antiterror13
Brigadier
I am fully aware of that, who said they are the same calibre? .. we are in semi-professional forum here, I am not a newbie here
Do you realize that Type-81, Type-95 and 03 can fire 5.56 ?
QBZ-191 service rifle family
- Thread starter Blitzo
- Start date
Do you realize that Type-81, Type-95 and 03 can fire 5.56 ?
Nope. The ones that fire 5.56 are variants, and they deviate from the original one. They have to be completely converted internally to utilize the ammunition, and they have different designation names. For the Type 81, the civilian 5.56 variant is called EM356. For the Type 95, the 5.56 variant is called the Type 97. Finally, for the Type 03, the military export of the 5.56 variant is called the T03 while the civilian version is called the EM3513. For the question you asked before about the 191, I would have reworded it to: “Is there a 5.56 variant of the 191. If so, what’s its accuracy numbers?”. And the answer is no as of now. At Zhuhai, they only showed the 5.8 mm variant.
Last edited:
antiterror13
Brigadier
The idea behind 5.8mm vs 5.56 mm is that 5.8mm is superior. During the development concept of the rifle Type 95, there was still the concept that Chinese force is the defensive force to defend the mainland, so the designers would make sure the enemy with 5.56 bullets can't use Chinese rifle (5.8) but Chinese rifle (5.8) can use NATO bullet 5.56 with less accuracy and power.
My question was whether it is still true for 191?
The rifle for export market is dedicated for 5.56 bullet obviously and totally different than the original ones that used by PLA
@LawLeadsToPeace , please be cool matey .. we are here to learn and discuss, you may find something that surprise you that you didn't know
I don't know where you get that the 95 can shoot 556. Can you bring up your source for this because I find it hard to believe you can just jam a 556 into a 95 and even shoot it. The 95 and 97, while being in the same family are very different rifles. That's like comparing an ar-10 to an ar-15. I don't understand your question here.The idea behind 5.8mm vs 5.56 mm is that 5.8mm is superior. During the development concept of the rifle Type 95, there was still the concept that Chinese force is the defensive force to defend the mainland, so the designers would make sure the enemy with 5.56 bullets can't use Chinese rifle (5.8) but Chinese rifle (5.8) can use NATO bullet 5.56 with less accuracy and power.
My question was whether it is still true for 191?
The rifle for export market is dedicated for 5.56 bullet obviously and totally different than the original ones that used by PLA
@LawLeadsToPeace , please be cool matey .. we are here to learn and discuss, you may find something that surprise you that you didn't know
Your first question should have been -- "are guns chambered for 5.8mm able to fire 5.56mm in any useful way?"
Guns chambered for a specific calibre of bullet are not designed to fire a different calibre of bullet, even if a different calibre of bullet is "smaller" than the one it is chambered for.
The reason why you're being challenged on this is because the very idea is a bit ridiculous, and speaking about it as if it was assumed to be common knowledge is even more jarring.
antiterror13
Brigadier
Well, I am aware it is not a common knowledge. But thats the doctrine of PLA at that time when they designed Type 95 that in emergency situation (China under land attack) that Chinese rifle could fire NATO 5.56 and not the other way around
Last edited:
It's true. However, the term "emergency" basically tells you how damaging firing NATO 5.56 could do to the gun's barrel in long term.
antiterror13
Brigadier
well in emergency (in a war that you run out of bullets), thats not a concern at all
Yes. It would be helpful when dealing with low probability scenarios, spec ops behind enemy lines and stuff. But on the other hand, when China, one of the biggest bullet stockpiles and bullet manufacturers of the world, found its troops to ran out of bullets on a massive scale, then, pardon my language, shit had really hit the fan.
I appreciate your concern and to alleviate your worries, I am doing very well! I’m just correcting what I believe to be incorrect jargon. Just to prove my intent, you said:The idea behind 5.8mm vs 5.56 mm is that 5.8mm is superior. During the development concept of the rifle Type 95, there was still the concept that Chinese force is the defensive force to defend the mainland, so the designers would make sure the enemy with 5.56 bullets can't use Chinese rifle (5.8) but Chinese rifle (5.8) can use NATO bullet 5.56 with less accuracy and power.
My question was whether it is still true for 191?
The rifle for export market is dedicated for 5.56 bullet obviously and totally different than the original ones that used by PLA
@LawLeadsToPeace , please be cool matey .. we are here to learn and discuss, you may find something that surprise you that you didn't know
I said that doesn’t exist. Then you said:
Then I mentioned examples of 5.56 variants of those rifle platforms and explained that a rifle would have to be totally changed from within in order to fire a different bullet.
Now with more context, my answer is that I never heard of that doctrine. I know that the 5.8mm was designed partially due to the concept of denying ammunition to the enemy. But I never heard of that idea of the QBZ 95 being designed to be able to actually use enemy ammunition before. Do you have a citation for that?