PLA Small arms

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Interesting that rather then redesign the QBZ95 for optics they are choosing a clean sheet. I wonder if perhaps they are thinking that with concepts like the smart scope and power rails on the horizon they might not be looking to make a rifle that is more able to adapt to that as those systems usually use the butt stock as a battery compartment.


Means nothing. If the PLA choose a sighting system and contract to a maker any changes would have to be approved by the PLA. The maker can do all the commerical models they want but any changes to the TDP for PLA orders have to get the approval of the PLA.
If the PLA adopt a model in 2019 that model can remain in service as long as the PLA chooses and even if in 2021 They offer an improved model or stop making a commercial equal the PLA can demand new units of their chosen model.
Generally though when you do have new models introduced the old types as long as they are still operational don't suddenly get tossed in the bin.
and just because a army chooses to go to optics doesn't mean they delete the irons. Most retain iron sights as a back up. Although with modern military grade optics they are basically bomb proof so it's just really dead weight.
In irons vs glass Irons are slower to aquaire targets, are poorer in conditions of low light especially when trying to use night vision devices or gas masks or facial protective equipment.
They also take a lot longer to train on.
They just standardizedthe 5.8mm family and then upgraded it again with the 95-I Jumping calibre again this soon seems unlikely. I know that Both India and Pakistan are going back to 7.62x51mm the DPRK and Russians are mixed with classic 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm most of the rest of asia is mixed between the Big three 7.62x51mm, 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm. A few are rumored to be shopping for a next gen round but almost none have a actual hard program save for the U.S. 6.8GP in the NGSW program. It's not easy to get a new rifle calibre or round from the lab to full fielding. They might improve 5.8x42mm a little but it seems unlikely to try an just jump again.

One of the standards along side the Aimpoint series to be sure they have changed models some improvements over the years.
We have reached a point where most optical gunsights are good enough for most potential combat needs.
I mean there are some real standouts that are top of the line. The Aimpoint for example their late models have a battery life that is longer then the battery life of the battery. You can set it on and leave it on for so long that a brand new battery will curode away well still giving it power.
ACOG is the A10 of gunsights simple, and tough to a fault.
Though still pricy modern optical gunsights are more and more affordable, rugged, lighter weight and long life. Red dots are actually very simple modern operating systems well systems like the ACOG are virtually caveman.
More and more the industry exists why not take advantage?
And infact you also have the start of the beyond Next gen gunsights with the smart sights like the Tracking point and Smart shooter system actually slowly being trailed and fielded. Leaving it to simple irons is like using a bolt action in the age of semi autos.

Click to expand...

having optics dramatically increase the engagement range, thus is very important. Glad PLA is catching on.

gelgoog said:

Making optics standard with the rifle is usually a bad idea...

Click to expand...

What do you mean by "making optics standard with the rifle"?

by78 said:

What do you mean by "making optics standard with the rifle"?

Click to expand...

I feel like he means "integrated" like G36

Dfangsaur said:

having optics dramatically increase the engagement range, thus is very important. Glad PLA is catching on.

Click to expand...

