PLA Small arms

MwRYum

Major
The only things I regularly see battle hardened US troops use are optics, flashlights and sometimes grips. Can't even remember seeing many lasers after the first weeks of the start of combat operations in Iraq.

Flashlight and optics are already available for the 95, while the grip is not really essential, especially given the light recoil and good balance of the 95 design. Fully loaded, the centre of gravity falls pretty much spot-on on the pistol grip, and you can hold and even fire it quite comfortably single handed if you really wanted to.
Think about it, laser doesn't work that well during day time, and using NVG paired with optics you can largely minus it from your kit as well; in close quarter, flashlight trumps laser, especially if you have strobe mode to let you "cheat"...furthermore, flashlight unit weight far less.
The main criticism I have is with the overly high design of those integrated laser training optics the PLA have been pictured using. The whole thing could so easily have been designed much much better.
Speaking of that one-piece exercise MILES kit, I find it quite a moronic design, especially previously they've one that mount onto the barrel, which users could simply adopt the standard shooting posture instead of adopt that awakward stance of higher sightline.
I have a feeling those troops will have a massive change of tune if they ever had a go with some of the more common used western modern rifles. ;)

The 95 might be more 'range friendly' compared to the 81 or 56/AK before that, but it's far less fussy compared to most other modern combat rifles, especially the other bullpumps mentioned earlier.

You can run it over with a truck, immerse it in mud for an hour and it will still be good to go after a quick shake to clear some of the mud away.

Other than the AK, I can think of no other rifle that can operate under that kind of abuse, and the AK is nowhere near as accurate as the 95.
Well there's a reason they keep the Type 03 rifle (a conventionally designed model) in limited service, and even build their OICW around it. To this day, bullpup design still isn't that sold in China.

The 95 did have some well publicised early ergonomic problems, most notably the safety/fire selector, but that has because to was rushed into service for the 97 HK hand over.

I think they should have stopped issuing them after the HK garrison and maybe a few trial units elsewhere, and waited for feedback and the improved 95-1 before issuing them en mass, but hindsight is a wonderfully useless thing. ;)
But I could imagine the kind of PR horror if they use Type 81 instead...lucky for them they don't have to wait for a shooting war to expose the design flaws.

To sum up, the 95 already have, or could very easily have all the bells and whistles most operationally relevant to a modern combat rifle. The only thing stopping it is $$$.

With unlimited funds, the PLA could order optics, and grip/laser/flashlight mounts for every 95 they have, which at several million copies, would instantly create a market just as large if not bigger than the entire western military and commercial weapons accessories markets.

But in reality, the PLA have far higher priority projects for their money, especially during peacetimes with no imminent threat of conflict in sight.

Given the high cost and export controlled natured of commercial high end optics, the PLA is never going to adapt them en mass, thus removing the primary benefit of using picatinny rails in their designs.

Given China's manufacturing prowess, the Chinese are very right to be confident that should the need ever arise, they can very quickly manufacture vast quantities of combat optics and other accessories for its frontline troops, so there is little need build up large inventories of them in peacetime.
That said, there's a reason why eventhough as replicas, optical sights that are made just for airsoft (for looks only) and those that can stand-in for real gun use, their prices are so different - the former are more expensive obviously. In any case, it'll take time for the Chinese to warm up to the accessories we've long been taken for granted.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
They could easily use the grenade launcher mating to develop a snap on underslung flashlight/laser/grip attachment without needing to bother with screw on rails.


None of those have irons as back ups. They have integrated optic in place of traditional irons, which has its own pros and cons.
Actually Wolf The TAR 21 does have back up Irons, They are low profile. Concealed by the profile of the weapon.
If you wish evidence of this, Exhibit A

Tavor irons.jpg
This photo is from Columbia and the two Police are armed with Tavors comparable to those of the IDF, the weapon on the left side of your screen gives you a clean view of the flip up front sight post. and both show the fixed but low rear sight.
US military experience in Iraq and Afganistan sees soldiers generally quickly loose enthusiasm and interest in blinging up their rifles with gadgets in favour of keeping the weight down.
The Optics and Accessories of that era were far heavier and more expensive then those of today. there were also issues of modifying the weapons to accept accessories early on, and few had experience with them. today the standard fluctuates but in general you find a Optic, a small light and a laser either built into the light or on it's own and often a grip.
This set up here is pretty close to what you see today it only lacks a laser.
There are also some who mount magnifiers that allow transition from the close range of the Reflex to a near Acog scope power.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Think about it, laser doesn't work that well during day time, and using NVG paired with optics you can largely minus it from your kit as well; in close quarter, flashlight trumps laser, especially if you have strobe mode to let you "cheat"...furthermore, flashlight unit weight far less.

