PLA Small arms

QJY-88's problem in my opinion are as follows:
As a SAW it is too long and the handgrip is too flimsy;
As a GPMG it leaves a range + firepower gap between 5.8mm and 12.7mm, which'd have been plugged by 7.62mm assets in other armies.

The resurgence of 7.62mm in both battle rifle and MG has a lot to do with the proliferation of body armor which nowadays not only regular military formations afford as part of their foot soldier's basic kits, paramilitary outfits and even terrorist organisations have them; also, indirect support fire whether in range or in penetration power, in urban situations or rural combat situations, 7.62mm or higher serves as GPMG would yield more advantage than that of the smaller calibre, that of the 5.56 / 5.45 / 5.8mm variety.

The PLA had thought of the 5.8mm as "one size fits all" + "one do-everything ammo" solution like the rest of the world did a few decades back, but the lesson learned by the US and USSR / Russia told us all otherwise; hell, even the Chinese learned with the QBU-88 marksman rifle that there's a need of different ammo types, and that means the supply chain still needs to provide for different ammo for the rifleman / MG team / marksman / sniper for optimal performance anyway.

It'd be better off if they upsize the QJY-88 to take the 7.62mm / 8.6mm, or at least dumped the QBB-95 while do a short barrel + folding / telescopic stock version of QJY-88 for SAW or paratrooper versions.

But then again, it really depends on how this new initiative plays out. Words on the street said that the new boss who oversee this had fought the Sino-Vietnam war back in the day as a company-level officer, and he ain't a fan of bullpup design. Also, if the PLA preparing for a war that'd breakout before or around 2020, introduce a new rifle series and a modernized version of QJY-88 would be the uppermost they'd allow to happen, after all introduce a new rifle series means more than just iron out the kinks, go into series production and give it to the troops, you still need to train them to use it properly.

For now, the rifle candidates seems to be of the same mechanism but with different external features, probably testing out to see what's preferable and what's not.

The QBB-95 cant replace the need for a small caliber squad-based belt-fed LMG. For once, the QBB cant sustain fire as well as a LMG, since it fires from a closed bolt, which will overheat after a while and sets off ammunition without anyone pulling the trigger, in the worst case KB the entire weapon etc., and also the QBB cant have its barrel changed on the fly (I believe this is impossible for the entire QBZ/QBB series to remove the barrel at all under field conditions).

So, a belt fed LMG is needed that features both changeable barrel and open-bolt firing features to enable sustained fire. And if this LMG can also be light and compact, even better. It is good to see that they have realized that, and are going with some improved design.

Now, China direly needs a good GPMG firing a full-sized round.

All the literature I have read cites range (especially in Afghanistan), penetration (windscreens - against suicide car bombers), and stopping power as key reasons for western militaries (engaged in counter insurgency wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) to want larger caliber rounds.

Against body armour, there won't really be much if any appreciable difference between 5.56 and 7.62. Lvl III plate will easily stop both.

IIRC, Chinese studies gave better penetration of their 5.8 against both 5.56 and 7.62. So against foes wearing modern body armour, 5.8 may well be best, although I have not seen any info on how 5.8 performs against lvl III ballistic plate, so it may all be academic if it cannot punch through those either.

Range is the major issue for the US in Afghanistan. The PKM has an effective range of 1000M from a tripod the M240 at 800M bipod 5.56mm tends to be around 500-600 of course a good shooter can stretch it by aimed fire a tripod and if going for individual or area fire.
Barrier penetration is a secondary issue but mostly limited to the 5.56mm arena.
The Russians seem to have dropped the PKM and gone for updates of the PK series for infantry. the 7.62x54R round dates back to 1891 but it has long range and hard hitting.
5.8x42 Is a question mark. I would say it probably does well against Some types of body armor but how well? And what type? and what was it tested against. I mean the US army just changed to a newer version of the 5.56x45mm the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round which is said to be a better Armor piercer I am betting that the PRC had no samples of that. And did they test against 7.62x39 or 7.62x54? Also did they even test vs 5.45x39? and again what versions of these rounds?

Only the future can tell what happens. But it seems to me like the PLA Infantry is sold on 5.8mm as there universal unless they get into a fight and discover the need to change. That said I do think they should Drop the QBB and adopt a light weight SAW with a ammo back pack.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Only the future can tell what happens. But it seems to me like the PLA Infantry is sold on 5.8mm as there universal unless they get into a fight and discover the need to change. That said I do think they should Drop the QBB and adopt a light weight SAW with a ammo back pack.

Click to expand...

That's the problem, because the Chinese have not go to war for the last 2 decades.

MwRYum said:

That's the problem, because the Chinese have not go to war for the last 2 decades.

Click to expand...

You will find what lessons one gets from war depend greatly on who they fought.

The US and coalition forces fighting suicide bombers and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan would have learnt very different lessons compared to the Ukrainians or Russian backed rebels who fought in eastern Ukraine.

One of the advantages of not having fought yourself is that there should be less arrogance in thinking, well I fought a real war so I know what I am talking about.

It is sadly part of human nature that victory breeds arrogance.

Just because you won a battle or war does not mean everything you did was absolutely spot on.

There is always room for improvement. But it is harder to see your own flaws and the need to improve if you just won a comprehensive victory.

There is also the linked issue of pride, in needing to 'prove' your method was the best method. Especially if contrasted against a disliked rival.

Without any skin in the philosophical game, China has a better chance to be able to look at all engagements with clear, unbiased eyes, and learn the best from all sides, rather than merely looking for evidence to support their own position.

So, the Chinese would have taken note of the western experience and desire for longer range and more stopping power against unarmoured foes in the empty open terrain of Afghanistan; but also factored in the need for better armour penetration and logistical implications from the fighting in Ukraine; and also considered the tactics and experiences of the Syrians fighting in bombed out cities etc.

The point is, you don't have to fight a war to learn lessons from it, and indeed, it may well be that the outside observer can see things clearer than the actual combatants. There is an old Chinese saying that pretty much says as much.

plawolf said:

You will find what lessons one gets from war depend greatly on who they fought.

Click to expand...

I think more WHERE They fought. Iraq is open Terrain with wide streets Urban. that is good for armor good for Air. In desert combat the Iraqis learned in the Gulf war Don't try it against the US. The Pseudo armored formation of IS in Syria would be decimated by Active US Deployment. So the Insurgence adapted and moved to Low intensity Urban.
In Afghanistan The Insurgency rarely used Suicide tactics they moved through the Mountains and remote terrain.

95-1 short version


comparing with 95 short version

a neat little holo sight mounted on the 95-I Looks like The Selector switch though is left side only.

MwRYum said:

That's the problem, because the Chinese have not go to war for the last 2 decades.

Click to expand...

More like three decades at this point. The biggest non-combat-performance problem is potential for corruption which fortunately is being addressed both reactively punitively and preventively by organizational reform.