PLA Small arms

SinoSoldier said:

We've seen different PLA units receiving what seems to be personalized & highly-customized gear, so it is definitely possible that some procurement decisions are made at such levels of command. It makes sense too, since different units face varying conditions & operational requirements.

If enough troops and/or commanders voice a common concern regarding a certain aspect of their equipment, that request is usually heard at the top; this is common to almost all professional & organized militaries.

Click to expand...

Yes, I mean obviously having variations of different gear and customized gear is present in the the PLA in different units, but I'm not sure if that would extend all the way to seeking development of an entirely new weapon like a LMG or HMG.
I can certainly see more specialized units like SOFs to be able to seek more unique variants or even entirely new weapons intended for themselves alone, but things like LMGs, HMGs or for that matter a new assault rifle family, seems like it would be a decision made at a much higher level.

I'm not saying your suggestion isn't true, but I'm skeptical that requests for new designs of an LMG or HMG could be done independently at the brigade or even group army level... not least considering how much the PLA itself needs a newer LMG and HMG

Bltizo said:

Yes, I mean obviously having variations of different gear and customized gear is present in the the PLA in different units, but I'm not sure if that would extend all the way to seeking development of an entirely new weapon like a LMG or HMG.
I can certainly see more specialized units like SOFs to be able to seek more unique variants or even entirely new weapons intended for themselves alone, but things like LMGs, HMGs or for that matter a new assault rifle family, seems like it would be a decision made at a much higher level.

I'm not saying your suggestion isn't true, but I'm skeptical that requests for new designs of an LMG or HMG could be done independently at the brigade or even group army level... not least considering how much the PLA itself needs a newer LMG and HMG

Click to expand...

Well, yes and no, since top-level clearance is needed for official funding and such. However, the brass at the top are certainly open to any suggestions and/or outright requests from lower-level commanders if there is an urgent issue such as faulty designs or ineffectiveness.

More rifles:




This heavy machine gun is called the M17G and can be mounted on helicopter doors. Caliber: 12.7 mm.

Why isn’t there a 7.62x39 caliber machine gun for PLA? Isn’t that more ideal for an LMG for automatic rifleman because of the range?

5.8x42 hollow point! I am very interested to know about the potential ballistic profile and wounding effects of this ammo. Not sure if PAP units in Xinjiang has started using them. By the way, are there expanding ammo for Chinese 9mm, 7.62x25 and 5.8x21 pistol rounds?

Error

Dfangsaur said:

Why isn’t there a 7.62x39 caliber machine gun for PLA? Isn’t that more ideal for an LMG for automatic rifleman because of the range?

Click to expand...

The Opposite, 7.62x39mm is a good intermediate rifle cartridge. But it's a close range cartridge. The function of a light machine gunner in a squad is to offer the suppressive and mass mowing power of a heavier machine gun in a weapon that can be fielded by a single infantryman. As such the weapon is a support weapon and is also organic to the rifle squad.
As such you want a weapon with range equal to or greater than the rest of the weapons of the squad save for the DMR or other heavy weapons.
Now the 7.62x39mm round General has a range between 200-400m.
The 5.45x39mm the AK74 round between 400-500m
The 5.56x45mm between 400-600m
The 5.8x42mm varied a bit because the PLA had 2 versions one for regular infantry rifles. The other for their LMG, DMR and IAR.
The DBP87/DBP95 5.8x42mm for the QBZ95 was between 400-600m
This was phased out for universal adoption of the Heavier DBP10 with the QBZ95-I. The DBP10 is supposed to be effective ranges at 600-800m.
For comparison the 7.62x51mm NATO is about 800-1000m
And 7.62x54mm is between 500-900m
Now there are other variables in actually getting these ranges, rifle construction, marksman training, ammo quality, weather permitting and sights.
So the end point is range. The PLA chose to drop the 7.62x39mm round in general for effective ranges. They offer weapons in it for export but unless it's a very special reason that absolutely justify it they will not introduce a new weapon for there own use in that caliber same for why they didn't adopt 5.45x39mm.

Again, this also comes down to the general modern pattern of individual infantry weapons designed primarily for automatic fire. Definitions of course do not always fit reality and many weapons can exist in multiple domains. Broadly speaking we have:

• General Purpose Machine Guns - Fires full power rifle cartridges, belt feed, plus the right equipment is capable of long range and sustained fire using quick change barrels e.g. QJY-88 (although it uses 5.8x42mm unlike the definition of a full powered cartridge). But regardless, the 7.62 x 39mm is still an intermediate cartridge.
• Squad Automatic Weapon- Fires the same ammunition as the regular rifleman for interchangeable ammo, hence why 7.62x39mm would not make sense for the PLA e.g. QBB-95 (may even be able to accept normal rifle 30 rnd mags.

There are other infantry automatic weapons like automatic rifles e.g. M27 IAR. But broadly speaking the above two are representative.

And seeing that the PLA chose to use the same calibre ammunition that is at least in theory interchangable between all standard issue PLA infantry weapons (I understand the exact projectile composition and propellant varies, but will theoretically fire in all weapons), the QBZ 95 rifle, QBB 95 SAW, QJY 88 GPMG and the QBU 88 DMR would be further evidence for the importance the PLA place on ammo interchangeability and reducing logistical strain, which would be a very strong arguement against putting in place a 7.62X39mm weapon of any kind that will add to logistical efforts and not really provide any practical advantage over the 5.8x42mm as a large scale procurement.

