Ive heard stories from PLA soldiers that Type95 is actually quite easy to use. A first time user could probably learn the basics in an afternoon. In fact, should the need arise, type95 can be mass produced and mass trained to every fighting age person in the case of another "people's war".
Infantry Combat Equipment (non-firearm): Vests, Body Armor, NVGs, etc.
- Thread starter by78
- Start date
At least should PLA decide to adopt a new rifle, they will have lots of choices, so I'm not worried on firearm's front. We are seeing sights being used on screen more and more as well.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Any one can fire a rifle, but learning how to shoot accurately, how to account for the center of gravity in the gun as well different firing poses. That takes time to master.
by mass training I do mean learning how to shoot accurately to a reasonable degree, enough to be an effective guerilla fighter at least.
With the QBZ 95-1 upgrade , the rifle series is a solid weapon, accurate, and with the DBP10 is powerful enough. However the QBZ 95-1 still lacks good accessory support through rails and different mounts. So whilst it is a good weapon, its a terrible, or at least sub-standard weapon system by modern standards. Hey, if you upgraded a 1960s firearm with modern ammunition and accessory packages, it will still be more than enough to kill an enemy.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
Even shooting to a reasonable degree would still require some time of training, and it is quite clear that China has moved away from a people's war and into a more modernized concept. Guerrilla warfare is a very unlikely form of warfare that China will be undertaking in the predictable future, with regards to the kind of battles it will most likely find itself in. A war of attrition abroad would be the worse case scenario, and that would require trained soldiers, not militia.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The notion that bullpumps are inherently harder to shoot than conventional is pure fiction. The idea only takes roots in online shooting forums which are dominated by Americans, who are used to their AR15s and so find it a pain to actually have to learn a different style of shooting.
You will have to go back to the concept of large cal battle fields for conventional rifles to have any distinct advantage over a bullpump. But for modern small cal rifles, the recoil is not enough for the front loaded mass of a conventional rifle to have any meaningful impact on performance.
Especially not against the 95, which is an exceptionally well balanced weapon by all accounts. Fully loaded, the center of gravity is pretty much bang on the pistal grip, making the gun very easy to handle and shoot.
The shorter length of a bullpump means there is no need for a folding stock, and you can handle it in confined spaces as easily as a folded stock conventional rifle without any loss of accuracy or handling.
The lack of rails is really a non issue, since there are far more important things the PLA could and should spend its budget on before pimping out individual soldiers’ guns.
In combat, US troops would often strip off most of the accessories to save weight. Especially when out on foot patrol.
The only key accessory they might consider issuing en mass would be an optic. But those optics will designed to fit the 95’s proprietary rail interface, so it’s a non-issue if the troops could not use their own personal optics (which again is a non issue since your average PLA grunt is not going to be able to afford a serious optic out of his own pocket, and PLA regulations would probably not allow them to mount them even if they could afford it.
You will have to go back to the concept of large cal battle fields for conventional rifles to have any distinct advantage over a bullpump. But for modern small cal rifles, the recoil is not enough for the front loaded mass of a conventional rifle to have any meaningful impact on performance.
Especially not against the 95, which is an exceptionally well balanced weapon by all accounts. Fully loaded, the center of gravity is pretty much bang on the pistal grip, making the gun very easy to handle and shoot.
The shorter length of a bullpump means there is no need for a folding stock, and you can handle it in confined spaces as easily as a folded stock conventional rifle without any loss of accuracy or handling.
The lack of rails is really a non issue, since there are far more important things the PLA could and should spend its budget on before pimping out individual soldiers’ guns.
In combat, US troops would often strip off most of the accessories to save weight. Especially when out on foot patrol.
The only key accessory they might consider issuing en mass would be an optic. But those optics will designed to fit the 95’s proprietary rail interface, so it’s a non-issue if the troops could not use their own personal optics (which again is a non issue since your average PLA grunt is not going to be able to afford a serious optic out of his own pocket, and PLA regulations would probably not allow them to mount them even if they could afford it.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
All weapon design is a Choice of Compromises. what you are willing to give up to get the final product of what you want.
Now I am not a Bull pup fan but I have to say in this Some of your arguments are actually backwards.
First The Magazine, Moving the magazine back and changing the center of gravity is actually a strong point for a bullpup as a well designed bullpup places the center of gravity over the shooter's hand this makes it very easy to shoot one handed. The issue though is that it takes longer to reload.
It also places the Action of the Gun closer to the shooters face causing issues for those southpaws among us. IE a Lefty shooting a Bull left handed has a bad habit of eating spent rounds. Some bullpups have ways around this others ignore it. QBZ95 ignores it, as the PLA insists that all are Right handed.
Next the Bullpup design is about the same length as a folding stock conventional rifle. Bullpups are optimized for close quarters like inside a vehicle. Folding stocks are a compromise made by conventional rifles to reduce the length of the weapon for storage. To do this they give up the rigidity of a fixed stock. Where a bull has issues though is that the length of pull is fixed.
These are also Straw man arguments, A first time shooter is always going to have an easier time being trained on a new system as they have no preconceived notions.
This is Why I kinda like what the Israelis are doing with there rifle transition, The old guys are keeping the M4 carbines well the new kids are getting X95's. an Old hand with a new system has a habit of trying to keep using there old skills well a fresh soldier doesn't have those bad habits yet.
