It looks to me that the soldier is looking through the scope of his rifle, not the NVG.
The Problem is, That scope has the lens cap on. there is no evidence of a reflection off the lens or sign of a anti reflection device. instead it's clearly wearing a cover.
Well, if this is a doctrinal issue then it needs to be revamped; there are existing QBZ-95 versions with the carrying handle completely removed (the Canadian FTU modification and T-97NSR-A are two examples that spring to mind) but they are not widespread at all. In fact, even most of their special forces still use the traditional variants with iron sights.
This I agree with.
The Chinese have been supposedly training their troops to shoot only from the right, which inherently limits the effectiveness of naturally left-handed individuals.
I also Agree with this however I add the following that in Urban combat or having been hurt a Shooter may be forced to shoot off handed. as such Bullpups even those with the ability to change side have traditionally had this issue. There have been some that found work around solutions though the Steyr ACR prototypes, P90, F2000, Desert tech MCR, ST Kinetics BR18, A91 All eject forwards or downwards to prevent spent rounds from interfering with the shooter
QBZ-95-1 reportedly achieves 1.5 MOA at 500 meters, which is okay on paper,
Okay this is Wrong.
First For an infantry rifle 1.5 MOA at 500m is not okay, IT's all but unheard of. This is after all a Infantry rifle not a Sniper rifle. If you were building our infantry rifles to that you might as well phase out the QBU88 and put a scope on the 95-1 and use it as your DMR. I remember that the writer Timothy Yan pretty much called buckiss on that 1.5MOA @500 m claim in 2015. the QBZ95 gets about 2.5-3 MOA at 100 meters and 2.5 is very good for an infantry rifle.
but it could be improved merely by lengthening the barrel .......
This is Wrong very wrong.
Accuracy is not a product of barrel length, Velocity is a product of barrel length. Velocity can impart range.
Accuracy in a rifle is the ability to repeatedly hit a target. when we talk about MOA we are not talking about single shots but generally a grouping of shots. The proverbial "Ragged Hole" is the dreamed of sub MOA group where in all the successive shots have more or less hit the same spot and just made a bigger hole in the target.
Velocity is the product of the propellant burn of a bullet. that burn turns the propellant into gas which expands in the chamber bore and barrel pushing the projectile down the length. However as this happens the barrel and chamber of the weapon are absorbing some of that energy. they do so in 2 ways first using it to cycle the weapon. and second because the projectile and gasses are in the barrel, bore and chamber as well as inside the rifling of the barrel vibration.
Vibration is the Enemy of Accuracy.
Now consider a very long thin tube of material. If one end is braced the other tends to be a bit limp. The Shorter the tube though the less it bends. until it's fairly short when the tube is very stiff. This is because of the density of materials vs the weight spread across the length. now if energy is imparted into the tube the limp potion will move and flex.
This works for a barrel as well. The longer barrel has more weight one side is fixed by the Trunnion, the rest floats unless interfered with by other structures. As a bullet is fired the projectile goes down the length the barrel will wobble or vibrate. a Shorter barrel has less flex because of less material and as such is stiffer.
A longer barrel has more material to flex. unless that barrel is thickened or reinforced which makes the barrel denser and therefore stiffer.
If you look at what the US tried when it started moving to M16 based DMR's in the 2000's they replaced the stock barrel with a very stiff very thick barrel.
however remember that that is a Heavy barrel and the weapon gets heavier by it.
So a shorter barrel is "More" Accurate yet tends to lack range as the Round fired looses velocity. to make up for this you thicken the barrel to keep the same range yet make a stiffer barrel less prone to vibration, you also free float the barrel to reduce interference by other parts of the weapon. The Problem is of course Weight. The thicker barrel is heavier.
(another drawback of bullpup firearms).
The Advantage of the Bullpup configuration is that you can put a long barrel in a compact package. for example the British L85A2 rifle is 30 inches long yet has a barrel length of 20.4 inches. the US issued M4 Carbine is 29.75 inches with the stock retracted yet has a barrel length of 14.5 inches. so we have two weapons in the same caliber and almost identical lengths yet one being a bullpup has a substantially longer barrel. by the Way the QBZ951 has similar length of barrel and overall to the L85A2
but I suspect that having a good optical sight would aid in accuracy as well.
An Optical sighting system doesn't so much increase accuracy as allow the shooter to pick up the slack of lost accuracy.
Human shooters are inconsistent. there are in a way 2 forms of accuracy for shooters. Mechanical accuracy and practical accuracy. Most Rifles are capable of far more Mechanical accuracy, then practical accuracy. That is to say that if the Weapon was mounted to a machine rest with perfect ammo and conditions the weapon can get far better accuracy then Practical accuracy of an Infantryman in the field tired, hungry, dehydrated, Hot/cold covered in mud/dust, with an Adrenaline high.
What a Optic does is allow the shooter to simplify his shooting and make up for some of the human factors. regaining some of the mechanical accuracy.
But given the small caliber of the QBZ-95 and the reports of the rifle's low recoil, I definitely think that there is room to improve its RoF. While not a critical specification, the ability to put more rounds on target within a preset time can still increase the combat efficacy of troops. And the design is certainly capable of achieving higher RoF since the QBZ-95B has an alleged RoF of 800 rounds/min (still lower than the QBZ-03 though).
mechanical rate of fire is not necessarily putting rounds on target. "the ability to put more rounds on target within a preset time" is more a product of training and accurate semiautomatic fire not full auto. Full automatic fire is useful for 2 modes attacking a moving target but only if already on auto and close quarters. 800 RPM is about the norm for a modern infantry rifle. if you want faster then that it requires changes to the operation of the rifle, that can cause issues of reliability and service life. Also as a rule you want the weapon under control so that a new shooter who pulls the trigger doesn't empty the magazine in a second. remember these are feeding off a box magazine with 30 rounds and Mag dumps are faster then you think.
Otherwise what you are talking about is basically hyper burst. which is a short string of mechanically assisted fire higher then 1000 rounds per but in set string of rounds.
the problem is to get that level of rate of fire is a nightmare requiring a very complex machine.
