Type 95 Assault Rifle II
- Thread starter Chengdu J-10
- Start date
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: Type 95 assault rifle
Well funnily enough, the Chinese PAP sniper team recently came first in the international police and military sniper competition using a 5.8mm new sniper rifle.
The new Type95G uses the old standard machine gun cartridge for a boost in effective range and stopping power.
There is even a 5.8mm GPMG as part of the Type 95 family, so I don't think there is as much of an issue with the 5.8mm in terms of range as the NATO 5.56.
Although it is interesting that the PLAN special forces have been seen breaking out the old Type 80 (Chinese PK copy) while on anti-piracy patrols. So you may have a point about the need for a larger cal support weapon or DMR.
However, such weapons would probably only be needed beyond 800m, which is way beyond the effective range of assault rifles anyways.
Well funnily enough, the Chinese PAP sniper team recently came first in the international police and military sniper competition using a 5.8mm new sniper rifle.
The new Type95G uses the old standard machine gun cartridge for a boost in effective range and stopping power.
There is even a 5.8mm GPMG as part of the Type 95 family, so I don't think there is as much of an issue with the 5.8mm in terms of range as the NATO 5.56.
Although it is interesting that the PLAN special forces have been seen breaking out the old Type 80 (Chinese PK copy) while on anti-piracy patrols. So you may have a point about the need for a larger cal support weapon or DMR.
However, such weapons would probably only be needed beyond 800m, which is way beyond the effective range of assault rifles anyways.
Re: Type 95 assault rifle
no-name wrote:
The five-round application had no real time limit per se. As to being able to perform said under battle conditions, the Boers were doing this to the British Army in 1900-1902; and hence the British developed the same requirement for themselves (and subsequently adopted by other Armies) until about 25 years ago.
plawolf wrote:
It is important to bear in mind that the Infantry Companies, Platoons, and Sections/Squads of most (practically all) Armies are trained and organized to fight on foot for the last 200-300 metres of an attack, usually (but not always) after having dismounted from an armoured vehicle (which itself may have been engaging the enemy from a couple kilometres away) just before hand, and to fight at close range, assaulting trenches, bunkers, rooms, etc., often with bursts of full automatic fire - and with the weapon under full control; something that cannot be done with rifles firing full-powered rounds. The weapons carried are designed and issued accordingly.
In theory, the Infantry's armoured vehicles would take care of enemy troops and crew-served weapons at longer ranges. In practice, the Infantry's armoured vehicles (IFVs, APC's, LAV's, etc.) could find themselves having to fight the enemy's tanks and other armoured vehicles, and not be available to provide long-range support fires to their own Infantry. By contrast, until a generation or two ago, Infantry was expected to march on foot into battle, and when conditions presented themselves, might start firing at targets out to about 600 metres (especially if they were on the defensive). A bit of an oversimplification of the tactical history of modern infantry, but it'll do for here and now.
Punching paper out to 1000m is common with smaller cartridges; many target shooters prefer the 6mm PPC and other similar rounds, and even 5.56mm is now used in F-Class competitions. The advantage of using such lower-powered rounds in shooting competition (which, incidentally, is a factor that can't be quantified on a ballistics table) is low recoil - on 6mm/.243 calibre weapons and smaller, there is almost no recoil worthy of the name, and hence very little disruption of aim at the point of firing and during the follow-through, relative to more powerful calibres. Smaller calibre rifles, under the right conditions, are more accurate than larger calibre rifles precisely because of their relative lack of recoil (though they are of course much more vulnerable to wind drift, etc.) But they have to sacrifice hitting power to do so. It would be highly inadvisable to attempt to shoot anything larger than a coyote with such a calibre weapon over about 500m. In many jurisdictions it is illegal to use a calibre smaller than 6mm or .243" to hunt deer with, and deer are much the same mass as humans, only tougher.
The perceived advantages (simplified logistics, more ammo available) of having only one major small-arms calibre in the Infantry Platoon or Section/Squad are sometimes outweighed by the disadvantage of not being able to reliably kill what you hit at ranges much beyond 200-300 metres. Or penetrate obstacles at short range such thick foliage, concrete walls, or whatnot in order to kill or wound enemy hiding behind them.
As to whether there is a substantial difference between the 5.56mm and the 5.8 mm, any such difference itself is unlikely to be of much comparison to the difference between them on the one hand, and full-power rounds such as the 7.52x54R and 7.62mm NATO on the other. Those two calibres have decidely noticeable recoil, but will despatch two-legged targets at ranges of 800 or 900 metres, which 5.56 and 5.8 mm will not. The 7.62x54R and 7.62 NATO rounds were the typical GPMG and sniper rifle rounds for many decades even long after the introduction of the lower-powered assault rifle rounds, and for good reason - at the ranges they could be accurately used, they worked.
But now that kill shots over 1000m or behind armour, masonry, or other heavy/thick media are desired, the 7.62mm itself is being largely replaced in sniper rifles by much more powerful calibres, such as .300 Win. Mag and .338 Lapua Mag, and of course the .50 BMG, etc.
no-name wrote:
The five-round application had no real time limit per se. As to being able to perform said under battle conditions, the Boers were doing this to the British Army in 1900-1902; and hence the British developed the same requirement for themselves (and subsequently adopted by other Armies) until about 25 years ago.
plawolf wrote:
It is important to bear in mind that the Infantry Companies, Platoons, and Sections/Squads of most (practically all) Armies are trained and organized to fight on foot for the last 200-300 metres of an attack, usually (but not always) after having dismounted from an armoured vehicle (which itself may have been engaging the enemy from a couple kilometres away) just before hand, and to fight at close range, assaulting trenches, bunkers, rooms, etc., often with bursts of full automatic fire - and with the weapon under full control; something that cannot be done with rifles firing full-powered rounds. The weapons carried are designed and issued accordingly.
In theory, the Infantry's armoured vehicles would take care of enemy troops and crew-served weapons at longer ranges. In practice, the Infantry's armoured vehicles (IFVs, APC's, LAV's, etc.) could find themselves having to fight the enemy's tanks and other armoured vehicles, and not be available to provide long-range support fires to their own Infantry. By contrast, until a generation or two ago, Infantry was expected to march on foot into battle, and when conditions presented themselves, might start firing at targets out to about 600 metres (especially if they were on the defensive). A bit of an oversimplification of the tactical history of modern infantry, but it'll do for here and now.
Punching paper out to 1000m is common with smaller cartridges; many target shooters prefer the 6mm PPC and other similar rounds, and even 5.56mm is now used in F-Class competitions. The advantage of using such lower-powered rounds in shooting competition (which, incidentally, is a factor that can't be quantified on a ballistics table) is low recoil - on 6mm/.243 calibre weapons and smaller, there is almost no recoil worthy of the name, and hence very little disruption of aim at the point of firing and during the follow-through, relative to more powerful calibres. Smaller calibre rifles, under the right conditions, are more accurate than larger calibre rifles precisely because of their relative lack of recoil (though they are of course much more vulnerable to wind drift, etc.) But they have to sacrifice hitting power to do so. It would be highly inadvisable to attempt to shoot anything larger than a coyote with such a calibre weapon over about 500m. In many jurisdictions it is illegal to use a calibre smaller than 6mm or .243" to hunt deer with, and deer are much the same mass as humans, only tougher.
The perceived advantages (simplified logistics, more ammo available) of having only one major small-arms calibre in the Infantry Platoon or Section/Squad are sometimes outweighed by the disadvantage of not being able to reliably kill what you hit at ranges much beyond 200-300 metres. