PLA Small arms

K

kriss

Junior Member
Registered Member
Untoldpain said:
The one thing that remained a pain is the safety, which is still the same dial switch located on the butt stock, despite being upgraded on the later variant domestic Type 95s.
Click to expand...
Technically stock safety is safer than the one near grip on 95-1 as it physically block the bolt. Maybe that's why they keep this feature on civilian model.
 
P

pevade

Junior Member
Registered Member
Untoldpain said:
I'll pitch in my 2 cents. The Type 97 Gen 3 is a decently accurate, very reliable rifle from my experience. Ergonomic has been improved but is still a bit of a mixed bag. In the updated model the top carrying handle has been replaced with a full length Picatinny rail. The charging handle is now non-reciprocating and reversible. Mag release is ambidextrous, with a push button and paddle release similar to the AR platforms. The one thing that remained a pain is the safety, which is still the same dial switch located on the butt stock, despite being upgraded on the later variant domestic Type 95s.

The trigger pull is fairly light but has no discernible wall before it fires. Reset is positive. All in all not bad for a bullpup. I actually liked it better than the Tavor as a point of comparison.

Ian is correct in saying the rifle has a extremely robust ejection cycle. They tend to lob cases a good 25 feet away and rain them down onto the range. (Cases are also heavily dented so forget bout reloading them)

All in all, for about 1200 Canuckistani Pesos, its the most reliable and economical .223 semi-auto you can buy on the market currently, Assuming you are a fan of bullpup configuration and its inherent tradeoffs from a ergonomics perspective.

View attachment 108151
Click to expand...
Is there an export version of the QBZ-191 for Canada?
 
S

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Untoldpain said:
I'll pitch in my 2 cents. The Type 97 Gen 3 is a decently accurate, very reliable rifle from my experience. Ergonomic has been improved but is still a bit of a mixed bag. In the updated model the top carrying handle has been replaced with a full length Picatinny rail. The charging handle is now non-reciprocating and reversible. Mag release is ambidextrous, with a push button and paddle release similar to the AR platforms. The one thing that remained a pain is the safety, which is still the same dial switch located on the butt stock, despite being upgraded on the later variant domestic Type 95s.

The trigger pull is fairly light but has no discernible wall before it fires. Reset is positive. All in all not bad for a bullpup. I actually liked it better than the Tavor as a point of comparison.

Ian is correct in saying the rifle has a extremely robust ejection cycle. They tend to lob cases a good 25 feet away and rain them down onto the range. (Cases are also heavily dented so forget bout reloading them)

All in all, for about 1200 Canuckistani Pesos, its the most reliable and economical .223 semi-auto you can buy on the market currently, Assuming you are a fan of bullpup configuration and its inherent tradeoffs from a ergonomics perspective.

View attachment 108151
Click to expand...
I hope that MasterCard gift card is all used up, because if it's not it will be soon (not by me, I swear)
 
K

kriss

Junior Member
Registered Member
Still don't get why they keep an SMG in an army squad. Even using a suppressed SMG stealth operation seems such a niche.
 
C

CHNPHD

Junior Member
Registered Member
kriss said:
Still don't get why they keep an SMG in an army squad. Even using a suppressed SMG stealth operation seems such a niche.
Click to expand...
Frontline experience from 1981-1989 the war with vietnam
especially small reconnaissance units
people likes 64/79/85 for infiltration operations
and then its became a conventional fire arm in squad（i guess）
 
O

ohan_qwe

Junior Member
CHNPHD said:
Frontline experience from 1981-1989 the war with vietnam
especially small reconnaissance units
people likes 64/79/85 for infiltration operations
and then its became a conventional fire arm in squad（i guess）
Click to expand...
If I remembered correctly China used SKS as main rifle back then so SMG makes more sense.
 
LawLeadsToPeace

LawLeadsToPeace

Senior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
ohan_qwe said:
If I remembered correctly China used SKS as main rifle back then so SMG makes more sense.
Click to expand...
Not exactly. The Type 56 and Type 63 (the copy of the SKS) were both in service; the latter supposedly wasn’t that popular and was getting phased out according to this site:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

While the Type 63 was seen among soldiers in 1979, in the 80’s, the Type 81 became the new service rifle.

As for the SMG, you have to remember that the Chinese recon teams (precursors to Chinese SOF) were fighting in the jungles of Vietnam. CQC was extremely common for those types of units, so rapid firepower was exceptionally important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top