PLA Small arms

MwRYum said:

Wait until some god-knows-when age when they finally adopt the Picatinny rail, along with ACOG / red-dot reflex sight that manufactured to the specs and performance as in the West, and in significant quantities that it can be standard issue and expendable.

But one must admit that'd be really tall order, neither do China's own manufacturers has such product hit the export market, same can be said state-owned ones.

Click to expand...

The PLA is unlikely to ever adopt the picatinny rail.

If the PLA decide it needs to issue combat optics wide scale, it will get Chinese manufacturers to develop a family of custom designed optics to suit the proprietary rail system they have on the Type 95 handle.

The problems we are seeing now is mostly down to the PAP and PLA test units making do with foreign made or copied optics designed for picatinny rail interface, which necessitates a conversion rail on top of the high carrying handle itself.

But even with the handle kept, I can see plenty of ways to design optics that will fit without needing to raise the sight lines and still maintain the back up irons.

An easy solution would be a sideways "L" shaped red dot, with the interface slotting into the rails on the carrying handle while the optics sits at the front end of the handle, with the battery and electronics sitting in a case which rests flush with the top of the rifle.

Add a flip down function for the front sights and you are done.

The shooter can just aim as he normally would with irons, but get the benefit of the red dot with enhanced field of view.

Flip the front sights up and he can switch to irons without even needing to touch the red dot.

Nice and simple, but bespoke, so not worthwhile for anyone to invest in making it unless the PLA is willing to commit to a large order, which it isn't.

Okay I think we have gotten a little Overzealous here on the Optics.

So First let us Consider what it is that made the Picatinny Rail really important.
First It's not the Optics. before the Picatinny Rail system there were combat rifles and Assault rifles used in action that featured or mounted Optics. As far back as The Mosin Nagant and The StG 44 had provisions to mount a telescopic optic. And That's not The Zielgerat 1229 System and the SnooperScope even featured IR systems.
Even The CAR 15 and AKM/AK74 occasionally were fitted in the 1960's and 1970's with Primitive Red dot and Telescopic Sights. Even some modern Carbines like SAR 21, Steyr AUG and the failed the Vector CR 21 and Steyr ACR featured integrated optics but without necessarily a rail system.

plawolf said:

The PLA is unlikely to ever adopt the picatinny rail.

Click to expand...

and they do not need to, but the Argument is getting lost in this. what they need is a modification that can carry the QBZ95 into the 2020's and possibly beyond.

If the PLA decide it needs to issue combat optics wide scale, it will get Chinese manufacturers to develop a family of custom designed optics to suit the proprietary rail system they have on the Type 95 handle.

But even with the handle kept, I can see plenty of ways to design optics that will fit without needing to raise the sight lines and still maintain the backup irons.


An easy solution would be a sideways "L" shaped red dot, with the interface slotting into the rails on the carrying handle while the optics sits at the front end of the handle, with the battery and electronics sitting in a case which rests flush with the top of the rifle.

Click to expand...

Again overemphasis. Really A top rail is one thing but What it needs is a way to mount accessories not just at the 12 O'clock but the 3, 6 and 9 O'clock.
Sure your Scheme could work yet still, The QBZ95 would suffer as it would be limited in potential growth as a modern Infantry weapons system. Remember Before the Pic rail there were rifles and carbines with optics systems.
Even today The PLA has Optics systems for The QBZ 95 the Y/MA 95-002 telescopic sight
Yet the options offered by the M4 are far wider. And the QBZ Canadian Retrofits I would bet would still be prefered for export Why?
Because The Pic Rail's Revolutionary Feature was not Mounting a Optic It was offering the ability to mount any optic or light or fore grip or sling swivel or... ecta... ecta

The problems we are seeing now is mostly down to the PAP and PLA test units making do with foreign made or copied optics designed for picatinny rail interface, which necessitates a conversion rail on top of the high carrying handle itself.

Click to expand...

You're Viewing it The ( Picatinny Rail interface ) as a problem, But that's actually the Picatinny Rail systems Strength.
That is why the Russians retrofitted there AK rifles with Pic Rails, why the British, French and so many others did the Same or Adopted Rifles and weapons with the same.

