). I don't recall seeing anyone use mag couplers, I'm sure some guys did but I didnt see it. I currently have 2 AR PMAGs that are coupled together that I bought from a coworker and I do like the faster reload. However, the only pouch that would fit something as bulky as that is my dump pouch but I rather not carry loaded mags in there. Personally I like drum mags but only if they are reliable like Magpul D60s or Chinese AK back loading drums. I tried Surefire 60 round mags and they are murican made garbage.

LOL, our drum mags are pinned to 5 rounds. But we still got them. Its hard to shoot and move with coupled mags unless you train with them. I find that the extra weight does actually change the way a weapon feels. If you want to shoot with coupled mags you also need to train that way to begin, otherwise makes your assault rifle feel much heavier like a loaded out SCAR or some other DMR.

Norinco_81 · Mar 23, 2021

j17wang said:
Yep, Canada. I think the only other place Type 97's can be found are Philippines, Pakistan, and maybe Russia for the civilian market. My MLOK is the regular MLOK, remember that my type 97 is basically nothing like the actual Type 95 since its semi-auto and accepts STANAG and has full pic-rail.

j17wang said:
Its interesting your name is Norinco_81. I'm actually thinking of getting the Norinco 81 LMG up here in Canada. Its $1,499 CAD but looks mean and are new production.

j17wang said:
LOL, our drum mags are pinned to 5 rounds. But we still got them. Its hard to shoot and move with coupled mags unless you train with them. I find that the extra weight does actually change the way a weapon feels. If you want to shoot with coupled mags you also need to train that way to begin, otherwise makes your assault rifle feel much heavier like a loaded out SCAR or some other DMR.

Sounds good, I got a good friend who lives in Vancouver that I keep in regular contact with. Since he has a Taobao account he has helped me get alot of PLA issue gear, including the new Xingkong pattern stuff.

I say no thanks to Canadian gun laws! At least you guys can still get new production Chinese and Russian weapons for the most part.

Yes, the Type 97 is the export version of the Type 95, and no way China is going to export 5.8x42mm. I wish I can get my hands on a Type 81, I think there are only a few that got imported into the US before the 1989 ban. And those are probably worth over $10K USD by now! I would also love to own a semi auto 5.56mm export version of the QBZ-191 as well if it werent for all the political BS.

Though I was born and raised in the USA and used to believe all its propaganda, I never forgot I was Chinese and now fully believe in the Chinese Dream. I love my Norinco weapons and have respect and support for the PLA, hence my username.

Anyway not to go too far off topic, a fully loaded 60rd drum or two 30rd mags of 5.56 coupled together adds noticeable weight and does affect the balance of the rifle. Even more so when I have my 75rd Chinese AK drums fully loaded with 7.62x39 on my MAK-90 or other AKs I own lol. Though there are purpose made MOLLE drum mag pouches out they aren't very useful IMO. I prefer the old school green Chinese drum mag pouches with shoulder straps, I use them for all the drum mags I use.

I was an artillery support man so I never got to use my M4 in combat, helped shoot HIMARS instead. But if there lessons to be learned from the Battle Of Kamdesh or Korangal Valley it is that service rifles make poor substitutes of belt fed, quick change barrel LMGs and GPMGs like the SAW and M240

Blitzo · Mar 23, 2021

Norinco_81 said:
It looks like a Streamlight TLR-2G, and I have seen it mounted like that on some AR setups, especially with FSP rails that extend past the front sight post. I tried it myself once but didn't like it, preferred a purpose built rifle weapon light on a Quick Detach lever mount. I also prefer pistol lights on pistols and weapon (rifle) lights on rifles.

In the USMC, I had a Trijicon TA-31RCO-M4 ACOG and a PEQ-15 mounted 12 o'clock like that on my issued M4 Carbine. Since that specific ACOG is 4x, the PEQ doesn't even interfere with sight picture. I really have to focus on the PEQ in the optic for it to be distracting but 4x is powerful enough for it to be a non-issue. Though that TLR-2 is higher profile than a PEQ-15, if that new optic is 3 or 4x and the soldier is focusing on the reticule then it should be the same case as my M4. I am hoping that the PLA will adopt a quad rail or MLOK handguard instead to allow more room for accessories, they need to make an equivalent to the PEQ-15 or Russian PERST-3 standard issue for night ops.

The standard QBZ-191 handguard actually has 3, 9 and 6 o'clock attachment points for small picatinny rail pieces that can be mounted on those positions, if needed. Those lengths look sufficient to mount something like a PEQ-15 on one side, a torch on the other, and a foregrip or grip if needed at the bottom.

