PLA Small arms
- Thread starter Vanguard1688
- Start date
Hmm. What was the thought process here? "Let's modify the handle simply by removing the front vertical segment. That way we can keep the same excessive height-over-bore while making the handle a *less* rigid optics mount."Aftermarket carrying handle modification.
by78
General
Now that I have had a second look at this, I need to issue a retraction.
This isn't a modification of the carrying handle because the entire carrying handle has been removed. I have no firm idea why this was done, but I suspect the optic is too large to have enough clearance from the carrying handle.
It looks like he's just using it with the bipod only for marksmen shooting perhaps.
There isn’t a “front vertical segment”, at least not an stress-bearing one. As shown in the image below, the structure holding the dovetail rail is L-shaped by design, with a separate plastic shell over it as a carry handle.
They may have removed the outer plastic shell for a number of reason, one of the more likely ones being, as by78 speculated above, that the optic’s mount is too wide to fit within the carry handle. Nonetheless, I recommend that you do some research before making assumptions and guesses, or claims such as the modification somehow making the mount “less rigid”.
I admit I didn't know these design details. I simply accepted by78's initial statement that the picture showed an aftermarket carrying handle modification. So sue me.
And yes, I do think the inverted L-piece is a less rigid optic mount without the handle attached to it — and especially while bearing that large, relatively heavy optic in by78's posted picture, which seems to extend well past the end of the L's horizontal segment. It's basic construction. Imagine an inverted L made out of two pieces of lumber, with the vertical piece secured to the floor/ground. Give the top of the vertical piece and the free end of the horizontal piece some sideways hits with a hammer. A bit wobbly, right? Now attach another vertical piece of lumber to the free end of the horizontal piece and the floor/ground, forming an inverted "U." Repeat the hammer hits. *Less* wobbly, nicht wahr?
You might argue that the handle gives no support to the L-piece (“not … stress-bearing,” in your words). But the handle is sufficiently strong and rigid and fastened securely enough to the L-piece that optics can be mounted at the front end, right above the vertical segment — as shown by pictures in this very thread. It stands to reason that the handle helps the L-piece resist deflection.
My recommendation to *you* is to get off your high horse.
The problem is that the front vertical piece is NOT attached to the inverted L-shaped rail-attachment piece. One of them is metal and part of the frame, the other is a plastic shell held on by a pushpin & simply slides back in disassembly. It’s not attached rigidly to the working bit of the optics rail in any way. Go check disassembly photos or even better videos of norinco type 97 which has the exact same construction and this will be more than abundantly clear. If you see this as being on a high horse and me attacking you personally it’s your freedom to do so, but the fact of the matter is that up to this point you have not understood how type 95 works structurally. So please, as I suggested in the previous post, do some research before talking.
edit: for your information, here’s a screenshot of gun Jesus disassembling a norinco type 97. Note that despite the top cover still being attached, it has a cutout on top of the carry handle that leaves the optics mount unsupported.
Last edited:
After reviewing some video footage showing QBZ-95/Type 97 disassembly, I concede that you are correct: The carrying handle does not give any support to the L-piece. My arguments were based on ignorance.