The Strength of the Picatinny Rail system is its standard a Universal standard on which any number of systems or accessories can be mounted.
The XM4 Carbine began with the rail across the 12 O'clock position of the Upper Receiver allowing mounting of red dot sights or Telescopic scopes but the next step was the RIS or Rail integration system.
Thus created the basis of The SOPMOD kit, It allows Mounting of accessories beyond just a optic to the Weapon Expanding the utility of the host weapon.

Sopmod block 1 allowed for close Quarters that could mean a Red dot, A Flashlight and a Foregrip. for longer Range that could mean a telescopic sight, and bipod.

As time has gone by the Standard combined with technological and digital evolution is the backbone on which much of the Digitalitalization of Infantry has been built, and It's not limited to Carbines.

Heavy Machine guns, General purpose Machine guns, Light Machine guns, Submachine guns, Sniper Rifles, shotguns, Grenade launchers, Rocket launchers, even pistols And even beyond weapons as you now find them on Combat helmets.

I could get a pistol with a rail surface milled into the slide and mount a small Optic like the Aimpoint T2 or the Leupold delta point, and then mount a DBAL-P laser/light on the dust cover. I could take those same accessories and also mount them on a small Carbine.

The Accessory list has also expanded, From scope and optic mounts it expanded to flashlights then laser pointers, back up irons to foregrips and bipods. Night vision systems, under barrel Weapons like the Mk13 mod0 ELGM,Today They have Cameras and Laser Range finders, and control modules of accessories.

Because all of these are built around a universal standard mount, Any weapon using that rail can be modified.
This means That Optics and Accessories are now Almost universal meaning that you can shop around.
Where before Weapons like the AK series were limited to accessories purpose built for the Ak series, Now with Pic Rails and a few modifications AK series weapons can mount any accessory that M4 could. A Mp5 with Rails can mount the same as a Remington 870.

However As the Accessories have evolved and Use has expanded So to have the realisation of it's Shortcomings.
the Picatinny Rail is rather uncomfortable to hold I mean a very wide Aluminum handguard with sharp slots in it rather like holding a cheese grater not very comfy for all day carry.
Also every powered Accessory has it's own battery which can get pretty heavy plus if you're adding lights and lasers you might want to wire them for easy control and all those wires can get snagged.
So Already We can see some downsides, but as they say
"You don't want to toss the baby and the bath water."
The First Weapon to really adopt the Picatinny Rail system was the M4.
The second was the HK G36, and here we find something interesting When Hk made G36 they made the Rails Removable sections.
This concept was followed by a number of other makers. by 2002 This concept had come to the US and was adopted even in a limited role by the US Military in the form of the . these Rails were round and with a smaller more natural profile but allow for mounting of Rail sections.
Evolving along similar lines today We Have systems like and . These Options seem like alternatives but function more as Intermediaries. Rail systems based on both often feature a 12 O'clock M1913 Rail interface. Furthermore both use the same hole spacing as the Mil std Rail allowing affixing of Rail sections. Additionally the designers of these mounting systems did not Copyright them instead offering them in the public domain so as to allow as many makers as possible to

The Problem for the QBZ is It seem that 1) they have the fixed handle, ( Although there are shortened Version suposedly ) and 2 ) they want sinocentric.
If you don't mind Wolf

The PLA is unlikely to ever adopt the picatinny rail.
If the PLA decide it needs to issue combat optics wide scale, it will get Chinese manufacturers to develop.... a proprietary rail system

Click to expand...

this will limit them from using any system not made to there specs and would also limit export options.
If I am a potential Client state looking at a Qbz 95 Variant and told I can only get accessories for it from the PRC I might walk away from the buy.
If I am the PAP and looking to Accessorise my QBZ 95 rifles for a mission and find a Accessory I deem mission essential but will not fit the "Sino mount" I might be going back to the QC carbine.

still Assume they do move with there own Rail, what might that look like?
The Picatinny Rail mount is a Evolution of the Weaver Rail mount system and Some Weaver rail mounts will fit Pic Rails
Another Variation is the NATO Rail which is a modified form of the Pic Rail featured on the HK G28 it has some improvements in terms of top surface and repeatable zero.
So It's possible that a Sino Rail might be derived from the pic rail. of course there is another track The Keymod or M lok or PCAPs Picatinny Combat Attachment Points concept small oval holes on the weapon that allowed rapid mounting of accessories without rails. these system offer a returnable zero on each mounting are low profile and can serve as vents for excess heat. Additionally these have the advantage in that adaptors can be made allowing use of Picatinny rail sections for those accessories that are wanted but just don't fit "sino mounts"