Well range is iffy.
Back from the Chinese hand cannon the chances of actually hitting anything were pretty low. This carried over with every gun forerunner and eventually the musket. In theory historic black powder muskets actually have a longer range then a Modern assault rifle. But the chances of actually hitting anything are not so great this is why you had ranked fire with each tank firing you had a better chance of not per say killing but wounding and intimidating the enemy into breaking ranks at which point you fix Bayonets and run down a disorganized mob bayonetting those that resist ensuring they can't fight, chasing off some and capturing others ending their threat. The rifled barrel gave accuracy changing the situation in the U.S. the Kentucky rifle was flimsy compared to the British military rifle but it was far more accurate and ranging this also played out in the British Afghan conflict, the Afghans built homemade rifles and were firing from mountain tops into British ranks from very long ranges.
Then came the mini ball and smokeless powder.
These advents increased range more now with a good shooter at most range you could hit a mansized target no problem and in theory beyond that giving rise to the theory to volley fire. Add in self contained bullets and some armies felt you could range out to almost a mile with using the rifle like a tiny artillery peice. They would aim using volley sights and fire at very high bore axis.
Of course theory and practice didn't work that way. As volleys were in accurate and reloading and aiming took time in which the enemy could close in.
Self contained bullets also rise to rapid firing repeaters. And where after each volley you had to reaim a repeater could just be cycled and fired again. Especially smaller calibre weapons which were easier to cycle and reaim this ended volley fire and brought ranges back down. Add in the advent of early rapid firing weapons like the gatling gun and it became more and more realistic that anything beyond 800 meters is more a specialist type. Entrenchment made this even more and more realistic that even 700 meters was dreaming as armies built up close quarters engagement and turned long range into the realms of No man's land by mines, Barbed wire, trenches and traditional parapits. This gave birth to hand grenades and pistol calibre sub machine guns close quarters weapons well the mortar, tank, rocket and howitzer became the long range.
The assault rifle came about as an improved version of the concept of the SMG. Where the SMG sacrificed range and accuracy for rate of fire to clear a trench but not operate beyond 50 meters. The assault rifle made the better bargain by still able to fire out to 400-500meters and be accurate and light well having rapid fire.
The optical gunsight came about more to do with 1) low light.
In low light iron sights being blunt suck. The Human eye trades off a lot of what it needs for iron sights to operate In The dark.
2) acquisition.
Red dots came about for competition guns before military rifles. But before that they were for target acquisition by anti aircraft and aircraft guns.
3) Magnified optics on rifles don't give range as much as the ability to use that range. ACOG isn't much more powerful then the sights used on world war era sniper and marksman rifles. These were just modified Service rifles. What it gives is faster acquisition and better view of the target. It's not ranging beyond what you can see it's zooming.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Well range is iffy.
Back from the Chinese hand cannon the chances of actually hitting anything were pretty low. This carried over with every gun forerunner and eventually the musket. In theory historic black powder muskets actually have a longer range then a Modern assault rifle. But the chances of actually hitting anything are not so great this is why you had ranked fire with each tank firing you had a better chance of not per say killing but wounding and intimidating the enemy into breaking ranks at which point you fix Bayonets and run down a disorganized mob bayonetting those that resist ensuring they can't fight, chasing off some and capturing others ending their threat. The rifled barrel gave accuracy changing the situation in the U.S. the Kentucky rifle was flimsy compared to the British military rifle but it was far more accurate and ranging this also played out in the British Afghan conflict, the Afghans built homemade rifles and were firing from mountain tops into British ranks from very long ranges.
Then came the mini ball and smokeless powder.
These advents increased range more now with a good shooter at most range you could hit a mansized target no problem and in theory beyond that giving rise to the theory to volley fire. Add in self contained bullets and some armies felt you could range out to almost a mile with using the rifle like a tiny artillery peice. They would aim using volley sights and fire at very high bore axis.
Of course theory and practice didn't work that way. As volleys were in accurate and reloading and aiming took time in which the enemy could close in.
Self contained bullets also rise to rapid firing repeaters. And where after each volley you had to reaim a repeater could just be cycled and fired again. Especially smaller calibre weapons which were easier to cycle and reaim this ended volley fire and brought ranges back down. Add in the advent of early rapid firing weapons like the gatling gun and it became more and more realistic that anything beyond 800 meters is more a specialist type. Entrenchment made this even more and more realistic that even 700 meters was dreaming as armies built up close quarters engagement and turned long range into the realms of No man's land by mines, Barbed wire, trenches and traditional parapits. This gave birth to hand grenades and pistol calibre sub machine guns close quarters weapons well the mortar, tank, rocket and howitzer became the long range.
The assault rifle came about as an improved version of the concept of the SMG. Where the SMG sacrificed range and accuracy for rate of fire to clear a trench but not operate beyond 50 meters. The assault rifle made the better bargain by still able to fire out to 400-500meters and be accurate and light well having rapid fire.
The optical gunsight came about more to do with 1) low light.
In low light iron sights being blunt suck. The Human eye trades off a lot of what it needs for iron sights to operate In The dark.
2) acquisition.
Red dots came about for competition guns before military rifles. But before that they were for target acquisition by anti aircraft and aircraft guns.
3) Magnified optics on rifles don't give range as much as the ability to use that range. ACOG isn't much more powerful then the sights used on world war era sniper and marksman rifles. These were just modified Service rifles. What it gives is faster acquisition and better view of the target. It's not ranging beyond what you can see it's zooming.

Click to expand...

by engagement range, I mean effective engagement range, where targets can be accurately shot at.

gelgoog said:

Making optics standard with the rifle is usually a bad idea as the technology for those evolves all the time. Sights are typically good enough. What would be interesting IMHO would be if they introduced a new rifle round. But barrel quality and lifetime are also important upgrades in continued operations in hot climates for sure.

Click to expand...

I think the PLA lacks a mass produced, reliable set of optics that can be fielded widely, and it would make sense to put some serious effort into developing a generation of optics now that they are presumably getting a new assault rifle with a decent sized and positioned integrated rail at last.

But I don't think anyone's talking about integrating optics with the rifle like G36 if that's what you're thinking about.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Interesting that rather then redesign the QBZ95 for optics they are choosing a clean sheet. I wonder if perhaps they are thinking that with concepts like the smart scope and power rails on the horizon they might not be looking to make a rifle that is more able to adapt to that as those systems usually use the butt stock as a battery compartment.

Click to expand...

I think the PLA were in the market for a completely new rifle family anyway.

However, the way I am reading this news, and the way that the new rifle has been described, is more that they are developing some new, presumably widely deployable optics that can be interchanged between the different rifle types (modular rifle family after all, I expect a DMR at least) by virtue of their rail.


I don't believe that they are developing any kind of integrated sight system, that would be a bit much for the PLA's new standard service rifle. Simply having a family of optics that can actually be widely distributed among troops would be a massive step forwards already compared to today.

Various small arms from Zhuhai... These are from a private company, I think.

Here's that 8.6mm sniper rifle again.

Now the question of does this mean that the PLA is actually going to pull the trigger on a sniper program or are these just for export.

by78 said:

Various small arms from Zhuhai... These are from a private company, I think.

Here's that 8.6mm sniper rifle again.

Click to expand...

The dark green sniper (# 2-4) is 12.7mm/.50cal, says on the display. The top one is 8.6mm