Guy without helmet cover and the point man (only one holding the pistol right) during the last exercise I suppose!
PLA Small arms
- Thread starter Vanguard1688
- Start date
Is muzzle threading for suppressor the only difference between QSZ92A/B?A high-resolution image of the 'new' service pistols.
Also, does PLA still use their 5.8×21mm cartridge? Both QSZ92A/B are marked 9mm, only QSZ93 is unmarked.
1913 rails is an interesting attachment technique for cans.A high-resolution image of the 'new' service pistols.
This gets around the whole thread rotation issue, and you can actually put front sights on the can, as they did with this.
Additionally, it could be a lot easier to quick detach the can, as you don't need super grip on the hot can to unwind the threading.
I'm sensing a bit of HK P30 vibe based on external placement of safety and grip designs.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Given the Adoption of the CS/LR7 we see.it looks like the 5.8x28mm experiment is a failure. This I think fits with what we have seen for issue of the Type 05.
You will still need to seal between the barrel and can. Otherwise the can wouldn’t work. This said it’s not the first attempt at a rail mounted suppressor
It also reminds me of the XM9 “Hush puppy”. More on that latter.
There are also some suppressors with integrated sights. It’s all a question of the locking system. Of course with most combat pistols now offering micro dot mounting plates and large irons the irons, irons on the can is a bit of why bother? I am kinda scratching my head on the deal of it.
If you are going to tactically use a suppressed pistol then it’s going to need to either have a integral suppressor in which case the investment is such why not add a micro dot and be done?
Or you need a quick detach system in which case concealment and size is an issue so better to swap in an appropriate barrel and mount by that as rail mounted requires tools. Also in the detachable you basically made this your primary arm as no standard retention holster will hold that hog leg.
This might seem odd to say but I kinda see this and the previous suppressed pistol the QSW 06 of the PLA as a bit of a step backwards. The type 67 and type 64 were far from perfect but they had a consistent package meaning fixed dimensions. You could build a holster for them and issue them as secondary arms, with potential better ability to be designed as a quieter system. However the Type 06 attempted to move more in line with western pistols which were modified to fire suppressed. The logic of the western type was that the side arm could still be used as a regular pistol. This is advantageous as it places less wear on the can (because you can remove it) which in older generations had shorter life spans, it also requires less cost in manufacturing as most of the functional areas of the gun were off the shelf. Training and operation of the pistols were already done. But the Type 06 had to change the operating systems of the sidearm due to the type 92s design. The rotating barrel was chosen for the type 92 pistol, a rotary locking barrel mounted suppressor might not be happy with that. Which is where the Hush puppy comes in. This system reminds me a lot of it and likely for the same reason that was what it was.
Back in the 1980s the USAF was looking to issue to pilots a suppressed 9mm pistol. They had just chosen the M9 based of the Berretta 92 series. Both the Italian Berretta 92 and Chinese Norinco QSZ 92 use rotating barrel locking breaches. Knights Armament co got involved as they make suppressors. They designed a system that mounted a slide lock to the pistol, replaced the barrel with one featuring locking recesses and then built a “A snap on” suppressor with front and rear sights.
next the external safety lever on the side is only an option on the P30. It’s also quite a common option for most modern pistols patterned after the M1911’s safety. Up is safe down is kill. Because no one has figured out how to put a stun setting on it.
There's always one lad...