QBZ-191 service rifle family

Mt1701d said:

. but since the 191 have a bolt hold open and therefore doesn’t need to charge after each mag change, I tend to agree with you that a folding handle would be good and shouldn’t be an issue...

Click to expand...

There is perhaps a legacy of AK design in using the charging handle as a "forward assist".

Ideally, I would like to see 2 places to charge the weapons, much as it is implemented on the new Sig MCX Spear, which seems to have both a L1A1 style and a M16 style charging handle.




Having the charging handle on the right side means that you will have to switch hands to perform a manual extract or forward assist, using your dominant/strong arm. This can probably be mitigated with proper training.

steel21 said:

For the sake of that odd nudge on my back when this thing is slinged, I hope they make 191 with a folding charging handle like on the L1A1 (folding forward when not in use).
View attachment 73079

I still can't see why 191 can't have a folding stock variant, unless there is a buffer tube and spring housed in the current stock.

BTW, the current stock doesn't look like it houses a spring, as the shape of the extendable stock is not tubular and can create unnecessary friction points for the compression of a spring.

Well, we wouldn't know until there are pics of a field stripped 191.

Also, notice the 191 follows the current trend started with ACR, allowing the trigger finger to pop out the mag. Lastly, it looks pretty certain that the 191 can use after market AR pistol grips.

Hmm... I wonder if 191 can use AR trigger packs?

View attachment 73078

Click to expand...

you can see from the screenshot of this image that the bolt moves all the way back in the receiver when fired and the there likely is a buffer tube located in the stock, which is why this rifle is non-foldable.

EdgeOfEcho said:

View attachment 73088
View attachment 73089

you can see from the screenshot of this image that the bolt moves all the way back in the receiver when fired and the there likely is a buffer tube located in the stock, which is why this rifle is non-foldable.

Click to expand...

Here's the video for this. The time is at 3:51.


The bolt goes all the way back into the stock and we have images of the interior of the stock in the early pages here.

EdgeOfEcho said:

View attachment 73088
View attachment 73089

you can see from the screenshot of this image that the bolt moves all the way back in the receiver when fired and the there likely is a buffer tube located in the stock, which is why this rifle is non-foldable.

Click to expand...

I'm still holding out hope. After all, the original FN FAL also had a "buffer tube" that extended into the stock. Granted, the tilting bolt remained outside the stock, with only a "key" extending into it instead. Yet, the later para variant solved the problem by building the main spring into the upper receiver.

The 191 reminds me of FN FNC to some degree.....

steel21 said:

I'm still holding out hope. After all, the original FN FAL also had a "buffer tube" that extended into the stock. Granted, the tilting bolt remained outside the stock, with only a "key" extending into it instead. Yet, the later para variant solved the problem by building the main spring into the upper receiver.

The 191 reminds me of FN FNC to some degree.....

Click to expand...

I thought that we agreed on the idea of a folding stock in worse than a stock with buffer?

As for comfort, wouldn't it be possible to have a receiver with the charging handle flipped to the other side for left-handed users?

Aniah said:

I thought that we agreed on the idea of a folding stock in worse than a stock with buffer?

As for comfort, wouldn't it be possible to have a receiver with the charging handle flipped to the other side for left-handed users?

Click to expand...

No, I very much prefer a folding stock.

Look at all the hot carbines that came out in the last 10-15 years, all of them have folding stock, except HK416.

Magpul/Bushmaster/Remington ACR
SCAR-16/17
Beretta ARX-100
SIG MCX

steel21 said:

No, I very much prefer a folding stock.

Look at all the hot carbines that came out in the last 10-15 years, all of them have folding stock, except HK416.

Magpul/Bushmaster/Remington ACR
SCAR-16/17
Beretta ARX-100
SIG MCX

Click to expand...

But that buffer tube! You're missing out on that buffer tube!

I am honestly torn between which one is better, buffer tube vs folding stock. But overall I may actually still prefer a buffer tube over folding stocks.

I have shot 556 from the following platforms, G36, Tar-21, AR-15, Type-97 (556 version of QBZ95), and AR-180.
All of them have pretty low felt recoil, but I feel like AR-15 has even a bit less felt recoil compared to the others (it's super soft shooting), and it is the only one that has a buffer tube.

I have filmed slow motions of me shooting a G36 (18 inch barrel form a default G36E set up) and AR-15 (16 inch barrel, M/P Sport II, not-modified) , and roughly compared the barrel rise. AR-15's barrel rise when shot is a bit lower than G36, and its felt recoil is also a bit less.

Now I am not 100% certain, but from my experience, I feel like a AR-15 style buffer tube really does make felt recoil a lot better. (However, I want to clarify that it's been a while since I've shot my AR-15 because it is banned in Canada so my memory may play tricks on me)

That being said, so if it were up to me to design a rifle for PLA soldiers, I'd pick a a buffer tube over a folding stock based on my experience because I believe the advantages buffer tubes offer significantly outweighs the advantages offered by a folding stock.

Anyone else agrees with me? Do you feel like AR-15's are a bit softer than other 556 rifles? If is, do you think it is because of the buffer tube design or because of other things?

EdgeOfEcho said:

I am honestly torn between which one is better, buffer tube vs folding stock. But overall I may actually still prefer a buffer tube over folding stocks.