Because the QBZ95 series is now over a decade in service the issues of relearning the rifle are not pressing as most of the Old hands started with QBZ95's now as the Older hands have retired or been promoted out of Combat arms.
As to Mass Produced and Mass Trained, That's true of every modern rifle. In fact going back to the Granddaddy of all modern intermediate caliber rifles the STG44, It was Stamped parts with as little milling as possible.
The AK47 Type 1 was an attempt at Stamped Parts that failed leading to the milled Type 2 and Type 3 which were comprimises as the Russians couldn't make the Stamped Quality until the AKM and the AKM is the Universal AK.
The AR10 and then AR15, when they came around were "Space Age" but look at the materials. steel barrel and operating parts in an Aluminum receiver with Bakelite Stock and handguard. AK74 followed the AR15 in materials
You look at the M4 and M16A2 they changed from the flimsy but cheap Bakelite to Polymers. AK74M followed again. The Styer AUG is mostly Polymer and same for the G36, Why?
My point, all of these materials and technologies used for these rifles were designed and chosen because they were not just state of the art but because they were at the time CHEAP, And easy to mass produce for there National builders.
The Calibers and training again Easy to do. The intermediate caliber rifle in the 5-6mm range whether 5.45x39 or 5.56x45 or 5.8x42mm are designed to be soft shooting very flat trajectory rounds with a light weight to allow for new shooters to be able to easily master them and carry more of them.
overly summarizing a lot of Army weapons are just this. From FALS to M4's The basics of modern Firearms are all using technologies that more or less fixed in the 1960's.
This is so far the most accurate statement. Here. The Upgrades of the QBZ95-1 solved issues of Ammunition and especially short comings of the safety and controls of the Rifle. but the weapon is still lacking in optics. It's Sub Par when you consider that more and more complaints of the Fragility of optics have been relegated to the dust bin of fools arguments.
It's not just American shooters per say it's shooters who cut there teeth on Conventional rifles as a whole. It's like the guy who has driven a Car with an Automatic transmission all his life and suddenly gets a Car with a Stick.
Not necessarily as there are now plenty of 7.62x51mm Bullpup rifles. both the Russians and US have had 12.7mm bullpups as well. Really the Bullpup has fallen a bit from favor of late but mostly it's because in the End neither really has a super advantage over the other.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
this one I have to call bull ( not pup) on. If you look at the Way things evolved for Accessories, at first it was highly custom but that was because there were no formal programs. once it stabilized into a standard the systems chosen were done either at service or unit standard and then mounted by the Individual the changes are because along the line some shooters felt they like it better here rather then there. or were trained in a less formal. Also some of it was that the Shooter found something lighter.
There is no evidence of this. generally there is evidence of Soldiers favoring lighter weight versions which lead to changes in gear. Why use a full sized light and separate laser then you could combine them in 1 unit or get a pistol sized light that does the same job at half the weight and fits the same rails. There is also evolution as the makers introduce lighter packages.
First there is an issue here as the propritary rail is very high on the weapon.
Second it's actually rare that Soldiers buy there own optic, Optics have been issued by national armies or individual units.
The Proprietary rail would likely prevent them from using such anyway as most Commercial optics are set up to mount to commercially available mounts.
National Armies were mounting optics before the Rail Craze hit the US. The British SUSAT having been on there rifles since atleast the 90's the AUG the 80's. and They were not added by the individual they were issued and in many cases hard mounted to the rifle. US SF elements started mounting Optics on there rifles as far back as Vietnam, and that practice continued through into the 1990s when the rail system was adopted. US infantry soldiers in the post 9-11 conflicts started buying there own scopes by atleast 03, but with the adoption of the M16A4 and M4 as more standard issue rifles the Army and Marine Corps adopted Optics as official began as soldiers being reimbursed for buying there own Then Units which have a pool of funds for special needs started buying there own but eventually systems were selected and official procurement started, In other words Soldiers are issued there optics. The same for most of the rest of the Accessories seen on a US issue weapon.
The Same year that the PLA fielded the Early QBZ95 rifles for the propaganda value during the hand off of Hong Kong the G36 rifle was entering service with the German army with not one but 2 optical sights built into the rifle. a 1x powered fixed reflex and a 3x powered magnified with a third sight a 1.5x powered for export variants
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Well, for one, the carrying handle raises the sights which makes aiming more difficult. There have been a few aftermarket modifications to deal with this issue but so far it is not widespread and I don't foresee Norinco building a military-grade variant of the T97NSR-A. Then you have the entire ergonomic issue of unable to fire the rifle if you're left-handed; this has reportedly been fixed with the 95-1 series but we haven't seen much of that at all. Then there are a slew of end-user reviews on the Internet that pointed to issues such as accuracy deficiencies, general ease of operation (i.e. awkward location of the safety selector switch). QBZ-95 also has an inferior rate of fire compared to the QBZ-03.
Seeing that the Indian Army is already equipping with its special forces groups (Garud, Ghatak, Para Special Forces, & others) with rifles like the Tavor & M4A1 and is actively seeking to replace its standard-issue rifles with newer developments, China needs to step up its game.