Of course, the QBU-191 DMR/LSW has a full, longer handguard that is M LOK and looks similar in spirit to some of Geissle's M lok handguards, with both M lok throughout and small forward integrated picatinny rail sections.

Norinco_81 said:
Why would they use a polymer rail for a service rifle?

The standard QBZ-191 handguard definitely is not metal, but I'm uncertain of the handguard's top side rail is metal or not -- it certainly doesn't look polymer, and the front BUIS (which certainly looks metal to me) also seems integrated with the rail.

The benefit of having a polymer/nonmetal handguard apart from weight, is also that it is probably cheaper to make/procure as well.
For standard infantry, a metal M lok (or quad rail, if for whatever reason a military wants quad rail in TYOOL 2021) handguard is probably unnecessary at this stage.

However, the design of the rifle means if they wanted, they could procure an upgrade kit pretty easily consisting of a new handguard +/- a new barrel nut to go with it, without modifyign the rest of the rifle

Norinco_81 · Mar 23, 2021

Bltizo said:
The standard QBZ-191 handguard actually has 3, 9 and 6 o'clock attachment points for small picatinny rail pieces that can be mounted on those positions, if needed. Those lengths look sufficient to mount something like a PEQ-15 on one side, a torch on the other, and a foregrip or grip if needed at the bottom.
View attachment 70242

Of course, the QBU-191 DMR/LSW has a full, longer handguard that is M LOK and looks similar in spirit to some of Geissle's M lok handguards, with both M lok throughout and small forward integrated picatinny rail sections.
View attachment 70243

The standard QBZ-191 handguard definitely is not metal, but I'm uncertain of the handguard's top side rail is metal or not -- it certainly doesn't look polymer, and the front BUIS (which certainly looks metal to me) also seems integrated with the rail.

The benefit of having a polymer/nonmetal handguard apart from weight, is also that it is probably cheaper to make/procure as well.
For standard infantry, a metal M lok handguard is probably unnecessary at this stage.

However, the design of the rifle means if they wanted, they could procure an upgrade kit pretty easily consisting of a new handguard +/- a new barrel nut to go with it, without modifyign the rest of the rifle

Ok cool. The 191 handguard reminds of the Type 91 handguard, but with integrated 12 o clock rail and those additional spots as well. Hopefully they are way more solid than the old M16A2 handguards, those flimsy pieces of shit popped off so easily lol.

I still believe that a free floated aluminum quad rail or MLOK handguard should be standard across the board to provide a rock solid base for a PEQ/PERST style device. But of course the PLA should focus on getting more and more of the new rifles in the hands of troops before investing in any upgrades.

The DMR variant really reminds me of the M27 IAR which came into service a few years before I got out but only with infantry units so I never got to handle one in person.

Blitzo · Mar 23, 2021

Norinco_81 said:
Ok cool. The 191 handguard reminds of the Type 91 handguard, but with integrated 12 o clock rail and those additional spots as well. Hopefully they are way more solid than the old M16A2 handguards, those flimsy pieces of shit popped off so easily lol.

I still believe that a free floated aluminum quad rail or MLOK handguard should be standard across the board to provide a rock solid base for a PEQ/PERST style device. But of course the PLA should focus on getting more and more of the new rifles in the hands of troops before investing in any upgrades.

The DMR variant really reminds me of the M27 IAR which came into service a few years before I got out but only with infantry units so I never got to handle one in person.

I wouldn't be surprised if a free floated m lok handguard upgrade comes along some time in the future for the standard rifle and carbine versions of the QBZ-191, but I think at this stage the PLA won't proliferate very much accessories like target illuminators very widely among standard infantry.
Just having a flat top rail able to mount a top side optic without the ridiculous height over bore of a standard QBZ-95 is a decent start for the PLA lol.

Among all the various domains of PLA modernization, upgrades to infantry have been among the lowest priority and least well funded in comparison to the various other parts of big military -- and I don't think that's unreasonable given the PLA's strategic directions and prior deficiencies.
It's only now that they're getting around to overhauling and upgrading the infantry kit a bit more widely -- but even then, they're not going to proliferate the same kind of rifle accessories in the PLA that is widely normal for the US military, meaning a free floated aluminum handguard as standard would be a bit of a luxury.
If every infantryman can get a top side optic, a rifle mounted torch and an option of a grip, that would already exceed my expectations, and the current QBZ-191 is already more than satisfactory for that set up.