I have shot 556 from the following platforms, G36, Tar-21, AR-15, Type-97 (556 version of QBZ95), and AR-180.
All of them have pretty low felt recoil, but I feel like AR-15 has even a bit less felt recoil compared to the others (it's super soft shooting), and it is the only one that has a buffer tube.

I have filmed slow motions of me shooting a G36 (18 inch barrel form a default G36E set up) and AR-15 (16 inch barrel, M/P Sport II, not-modified) , and roughly compared the barrel rise. AR-15's barrel rise when shot is a bit lower than G36, and its felt recoil is also a bit less.

Now I am not 100% certain, but from my experience, I feel like a AR-15 style buffer tube really does make felt recoil a lot better. (However, I want to clarify that it's been a while since I've shot my AR-15 because it is banned in Canada so my memory may play tricks on me)

That being said, so if it were up to me to design a rifle for PLA soldiers, I'd pick a a buffer tube over a folding stock based on my experience because I believe the advantages buffer tubes offer significantly outweighs the advantages offered by a folding stock.

Anyone else agrees with me? Do you feel like AR-15's are a bit softer than other 556 rifles? If is, do you think it is because of the buffer tube design or because of other things?

Click to expand...

I just think that for a bullet like the 5.8mm that a buffer tube would help with the recoil. From all the shootings I've seen, it definitely haves a higher recoil than the 5.56 and so anything that helps with that is welcomed. It comes to mind that the QBZ-191 is built off of the new 5.8mm bullet so there's that.

steel21 said:

For the sake of that odd nudge on my back when this thing is slinged, I hope they make 191 with a folding charging handle like on the L1A1 (folding forward when not in use).


I still can't see why 191 can't have a folding stock variant, unless there is a buffer tube and spring housed in the current stock.

BTW, the current stock doesn't look like it houses a spring, as the shape of the extendable stock is not tubular and can create unnecessary friction points for the compression of a spring.

Well, we wouldn't know until there are pics of a field stripped 191.

Also, notice the 191 follows the current trend started with ACR, allowing the trigger finger to pop out the mag. Lastly, it looks pretty certain that the 191 can use after market AR pistol grips.

Hmm... I wonder if 191 can use AR trigger packs?

Click to expand...

Are you a lefty? A fixed charging handle on an AK is mostly non-issue. In fact, I look at AK controls and find it a very left hand friendly rifle. The only issue I can see is the charging handle can poke into your back when slung but then again AK slings points are optimized for righties.

I only find folding stocks useful for compact storage. Just maybe it can be good for extreme close quarters like firing from inside a vehicle. I have tried firing my Bulgarian SAM7SF to friend's CZ Scorpion EVO stock folded, weapon pushed far forward as possible with sling tension, and the accuracy and controllability is just not there.

I'm sure the 191 will have its own trigger pack or trigger assembly, as there is no AR pattern pin holes visible on the receiver. I hope the stock trigger is as crisp and smooth as every Norinco or Polytech AK I've handled.

steel21 said:

There is perhaps a legacy of AK design in using the charging handle as a "forward assist".

Ideally, I would like to see 2 places to charge the weapons, much as it is implemented on the new Sig MCX Spear, which seems to have both a L1A1 style and a M16 style charging handle.

Having the charging handle on the right side means that you will have to switch hands to perform a manual extract or forward assist, using your dominant/strong arm. This can probably be mitigated with proper training.

Click to expand...

2 charging handles? No thanks thats just extra complexity and moving parts. One big thing I admire about the AK platform is simplicity, and the new 191 seems to follow that theme as well. Im actually not a big fan of the FAL's charging handle, as I grown to prefer the right side fixed charging handle of the AK and other similar variants. Even modern guns like SCARs or CZ Bren 805/Bren 2 I always ask for the charging handle to be mounted to the right side. Fixed means less moving parts, less chance of things to potentially break, and its always there when you need it, no need to fold it in position. With AR style bolt catches on all these modern weapons including the 191 the CH doesn't have to pulled back after every reload anymore anyway.

Actually, its very easy to cant the rifle for my support hand to manually eject a live round. Same thing if I had to use the CH as a forward assist. In fact, I don't even remember the last time I had to do that on any of my AKs. Even my best ARs cant match the reliability of my AKs. If I get a Type 4 malfunction (failure to extract, typically empty casing stuck in chamber or dented round doesn't go all the way in battery and gets stuck) I use a method known as mortaring. Place the stock perpendicular on a hard surface like the ground, grab the CH and lift the weapon at least an inch off the surface, and in one single motion slam the weapon on the surface and pull on the CH at the same time. Depending on how stuck the casing or round is it can take 1, 2 or even 3 smacks but most of the time it will come out. Type 4 malfunctions are very rare in AKs in my experience so I've done it way more with ARs. On ARs, have to do it like the method I just described as the CH is small, flimsy for the most part, I can only wrap my fingers around it. If I ever had to do it with an AK its so much easier since the CH is fixed to the gas piston, not flimsy at all. Just place the stock on the ground, kick the CH downwards and problem solved. For both weapons, if that doesn't fix the issue, then better hope you have a long enough cleaning rod and hammer with you lol.