Of course just mountings will only fix the handling, what about the weight?
Assume the PLA has developed a proprietary Rail system, It will have to develop accessories for said rail, Optics, lights lasers maybe Rangefinders and cameras. Remember with the standard Mil std Rail each accessory has it's own Battery...
Now what If I told you There were Rail systems that used a Common Battery and powered each Electrical Accessory via The mount? have not really taken off yet its still a developmental technology.
the Concept is that on the weapon would be fitted with a battery and a wiring harness leading into the Rail system, Via the mounting the Rail feeds Energy into the accessories directly. So a Flashlight might consist of just a head with reflector and bulb with a On button and a mount. Now if you're looking to develop a totally proprietary rail system with necessarily Proprietary
accessories might as well make it powered. It would also allow streamlining of wiring accessories.
If they could Do that they might have a future proof concept.

Well TE,

I think rails are a little oversold tbh.

At the end of the day, grips, lasers, cameras, rangefinders, they are all luxuries, not necessities. And they don't make very much of a difference in my view.

Flashlights, especially the strobbing ones, and cameras are also sometimes worth taking, but are better mounted on helmets over rifles.

I had all sorts on my rifle when I first got it, but now it's stripped right back to the basic essentials. Mainly because the extra weight and uncomfortable odd protrusions just couldn't be justified with how often (or more precise, infrequently) I used all the add-ons, and the marginal difference those add-ons made.

Fair enough people don't shoot at me when I go out for a spot of shooting, but then I'm only out for a few hours at a time, and even over such short periods, the weight and bulk issues are noticeable, so for long patrols and deployments, it would be a serious concern.

That seems to match the experience of US marines and soldiers on real operationally deployment, with most of them going through a similar transition cycle in all the blogs and articles I have read where such things came up.

I focused mainly on optics because that is the one area I can see (no pun intended, well, maybe a little ) rails and accessories making a worthwhile difference to warrant the cost, in both monetary and weight terms.

Being able to mount red dots, ACOG, powered scopes and forward mounted NV/TI gear etc is very useful on combat and sniper rifles. However, given the cost of military grade versions of such optics, and the typical salary of your average PLA trooper, few if any PLA soldiers would be using optics unless it was issued by the army.

The incompatibility of PLA standard rails with commercially widely available PIC/Weaver and Dovetail railed accessories may actually be a plus as far as the PLA is concerned, since the only such optics your average PLA grunt would be able to afford would be cheap knock-offs designed for airsoft and which will simply not be suitable for military application with real centrefire combat rifles.

The current rail revolution in the west is really one spawned and sustained in the civilian market.

You have rich middle aged men and some women with too much disposable income willing to pay silly prices for man toys effectively.

There might be thousands of products designed to do hundreds of different things, but the handful of accessories that are worthwhile for militaries to adapt already have been adopted, and usually with bespoke means.

That is changing a little, since it is often cheaper for western militaries to just buy off-the-shelf equipment where the R&D had already been paid for by rich civilians rather than developing from scratch themselves.

However, given the size of the PLA, and the way the Chinese defence budget is allocated, even off-the-shelf commercial prices are too much for the PLA to think it worth while to invest in optics wide scale.

If the PLA does one day decide to issue optics as standard, the numbers involved and the budget available would mean that it will be better for the PLA to spend the time and money to do the R&D on a "good enough" family of optics that it could buy and issue by the hundred thousands or million, rather than buy off-the-shelf, no-expense-spared optics designed mainly for your average well-off western recreational shooter more interested in paper specs and one-upmanship rather than efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Powered rails are an interesting development that is worth watching, especially as next gen affordable NV/TI develops and matures, and powered exo-suits nears frontline use.

However, unless someone comes up with a "must have" accessory, I just don't see the PLA being interested.

They will develop their own version of it of course, as insurance and to make sure their scientists start current, but it won't see large scale deployment without a major development either in that field, or in terms of international relations that suddenly makes it very likely for the PLA to be deployed in a combat role.