Which is my point, very few of the myriad of accessories available on the market are truly that useful in real life combat operations.

Speaking of that one-piece exercise MILES kit, I find it quite a moronic design, especially previously they've one that mount onto the barrel, which users could simply adopt the standard shooting posture instead of adopt that awakward stance of higher sightline.

I think that was probably more down to them just using their own universal modular standard (the 95 does have an integrated proprietary rail interface for optics - it's just most pundits tend to dismiss it because it isn't a picatinny, but it does exist, and I think the PLA has it's own proprietary rail interface standard that is deliberately not picatinny, but otherwise works the same) kit off-the-shelf instead of buying something that was especially designed for the 95.

That MILES scope would have been just fine if used on a traditional rifle as opposed to being mounted on an already elevated carrying handle.

Well there's a reason they keep the Type 03 rifle (a conventionally designed model) in limited service, and even build their OICW around it. To this day, bullpup design still isn't that sold in China.

I think the millions of examples of 95s in frontline service in the PLA would dispute that.

If bullpumps truly isn't sold in China, it would be the 03 that is the primary combat rifle with the 95 in limited service.

As far as I know, its only the paratroopers who prefer the 03, and that is because of its better accuracy. They expect to operate for pro-longed periods behind enemy lines, potentially with very limited resupply opportunities, so want to make sure every shot counts.

Personally, I think the PLA paras should be training with both the 97s/another 5.56 rifle and also the 7.62 81/03 rifles and pick which ones to use on operational deployment based on what the enemy local forces are primarily using.

The traditional PLA insistence that foreign invading forces have a hard time trying to make use of captured PLA arms and ammo doesn't really apply to paratroopers, since they will be operating behind enemy lines most of the time, so being able to make use of captured enemy arms and munitions would be a massive advantage to them, but that's a little OT.

As for age OICW, well most designs using a conventional rifle design and bullpump grenade launcher layout because that just works a lot better.

Anyways, the whole conventional vs bullpump dispute is not really something that I see as relevant here.

But I could imagine the kind of PR horror if they use Type 81 instead...lucky for them they don't have to wait for a shooting war to expose the design flaws.

As design flaws goes, the 95's safety/selector issue is pretty mild in comparison to some of the horror stories troops from other countries have had to deal with.

Most PLA troopers simply don't camber their rifle until they intend to use them, which doesn't take that much longer than flipping the safety off. The 95 is so well balanced that you can burst fire them with little difficulty or loss of accuracy.

That said, there's a reason why eventhough as replicas, optical sights that are made just for airsoft (for looks only) and those that can stand-in for real gun use, their prices are so different - the former are more expensive obviously. In any case, it'll take time for the Chinese to warm up to the accessories we've long been taken for granted.

TBH, I think accessories manufactures rack up extremely fat profit margins on their goods.

Yes it costs to make something military grade, but not as much as what they are charging.

That is one of the big problems with the military adopting the picatinny rail standard in my view - arms manufactures are charging civilian retail prices to the military when the military are ordering in bulk, and so should be getting wholesale prices at minimum.

That is tolerated because it's become just about part of the gravy train western defence budgets have become.

There are cases where I know people have bought dirt cheap sights from China off the internet almost as a lark, and they work just fine with high-powered centerfire rifles.

Problem is that it is really pot luck, since some will work ok, while others will be totally useless because of the recoil shock knocking the aim all over the place.

The point is that I think it is certainly possible to reliable build decent quality optics that are up to combat standards at a fraction of the cost of the kit being peddled to your average western recreational shoot and military forces for thousands a pop.

If and when the PLA does decide to adopt optics en mass, I think a lot of western recreational shooters will suddenly discover a newfound enthusiasm for Chinese military grade optics that work just as well as western ones but cost a small fraction, and we may even start to see future western civilian rifles made with options of having Chinese rail interfaces built-in over picatinny (until the Trump White House slaps a ban on Chinese optics imports that is :p ).

