chinese small arms thread

[Kampfwagen]

Looks like the idea that the T-95 will be using the concept of a weapon system with a universal recever is now out of the question. Will they abandon the SAW version or do what the Brit's did with their L85A1 SAW rifles and make them ad hoc Marksmen's Rifles?

By the way, has anyone heard anything on the Type-95 Carbine? I havent heard anything about it recently.

 

[sumdud]

Guys, look at this.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you look at the drum carefully, it is lop-sided. The drum actually leans toward one side, not the usually middle. That being side, maybe the type 95-LMG is fully capable of accepting drum for soldiers.

As for the type 95 SMG, China need to realize that thing will be a nightmare at CQB on the right corner.

 

[isthvan]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

PLAN uses AKS-74u copy? This gun joust doesn’t look like any type81 variant I have seen before…

 

[RedMercury]

New variant of the old type-56, Type-56C carbine. Polymer furniture and shorter barrel, for non-combat personnel. Too much 7.62x39 ammo around I guess. There was an article in "Small Arms" about it last year about this time. I guess by now it's deployed.

 

[isthvan]

New variant of the old type-56, Type-56C carbine. Polymer furniture and shorter barrel, for non-combat personnel. Too much 7.62x39 ammo around I guess. There was an article in "Small Arms" about it last year about this time. I guess by now it's deployed.

Thanks mate. I little odd that they didn’t make shortened version of type81… Probably this was cheaper…

 

[RedMercury]

Thanks mate. I little odd that they didn’t make shortened version of type81… Probably this was cheaper…

Probably. These non-combat guards don't need something like a type-81. Probably lots of manufacturing lines tooled for type-56, and conversion to type-56c is easy compared to conversinon to type-81, since the mechanism is somewhat different. Also, there's no bolt hold-open on the 56 compared to 81, so maybe partly for commonality of existing magazines. This new carbine looks spiffy and the shooting reviews for it are not bad (iirc, somewhat better recoil than type-56ii). The biggest complaint the reviewer had were sharp edges that could cut.

 

[Kampfwagen]

I dont see why they would have a Carbine version of the Type 81. Although the barrels are the same length, the stocks for most modern Type 81 rifles are folding.

 

[duskylim]

Dear Guys,

It seems to me that the initial controversy over the adoption of the Type 95 versus the older Type 81 came when the older users tried out the new rifle. Aside from the usual teething problems when you introduce a new piece of ordnance (or any military gear for that matter) there was the fact that at the same time they introduced a new cartridge (the 5.8 mm) to go with it.

What follows is just my humble opinion.

An experienced rifleman, coming from the Type 81 rifle firing the 7.62x39 mm Bloc cartridge will experience relatively weak blast effect during firing due to the following : 1) the intermediate cartridge has less propellant, 2) the Type 81 barrel is longer than its predecessor the AK-47 and, 3) the conventional layout means that the muzzle is farther away from his face.

When that person switches to the Type 95 rifle, he will experience typically more muzzle blast due to: 1) the choice of a magnum cartridge with more propellant, 2) the smaller calibre hence a higher operating pressure, and 3) the bull-pup layout, ensuring that the muzzle is much closer to his face.

As the greater blast effect is a new experience to him, he will probably flinch and this will effect his accuracy and his comfort with the weapon. Also in the bull-pup layout, the distance between the front and rear sights is less than in a conventional layout and as a result, accuracy (over open sights) is typically less.

The advantages of the bull-pup layout is a shorter weapon (invaluable in close quarters like the interior of an APC/IFV) and less weight for the same barrel length. That is you get a more compact weapon, and the weight saved can go into other things like more ammunition, etc.

The choice of a small calibre bullet (the 5.8 mm) would in most circumstances result in improved accuracy as the lighter, smaller bullet would have a flatter trajectory and would generate less recoil. The layout also produces straight-line recoil with less muzzle jump. Unless of course you have soldiers flinching when they shoot. The smaller calibre has another virtue - it is cheaper to make than the larger one.

Like many issues with regards to small arms, taste and individual preference enter into consideration. I believe that when a generation of soldiers with no experience with the Type 81 rifle enter into service, the will find the characteristics of the Type 95 to be perfectly normal.

Best Regards

Dusky Lim

 

[Nethappy]

Nicely said duskylim.

But I disagree with you.. when u said accuracy is typically less with open sights, it really depend on the user. I'm actually more accuracy when I am using a bullpup.

 

[The_Zergling]

Good post indeed, duskylim.

Although my opinion regarding accuracy is that the "problems" with the bullpup configuration are mostly teething problems. Unless the design of the gun itself is inherently flawed, I'd assume a good soldier is able to put a bullet where he wants it as long as he knows where the sights are referring to...

Which brings me to my question. How big is the difference in (open) sights between bullpup and standard configuration? I'm guessing maybe at the most 10~20 centimeters which probably wouldn't make *too* much of a difference at most combat distances... but as I really don't have much experience with bullpup rifles (with open sights) it's just an educated guess.