For a Military shooter role,
A Range finder is useful for directing fire including artillery and or Designated marksman and infantry fire onto enemy positions. They are also useful for low velocity grenade launchers and for extended range shooting, However such a unit could be either used as a separate device, Built into a spotter scope or integrated into a rifle scope for a DMR.
Infact the PLA optics used on there latest "Sniper grenade launcher" Already seem to feature such as does the L3 Integrated Ballistic Reticle System or the Meprolight's Sniper’s Fire-Controlled Riflescope so let's drop that. It could be on the QBU88 as a replacement scope, or could be carried in the form of a binocular unit by the squad leader.
Next we come to lasers.

IR Lasers are used by Military shooters for low light engagement. In night shooting the Irons used on a Carbine are virtually useless especially when considering worn NGV systems. The Pointer serves to identify the target or point the bore for the kill. alternatively yes a NVG can be sighted along a reflex optic. Of course that would require a 12 O'clock Rail interface or mounting for said system. Additionally for squad leaders in all light conditions visible and Ir lasers can be used to direction of fire or actions without need of Tracers.

Flash lights Can be helmet mounted sure, and in use it makes a lot of sense to do so but not for strobing lights. Helmet mounted lights are for utility, they allow map reading or navigation in pitch black environs.
A weapon mounted light especially a strobe mounted light is more of a offensive device. It's a means of indexing a close target well blinding him and in the case of a strobe it's even more effective as a blinder and stunner. As Strobe lights of this type are meant to disorient a target the light is meant to blind and the rapid sequence of lights is meant to cause a target to be "Dear in the headlights" shocked.

Now Cameras, if you're just documenting the event then a helmet cam is fine. but there is another use in the tactical environment as a form of weapons sighting.
In that a Camera mounted on a weapon feeding it's images to a head mounted display can be used to look around corners and fire from cover.
The ability for a infantrymen to fire around corners well not exposing himself to enemy fire has been a want since the periscope rifle of WW1 to the Krummlauf of WW2.

Now, You can merge some of these infact a lot of them. the weapons sight of the ZH-05 ( or whatever you want to call it, ) likely already features a reflex sight with range finder and laser pointer as well as digital camera for shooting around corners. So to is the Tracking point system but the downside should be obvious bulk and price.
Lights lasers and even rangefinders have merged separately as well such as the Wilcox RAPTAR but as said not every nation can afford such so using multiple rails allows multiple accessories you can add what is needed and leave what is not for the soldier. A squad leader is more likely to need the higher tech then a basic grunt. The DMR soldier needs his weapon tailored for range and Accuracy vs a LMG gunner or a grenader.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

For a Military shooter role,
A Range finder is useful for directing fire including artillery and or Designated marksman and infantry fire onto enemy positions. They are also useful for low velocity grenade launchers and for extended range shooting, However such a unit could be either used as a separate device, Built into a spotter scope or integrated into a rifle scope for a DMR.
Infact the PLA optics used on there latest "Sniper grenade launcher" Already seem to feature such as does the L3 Integrated Ballistic Reticle System or the Meprolight's Sniper’s Fire-Controlled Riflescope so let's drop that. It could be on the QBU88 as a replacement scope, or could be carried in the form of a binocular unit by the squad leader.

Click to expand...

All those listed are applications for specialist roles. I am not saying range finders aren't useful, just that the benefit you get from them does not justify the cost (money and weight) for your average riflemen.

Even for DMR, a good parallax rifle scope should be more then good enough to give you useable range to targets for you to adjust your zero accordingly.

Next we come to lasers.

IR Lasers are used by Military shooters for low light engagement. In night shooting the Irons used on a Carbine are virtually useless especially when considering worn NGV systems. The Pointer serves to identify the target or point the bore for the kill. alternatively yes a NVG can be sighted along a reflex optic. Of course that would require a 12 O'clock Rail interface or mounting for said system. Additionally for squad leaders in all light conditions visible and Ir lasers can be used to direction of fire or actions without need of Tracers.

Click to expand...

IR lasers are used by military shooters for low light engagement against opponents with limited or no NV capability. Against opponents who issue NVGs as standard, waving a laser around in the night is not a terribly bright thing to do.