As for accessories we take for granted, well from personal experience, when I first got my rifle, I blinging it up with all sorts of goodies, lasers, 45 degree red dot, all the works. But now I have it stripped right back to the bare basics of a scope and bipod because of the weight, and also because most of those accessories are just not that useful.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General

Did not know that about the TAR, good to know, thanks. But some reviews I have seen have seriously panned that rifle for mushy trigger and tendency to jam, so I think maybe the designers should have spent more time designing the internals of that rifle rather than on its appearance (apparently the outer shell was designed and finalised first and only then did they started to design the internals!!!)

I have never fired a 95 personally, but from what I have gathered, it is very well balanced and handles very well in full auto, thus there is a big question mark over whether it needs a grip handle.

If it handles as well as claimed, then that is a compelling case to argue that designing a good, well-balanced rifle is good enough to do away with accessories needed to better handle the rougher recoil of higher cal and/or less well balanced guns. If you really want it, adapting the underslung grenade launcher mating for a grip+flashlight+laser is so easy even I can do it in my garage (obviously it will look like something from Mad Max or Fallout, but it will work ;) ).

Tactical flashlights could already be mounted on the bennett lug and lasers could easily use the same mount or even a twin mount for both, and the 95 already has a dedicated rail for optics.

Basically, with minimal or no modifications, you can already have the full range of accessories any modern soldier could want or need on the battlefield on the 95.

Functionality wise, the 95 could very easily have all the bells and whistles of any top end modern western combat rifle without having to undergo the kind of extreme makeovers as done by those Canadian modders.

The fact that the Chinese don't use picatinny rails is a choice, not an omission or oversight. Adding those rails is 'westernising' it, not modernising it.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Did not know that about the TAR, good to know, thanks. But some reviews I have seen have seriously panned that rifle for mushy trigger and tendency to jam, so I think maybe the designers should have spent more time designing the internals of that rifle rather than on its appearance (apparently the outer shell was designed and finalised first and only then did they started to design the internals!!!)
This is sadly accurate. And I think it's part of the reason why the IDF asked for the development of the X95 Which is a total overhaul of the design. Although it should be said because of the Way Bulls connect the Trigger to the hammer or striker as a Rule Bullpup Triggers tend to mush. To correct that you have to redesign the connection. Like that Desert Tech has been doing here in the States.
I have never fired a 95 personally, but from what I have gathered, it is very well balanced and handles very well in full auto, thus there is a big question mark over whether it needs a grip handle.
Broomhandle grips are often misused. There intention is to assist in stabilizing the grip on the rifle. If you look at the ones picture in Mace's post you should note that one is a Magpul AFG and the other is a folding grip. the AFG is designed to more properly flare out the angle of the hand vs the direct vertical grip. the folder does this as well. It's meant to allow a more ergonomic handling. the reason they were created is directly the result of Rails. And remember the gen 1 Type 95 and the PLA OICW featured a trigger guard with a similar flare to the AFG.
If it handles as well as claimed, then that is a compelling case to argue that designing a good, well-balanced rifle is good enough to do away with accessories needed to better handle the rougher recoil of higher cal and/or less well balanced guns. If you really want it, adapting the underslung grenade launcher mating for a grip+flashlight+laser is so easy even I can do it in my garage (obviously it will look like something from Mad Max or Fallout, but it will work ;) ).
One of the reported issues with the 97 and 95 is the hand guard. It's slick. The Choice of materials and profile/ contour. another reason fore grips are used is common between SBR carbines and SMG's that is to give your hand a reference to know it's clear of the muzzle. shorter barrels SBR's SMG and bullpups place the hand closer to the muzzle and under stress a Shooter can easily place his or her fingers in the line of fire resulting in having to ask others to open jars for you for the rest of your life.

