Type 03/ QBZ-03 assault rifle

The training is not the problem, shooting wise at least, but currently SpecOps can't use the CQ because it only shoots the M193 accurately; NATO has switched to SS109 and that requires a tighter rifling. Since China also has heavy rounds for its SAWs and LMGs, producing a tighter rifling for its CQs shouldn't been a problem. Are China's assault rifles able to shoot the heavy round, however?

Yes they can shoot the heavy round in emergencies, but likely at the cost of extra barrel wear.

IMHO the Type-97 is designed for export, as is the CQ series.

Ryz05 said:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Looking at this picture by Ryz05;85567 one problem I see with this rifle is its lenght.

In close quarter combat situations very proper for the PAP due to the nature of that service the Type 03 would be uncomfortable for room clearing and other SWAT operations.

Yet looking again at the pictures and the environment were the rifle is put in use the PAP looks more like a regular army unit rather than a police or SWAT force for that matter

The ideal rifle is short as a carbine while keeping the accuracy of a long barrel rifle. Thus the bullpop model was born, although I prefer the usual design with the magazine upfront such as the M-4 or the AK.

Even tough the Type 03 seems to have a folding buttstock shooting it that way greatly reduces accuracy so it only helps while carrying it but not in actual combat.


I guess the PAP would eventually develop if they have not doen so already a carbine version more suitable for the police force they are while trying to save accuracy as much as possible.

Yet I doubt after seeing them in full combat uniform and in non-urban combat environments that they really are police but more of a Paramilitary/Security force.

Only a small branch of the PAP has mission like the SWAT. Large contengient of PAP does duties such as boader protection, infrastructure securities, Gold and other strategic resource field protection etc, where they do spend most of their time outdoors and in ruget terrians. You will notice in the pictures posted, all of these units belong to the boarder protection regiment.

For the PAPs that take on SWAT and diplomatic protection duties, they are armed with Type 95.

I am not surprised that China's armed police for cities and for protecting VIPs use the Type 95 over the Type 03.

Many soldiers and police officers (except marksmen and snipers) around the world prefer bullpup rifles and carbines over traditional rifles when they work in city environments, constrictive areas, and other crowded environments (such as buildings, VIP social events or anywhere with lots of people, commercial ships, navy ships, armored vehicles, helicopters, etc.). These shortened rifles are less likely than traditional rifles to get bumped and caught by something when they are used for opening doors and windows, holes through walls, moving around teammates, moving through small corridors, going through windows, turning corners, etc. Bullpup rifles should do well in dense forests and jungles.

The Type 03 with its far projecting barrel would work fine in open spaces, like rural borders, deserts, and areas with scattered trees. However, a traditional rifle like the Type 03 is probably more tiring to aim with than a bullpup rifle. This is especially true if the traditional rifle has a grenade launcher attached. The weight of traditional rifles are usually more distant from the shooter's body than bullpup rifles.

In terms of bullpup design, how good is the FN 2000 then as a reference point?

I don't know. I am an amateur.

The FN 2000 has great reviews 'cuz it has forward ejections (ambidextrous usage unlike most bullpup rifles), weight is centered on the main handle, and very ergonomic. I would like to know its reliability, cost to buy, cost to maintain, maintenance rate, and ease of maintenance. It is not selling well, though, in terms of quantity, but then it is a new and unique rifle.

What do you know about the FN-2000? To keep this discussion relevant, compare the FN-2000 to the Type-03 in these standards:

1. Aiming system and bullet accuracy
2. Range
3. Bullet damage
4. Bullet penetration
5. Trigger feel, gun kickback, and rate of fire
6. Balance, weight, and ergonomics (include if the gun gets sweaty warm or hot in the wrong places)
7. Reliability
8. Cost to buy (compare sales involving 20,000 units vs 1 million units)
9. Cost to maintain
10. Maintenance rate
11. Ease of maintenance
12. Other?

Maybe bullpup rifles are not such a good idea except for special situations. I was reading about the bullpup rifle called the Steyr Aug from Australia. This bullpup has had reliability problems throughout its lifespan. It has problems functioning in sandy or muddy conditions. Its safety switch is fragile. Its trigger lacks good feedback and it has long pull. Its barrel and construction lacks sufficient protection to protect the shooter's face and hands from the rifle's heat. Its ejection port was fragile, and this is really bad since the bullets are ejected close to the face. If the gun ever has an explosion at its ejection port, the gun will have a good chance of permanently damaging the shooter's face or eyes. To decrease the probability of these problems, the shooter is told to give the Steyr Aug lots of maintenance. Some shooters even said the Steyr Aug is uncomfortable to use: the gun's handle and grips are unnatural, reloading is difficult, and the balance is bad. The Steyr Aug is also expensive to buy and maintain. This is a common complaint for many other bullpup rifles, too. Bullpup rifles like the FN-2000 supposedly solved these problems, but it is expensive to buy and maintain.

Maybe this is why China has the Type 03 and Type 95. China was being safe by designing a conventional rifle and a bullpup rifle. China might have made a prudent decision. China will only use the Type 95 for crowded situations or small areas and for short durations. For any type of long term usage or any type of harsh environment, Chinese soldiers will use the more reliable, more affordable, and safer Type 03.

Excellent post. I didn't know there are so many problems with the Styr Aug, because from what I've heard, it is a good and well accepted design.

In general, the PLA seems to be satisfied with the Type 95, so the Type 03 will not replace it. From pictures, the current issues of the Type 03 are for the "elite" border defense and patrol units located in critical areas like the Northeast, and in the coastal regions in the Jinan military region near Beijing. It also appears that the PAP mobile units are issued the Type 03 to replace their Type 81, but most forces in less critical areas such as sentry posts in the Southern islands, Xinjiang and Tibet are still using the Type 81. I wouldn't be surprised the Type 03 completely replaces the Type 81 in the future for those areas, but the process appears slow. The Type 95 will serve as the primary firearm of the PLA, but the Type 03 will be issued for paramilitary forces like the PAP, and in border and coastal defense roles.

So here's a division of the major rifles currently deployed:
Type 95:
PLA mechanized forces
PLA and PAP special forces
Quick-reaction forces
Marines
Airborne
Other frontline units

Type 03:
Border/coastal defense units in critical regions
few PAP mobile units in major industrial areas

Type 81:
Second artillery units
Border/coastal defense units in remote regions
PAP mobile units

Type 56 assault rifle:
Retired from service, but might be found on some ships as personal defense weapons

Type 56 carbine:
Can be seen only in use during ceremonies.

Makes sense. The advantage of the 03 versus the 81 would be more ammo capacity, which means it is helpful for boarder patrol and mobile units. Less mobile units do not benefit as much. For Tibet and Xinjiang, where ammo is already cached in depots, perhaps the switch-over cost is still too large for wide-spread adoption of the 03.