The benefit of QBZ-191's design (similar to AR15 pattern rifles) is that the handguard can be upgraded quite easily in future.
I could see PLA and PAP SOF doing some after market upgrades of their QBZ191s with an m lok handguard or something, considering the variety of QBZ-95 carry handle/rail mods that have been evaluated and put into service in limited quantities.
A QBZ-191 handguard upgrade would be much less messy and could potentially be scaled in larger quantities too.

The QBU-191 definitely has M27/M38 vibes to me as well, and it looks like the QBU-191 may serve a dual LSW and DMR role similar to M27/M38, role dependent only really on accessories.
TBH the entire QBZ-191 family I think could be described as "HK416 and friends with Chinese characteristics".

TerraN_EmpirE · Mar 23, 2021

Norinco_81 said:
Hopefully they are way more solid than the old M16A2 handguards, those flimsy pieces of shit popped off so easily lol.

They were limited by the fact they were designed to mount nothing but a plastic hand guard in the 1970s.
remember M4’s rail system in service was a retrofit of a modification of the M16A2 which it’s self was a modification made to M16. So the RIS for it was the result of two factors first civil users for whom the basis of the design was done, then military special forces who designed it with the idea that it was a quick modification that could later be removed from the rifle when returned to reset. That design wasn’t supposed to become what it did getting fielded beyond SF troops. Basically the Delta rings were only meant to hold hand guards to keep your booger pluckers from touching hot barrel.

In this way the M4/M16 hit a limitation of their design era like the QBZ95 did.
Until more modern monolithic rail systems or retrofits akin there in the system will always have degrees of play.

QBZ 191 clearly was designed in the modern era of firearms design. As such the hand guard seems to be inspired off that seen on the ACR. Where in the upper rail is monolithic used as a structural bar on which the hand guard lower section mounts at the front.
This would create a more rigid mount for the hand guard module. As rather than spring tension on the barrel holding it in place you have a dedicated mounting bracket. Similar concepts are used on a number of other very modern western rifles like the Sig MCX for example.
This differs from the HK416 which uses an entirely monolithic design where in all parts of the rail are just a shroud of aluminum.

Blitzo · Mar 23, 2021

TerraN_EmpirE said:
They were limited by the fact they were designed to mount nothing but a plastic hand guard in the 1970s.
remember M4’s rail system in service was a retrofit of a modification of the M16A2 which it’s self was a modification made to M16. So the RIS for it was the result of two factors first civil users for whom the basis of the design was done, then military special forces who designed it with the idea that it was a quick modification that could later be removed from the rifle when returned to reset. That design wasn’t supposed to become what it did getting fielded beyond SF troops. Basically the Delta rings were only meant to hold hand guards to keep your booger pluckers from touching hot barrel.

In this way the M4/M16 hit a limitation of their design era like the QBZ95 did.
Until more modern monolithic rail systems or retrofits akin there in the system will always have degrees of play.

QBZ 191 clearly was designed in the modern era of firearms design. As such the hand guard seems to be inspired off that seen on the ACR. Where in the upper rail is monolithic used as a structural bar on which the hand guard lower section mounts at the front.
This would create a more rigid mount for the hand guard module. As rather than spring tension on the barrel holding it in place you have a dedicated mounting bracket. Similar concepts are used on a number of other very modern western rifles like the Sig MCX for example.
This differs from the HK416 which uses an entirely monolithic design where in all parts of the rail are just a shroud of aluminum.

The handguard of QBZ191 should be a single piece -- the top rail of the QBZ191 from the receiver to the front of the handguard is not monolithic.
We can see that in the picture below where the top part of the handguard/rail has an interface point with the receiver/rail.
(Also in the cad drawings of the QBZ-191 action we can see the receiver's rail only extending as far as the receiver itself and not to the handguard)

The handguard of QBZ-191 as far as I can see seems to be very similar to the handguard of HK416 in nature (or indeed, any other modern single piece handguard for an AR15 pattern rifle) in the sense that it seems to be a single piece and fully enclosed "shroud" -- the difference being that it the standard QBZ-191's handguard is at least partly polymer (or perhaps fully polymer).
The attachment of QBZ-191's handguard to the rest of the gun seems to have one point near the gas block at the front of the barrel and at least one point at the rear of the handguard at the receiver.