Tactical flashlights could already be mounted on the bayonet lug and lasers could easily use the same mount or even a twin mount for both, and the 95 already has a dedicated rail for optics.
True but... a Bayonet lug is intended to mount a bayonet. a sharp pointy thing meant to gut some fool. as such it's designed not to hold a zero or hard mount, Also there is the obvious point that if your using your bayonet lug for lights and lasers you are not going to be able to mount a bayonet.
Now a Bayonet charge may seem superfluous in the modern age. but in both the Falklands and Afghanistan UK forces conducted successful charges. For a Nation that seems to place a emphasis on "everything fails" the ability to fall back to cold hard sharp would seem a want.
Basically, with minimal or no modifications, you can already have the full range of accessories any modern soldier could want or need on the battlefield on the 95.
I strongly disagree and so do the Canadians who own 97's. Qbz 95 is a flawed No frills weapon more in line with weapons produced half a decade before it was built. QBZ95-1 Is a Improved version but still very bare bones.
Functionality wise, the 95 could very easily have all the bells and whistles of any top end modern western combat rifle without having to undergo the kind of extreme makeovers as done by those Canadian modders.
"extreme makeover" Have you seen what
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

That is a Extreme Makeover. What most of these Canadians have done is replace parts.

The fact that the Chinese don't use picatinny rails is a choice, not an omission or oversight. Adding those rails is 'westernising' it, not modernising it.
first Picatinny rails are not the only option. But the key we are pointing to is having options. If the PRC wants to use it's own rail system fine. Picatinny rails are actually competing right now against about a dozen alternative systems the biggest two alternatives being Magpul's M-LOK and VLTOR's Keymod both featuring cleaner interfaces without the cheese grader rails.
So if the PRC wants to Use proprietary mounts fine. but they have limited there own options.
You can mount a sight on the current generation of QBz95-I, fine. but you cannot add a light or laser or both with a bayonet or a grenade launcher. And having the Ability to add those are what really makes a modular weapons system.
I am not going to bring up a bipod as you only really need that for a DMR or LMG and the PLA issues the Type 88 and QBB95 and ( IMO superior) QJY 88.
 

MwRYum

Major
The fact that the Chinese don't use picatinny rails is a choice, not an omission or oversight. Adding those rails is 'westernising' it, not modernising it.
Unfortunately, it's the western world that still leads - by a long shot - in the modernization stride, thus any effort to modernise will inevitably also "westernisation".

Of course, there's a different between doing it properly and merely for the sake of doing it, so I'd say "westernisation" is better refer to the latter, "modernisation" is the former.

In this case, the Type 97 is about the closest in state with the domestic version (QBZ-95), whereas other exports in the Norinco catelog increasingly sporting "proper modernisation" characteristics.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
"Westernized" "Easternized" shouldn't really matter, this is engineering and combat effectiveness and adaptiveness.

When you compare the QBZ95 to weapons introduced around the same time period ( IE 1996 to Today) even modernized AKs, It's Anachronistic. M4, G36, Tavor, AK100/AK74M, F2000, Sig 550, T86/T91, AUG A2/A3. sure they started out with only provisions for optics but then expanded. The PLA had the option to expand it when they re engineered the QBZ95-I but chose not to, It is as simple as that.
 

kriss

Junior Member
Registered Member
To adopt picatinny is not about having an option for rail system but having access to like 90% of small arms accessories made world wide and that include some best of its kind stuff. The QBZ-95 already has an rail system. The problem it's limit to carry handle and under barrel and there are not that many gadget compatible with this rail system.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
To adopt picatinny is not about having an option for rail system but having access to like 90% of small arms accessories made world wide and that include some best of its kind stuff. The QBZ-95 already has an rail system. The problem it's limit to carry handle and under barrel and there are not that many gadget compatible with this rail system.
The Rail system the PLA mandated for the QBZ95 is proprietary, It can only use accessories designed for that mount unless someone makes an adapter.
Still the mounting is limited to the carry handle. There is a grenade launcher mount but It should not be comparable.
You are however Correct, and that is likely the main reason the Russians Adopted Picatinny Rails for AK upgrades. The PLA however wants to set it's own standard, this should be obvious as instead of continuing with the Ubiquitous 7.62x39mm or following the Wide spread 5.56x45mm or even daringly adopting the 5.45x39mm round they have gone out of there way to develop a unique round that no other nation on earth will likely adopt, the 5.8mm.
Now using a proprietary mount is not impossible nor does it mean that one could not use the "90%" ( I think it's more like 80% these days) accessories. Keymod and MLok systems have adapters that can be mounted allowing interface with M1913 rail accessories.
Our Argument has however been centered not around the Rail standard but lack of a Rail system in some form.
 
Top