Type 03/ QBZ-03 assault rifle

using two weapon systems in the same military force for the same job is not unheard of, although logistics doe become more complicated. perhaps the goal is too stream line the transition to the newer 5.8mm rounds via using the type 03 a weapon almost identical to the previous issue for the majority of second liners. however keeping two systems in service cause strain on spare parts as the support forces must be capable to maintain both systems, unless the New weapons some how have common barrels, bolts, magazines and trigger components. which is unlikely but not imposible

TerraN_EmpirE said:

using two weapon systems in the same military force for the same job is not unheard of, although logistics doe become more complicated. perhaps the goal is too stream line the transition to the newer 5.8mm rounds via using the type 03 a weapon almost identical to the previous issue for the majority of second liners. however keeping two systems in service cause strain on spare parts as the support forces must be capable to maintain both systems, unless the New weapons some how have common barrels, bolts, magazines and trigger components. which is unlikely but not imposible

Click to expand...

Type 03 is used predominantly by PAP which have separate budget than PLA.
General armament department does not have jurisdiction in this case. Plus the size of PAP alone justifies a new rifle design.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

using two weapon systems in the same military force for the same job is not unheard of, although logistics doe become more complicated. perhaps the goal is too stream line the transition to the newer 5.8mm rounds via using the type 03 a weapon almost identical to the previous issue for the majority of second liners. however keeping two systems in service cause strain on spare parts as the support forces must be capable to maintain both systems, unless the New weapons some how have common barrels, bolts, magazines and trigger components. which is unlikely but not imposible

Click to expand...

Two different rifles are common around the military world, especially the never ending battle of which layout is better conventional or bullpup. The Australian Army both uses conventional and bullpup. The bulk of Australian army uses the license AUG bullpup rifle, while their Special forces uses mostly the conventional M-4 rifles.

But then again it is true that PLA budget isn't accounted for PAP budget they both have seperate budgets for their own desire spending. Though their are some recent pictures showing border guards with the T03. Possibly cause the T03 is easier to shoot accuratly beyond 250meters since most border troops have vast open space? While the T95 for the bulk of PLA troops are for urban enivronment or jungle warefare with engagments of 250meters below since it is mostly close quarters.

Really depends which one is more suitable for them. Though for infiltration the T95 would be the rifle choice since it can fire the 5.56 round, useful for blending in to enemy territory. Using the 5.8 rounds the whole world knows that China is the only nation using the 5.8, so inflitration of secret operations are flawed.

Type 95 issued to PLA cannot shoot 5.56 without major changes, e.g. barrel

RedMercury said:

Type 95 issued to PLA cannot shoot 5.56 without major changes, e.g. barrel

Click to expand...

Barrel changes aren't much of an issue, after all US SOCOM uses 6.8 mm from rebarreled M4s.

perhaps the goal is too stream line the transition to the newer 5.8mm rounds via using the type 03 a weapon almost identical to the previous issue for the majority of second liners. however keeping two systems in service cause strain on spare parts as the support forces must be capable to maintain both systems, unless the New weapons some how have common barrels, bolts, magazines and trigger components. which is unlikely but not imposible

Click to expand...

Doubt it. Things like the bolt might be similar, but the way Type 03 breaks down is unlike that of Type 81, so it is probably no help in help transitioning PLA soldiers.

PAP's budget is separate from PLA's, so as others say, it's probably a separate program for different armies.

Yep, and that's probably the answer. Note how the PLAN uses Type-56Cs. Heh.

RedMercury said:

Type 95 issued to PLA cannot shoot 5.56 without major changes, e.g. barrel

Click to expand...

Well obviously since one barrel fires 5.8 and the other 5.56, Im saying the T95 for spec ops is hand since they train with the T95, and when conducting convert op were no trace of Chinese activity must be known the 5.8 round cannot be used cause everybody knows that only China uses this round. But China derivative T97 fires the NATO 5.56 its basically same as T95 operation so minimal getting use to. Barrel change isn't much of an issue its the magazine well difference.

In my oppinion the QBZ-97/Type 97 is for export market. For cover ops the series would be a better option.

using the CQ would require training and getting used to. its operates extremely differently different from the simple T95 and T03. Chinese front line troops with previous experience of T81 now transitioning to T95. The T95 and T97 operate slight differently between each other. Using the CQ would require different logistics, and overall it isn't compact to cary around.