OTOH, the QBU-191's handguard looks like it should be aluminum, and is quite similar to some of the m lok handguard solutions such as this one from geissele

Norinco_81 · Mar 23, 2021

Bltizo said:
I wouldn't be surprised if a free floated m lok handguard upgrade comes along some time in the future for the standard rifle and carbine versions of the QBZ-191, but I think at this stage the PLA won't proliferate very much accessories like target illuminators very widely among standard infantry.
Just having a flat top rail able to mount a top side optic without the ridiculous height over bore of a standard QBZ-95 is a decent start for the PLA lol.

Among all the various domains of PLA modernization, upgrades to infantry have been among the lowest priority and least well funded in comparison to the various other parts of big military -- and I don't think that's unreasonable given the PLA's strategic directions and prior deficiencies.
It's only now that they're getting around to overhauling and upgrading the infantry kit a bit more widely -- but even then, they're not going to proliferate the same kind of rifle accessories in the PLA that is widely normal for the US military, meaning a free floated aluminum handguard as standard would be a bit of a luxury.
If every infantryman can get a top side optic, a rifle mounted torch and an option of a grip, that would already exceed my expectations, and the current QBZ-191 is already more than satisfactory for that set up.

The benefit of QBZ-191's design (similar to AR15 pattern rifles) is that the handguard can be upgraded quite easily in future.
I could see PLA and PAP SOF doing some after market upgrades of their QBZ191s with an m lok handguard or something, considering the variety of QBZ-95 carry handle/rail mods that have been evaluated and put into service in limited quantities.
A QBZ-191 handguard upgrade would be much less messy and could potentially be scaled in larger quantities too.

The QBU-191 definitely has M27/M38 vibes to me as well, and it looks like the QBU-191 may serve a dual LSW and DMR role similar to M27/M38, role dependent only really on accessories.
TBH the entire QBZ-191 family I think could be described as "HK416 and friends with Chinese characteristics".

Yes, especially when its downright suicidal for any country to even think about a ground invasion of mainland China today. So it is understandable for PLA infantry to not get the latest and greatest equipment. Of course, a hot will will change all that quickly

The US military, especially the Marine Corps being the smallest and least funded branch had similar issues back in the 90s which was considered a peacetime military even up to the mid 2000s with OEF and OIF in full swing. In boot camp and MCT 2005 we got primarily ALICE gear and PASGT helmets and vests. Didn't see anything MOLLE until I got to my first unit. I didn't get issued an ACOG and PEQ-15 until 2008. Plate carriers and FROG uniforms 2010. The conflicts of course helped immensely with improving the Marines and Soldier's personal equipment.

I do have access to full auto HK416s at work and I have to say they are overrated, overgassed German piston ARs with non standard magwell and taller profile making standard AR BUIS incompatible with it! Typical HK trying to make their own standards lol

"HK416 and friends with Chinese characteristics" I do like it and hopefully the new rifle is much more refined than the 416.

TerraN_EmpirE said:
They were limited by the fact they were designed to mount nothing but a plastic hand guard in the 1970s.
remember M4’s rail system in service was a retrofit of a modification of the M16A2 which it’s self was a modification made to M16. So the RIS for it was the result of two factors first civil users for whom the basis of the design was done, then military special forces who designed it with the idea that it was a quick modification that could later be removed from the rifle when returned to reset. That design wasn’t supposed to become what it did getting fielded beyond SF troops. Basically the Delta rings were only meant to hold hand guards to keep your booger pluckers from touching hot barrel.

In this way the M4/M16 hit a limitation of their design era like the QBZ95 did.
Until more modern monolithic rail systems or retrofits akin there in the system will always have degrees of play.

QBZ 191 clearly was designed in the modern era of firearms design. As such the hand guard seems to be inspired off that seen on the ACR. Where in the upper rail is monolithic used as a structural bar on which the hand guard lower section mounts at the front.
This would create a more rigid mount for the hand guard module. As rather than spring tension on the barrel holding it in place you have a dedicated mounting bracket. Similar concepts are used on a number of other very modern western rifles like the Sig MCX for example.
This differs from the HK416 which uses an entirely monolithic design where in all parts of the rail are just a shroud of aluminum.

I do remember when I first saw the pics of the SOPMOD M4s before joining the military. Of course I had an M16A2 for initial training, M16A4 with only carry handle and forward grip for my first deployment, then finally getting what was once the SOPMOD kit standard issue before my second deployment.

QBZ-191 service rifle family

Norinco_81

New Member

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

j17wang

Senior Member

Norinco_81

New Member

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Norinco_81

New Member

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Norinco_81

New Member