Tritium dot irons are perfect suitable for low light use, and are far cheaper, lighter and more discrete than lasers.

Flash lights Can be helmet mounted sure, and in use it makes a lot of sense to do so but not for strobing lights. Helmet mounted lights are for utility, they allow map reading or navigation in pitch black environs.
A weapon mounted light especially a strobe mounted light is more of a offensive device. It's a means of indexing a close target well blinding him and in the case of a strobe it's even more effective as a blinder and stunner. As Strobe lights of this type are meant to disorient a target the light is meant to blind and the rapid sequence of lights is meant to cause a target to be "Dear in the headlights" shocked.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but I knew what a strobe light is for.

Now Cameras, if you're just documenting the event then a helmet cam is fine. but there is another use in the tactical environment as a form of weapons sighting.
In that a Camera mounted on a weapon feeding it's images to a head mounted display can be used to look around corners and fire from cover.
The ability for a infantrymen to fire around corners well not exposing himself to enemy fire has been a want since the periscope rifle of WW1 to the Krummlauf of WW2.

Click to expand...

Again, a very niche role, and one that involves a lot of additional equipment, like the helmet display. As such, its better to just issue specialists with specialist wireless scopes, like the PLA is doing, rather than needing every riflemen to be able to that.

Unless, of course, you issue a basic prism corner shooting sight, which should be cheap enough to be able to issue to large numbers of ordinary infantrymen for urban combat specific ops. But you don't need specialist rails all over the rifle for that.

Now, You can merge some of these infact a lot of them. the weapons sight of the ZH-05 ( or whatever you want to call it, ) likely already features a reflex sight with range finder and laser pointer as well as digital camera for shooting around corners. So to is the Tracking point system but the downside should be obvious bulk and price.
Lights lasers and even rangefinders have merged separately as well such as the Wilcox RAPTAR but as said not every nation can afford such so using multiple rails allows multiple accessories you can add what is needed and leave what is not for the soldier. A squad leader is more likely to need the higher tech then a basic grunt. The DMR soldier needs his weapon tailored for range and Accuracy vs a LMG gunner or a grenader.

Click to expand...

As I said, all your examples are very niche and/or for specialist applications, and even then its often a luxury that any well trained soldier could easily do without, or get the same effect with far cheaper and lighter means without needing bulky and expensive specialist gear strapped all over your weapon.

For special forces, DMR, snipers, grenade launcher gunners etc, they are better off with specialist gear designed specifically for the roles they need to perform, rather than trying to do that job by bolting add-ons to a standard issue infantrymen rifle.

If anything, your examples kind of illustrate how empty all this talk of easy cross platform switching of accessories is.

As you rightly stressed, your DMR soldier, LMG gunner and grenadier uses different weapons for different roles, and so require very different accessories and sights.

Very rarely in the field would you want or need your standard infantrymen to have a sniper scope on his weapon, or red dot/reflex sight on your DMR or grenade launcher ballistics computer integrated sight on your LMGs etc.

As such, I just do not see how much real world, practical benefit the military gets from being able to easily change all those sights and accessories around between those weapons.

It's a nice option for civilians to pimp out their man toys and swop accessories between various weapons they have. But soldiers in the field are not going to have much need or use for such excessive customisation options.

Type 97 mods

Looks really cool, but I doubt it can pass the PLA's punishing reliability requirements.

Ps, how are you supposed to cock it? Doesn't seem to be much in the way of room for your fingers to go...

plawolf said:

Looks really cool, but I doubt it can pass the PLA's punishing reliability requirements.

Ps, how are you supposed to cock it? Doesn't seem to be much in the way of room for your fingers to go...

Click to expand...

In front of the cocking lump of metal is another piece of metal that protrudes to the left and is pulled to cock the weapon. Since all the detailed photos are taken from the right, you can't see the protrusion on the other side.

jobjed said:

In front of the cocking lump of metal is another piece of metal that protrudes to the left and is pulled to cock the weapon. Since all the detailed photos are taken from the right, you can't see the protrusion on the other side.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see it now. Thanks.

no the bigger reliability issue is the magazine well they use on the conversion from the QBZ95 series weapon with a AK inspired loading to the Type 97 which has to fit the Nato standard.