SinoSoldier said:

The new LMG in testing:

View attachment 49893
View attachment 49892
View attachment 49895
View attachment 49891
View attachment 49890

Click to expand...

Bltizo said:

Very nice photos. I wonder if the new LMG and HMG are due to enter service alongside the new service rifle at the same time or if the different types will be phased in one by one.

Click to expand...

I imagine it might enter service sooner.
Until these enter service the PLA has have two weapons in the potential for use as a Squad automatic weapon. The QBB95 it's improved derivitive the QBB95-I, and the QJY 88.
The QBB95 is an outgrowth of the standard issue QBZ95 family basically they took a Type 95 rifle stuck a 24" barrel in it fitted it with a bipod and slapped a drum magazine in it. It has all of the good points of the QBZ95 and more of the bad plus a drum magazine.
This system always seemed slapped together like an afterthought. Drum magazines are notoriously difficult in reliability due to having to manage ease of maintenance, ease of loading and the mechanisms needing to feed the weapon with just enough spring pressure to ensure that the next presented round can feed in sequence with the rate of fire. Too much and you get a double feed too little and failure to feed. Problems are that rate of fire varies based on condition of the weapon, environment and quality of ammo. Farther more the drum magazine springs are under unequal pressure based on where they are in winding and load, they often have rapid reloading assists like opening the magazine that can allow debris or water in that can effect cycling or metal life.

The other the QJY 88 is a belt fed machine gun but was designed as a General purpose machine gun not a LMG or SAW. It was supposed to replace the older 7.62x54mm MGs in the PLA but the armored vehicle designers don't seem to have gotten the memo ( Or rather realized that the existing systems were better suited). It did replace the Type 67 gpmg for infantry use and it is lighter than that but realistically as a infantry weapon minus tripod it's not going to offer much more than the western M249 (FN minimi and variants) which is a lighter weight weapon especially in more recent iterations like the Mk46 MOD 1 which is a weapon that it's self could use a diet. QYJ88 was designed as a GPMG for sustained fire from a tripod mount not being foot marched.
Looking at what we have seen my hope is that this new LMG is meant to bridge that gap.

SinoSoldier said:

One more photo:

View attachment 49899

Click to expand...

This image here makes me think it is. As you can clearly see a QBZ series magazine has been seated in the weapon. This is often a demand of Infantry Squad Automatic weapons.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

I imagine it might enter service sooner.
Until these enter service the PLA has have two weapons in the potential for use as a Squad automatic weapon. The QBB95 it's improved derivitive the QBB95-I, and the QJY 88.
The QBB95 is an outgrowth of the standard issue QBZ95 family basically they took a Type 95 rifle stuck a 24" barrel in it fitted it with a bipod and slapped a drum magazine in it. It has all of the good points of the QBZ95 and more of the bad plus a drum magazine.
This system always seemed slapped together like an afterthought. Drum magazines are notoriously difficult in reliability due to having to manage ease of maintenance, ease of loading and the mechanisms needing to feed the weapon with just enough spring pressure to ensure that the next presented round can feed in sequence with the rate of fire. Too much and you get a double feed too little and failure to feed. Problems are that rate of fire varies based on condition of the weapon, environment and quality of ammo. Farther more the drum magazine springs are under unequal pressure based on where they are in winding and load, they often have rapid reloading assists like opening the magazine that can allow debris or water in that can effect cycling or metal life.

The other the QJY 88 is a belt fed machine gun but was designed as a General purpose machine gun not a LMG or SAW. It was supposed to replace the older 7.62x54mm MGs in the PLA but the armored vehicle designers don't seem to have gotten the memo ( Or rather realized that the existing systems were better suited). It did replace the Type 67 gpmg for infantry use and it is lighter than that but realistically as a infantry weapon minus tripod it's not going to offer much more than the western M249 (FN minimi and variants) which is a lighter weight weapon especially in more recent iterations like the Mk46 MOD 1 which is a weapon that it's self could use a diet. QYJ88 was designed as a GPMG for sustained fire from a tripod mount not being foot marched.
Looking at what we have seen my hope is that this new LMG is meant to bridge that gap.

This image here makes me think it is. As you can clearly see a QBZ series magazine has been seated in the weapon. This is often a demand of Infantry Squad Automatic weapons.

Click to expand...

the new LMG certainly looks like it will do a good job of replacing the awkwardly categorized QYJ-88 and the decent but imperfect QBB-95.

However I'm also interested in whether the new modular service rifle will get a SAW/IAR variant if/when the PLA decides to induct the new LMG.


The USMC have of course gone the way of replacing M249s with M27s, and the debate of how best to conduct suppressive fire is an ongoing one.
But if the new PLA service rifle improves on the performance of some of the latest QBZ-95 variants, and has the free floating barrel that is expected, it should have some good accuracy especially with the likelihood of finally being designed to accommodate decent optics at last.
I've read some opinions about how the optimal USMC squad would be all M27 with some M249s retained, and the PLA equivalent could end up being the new service rifle + the new LMG... though I wonder how the PLA will incorporate its existing AT firepower in future as well, if at all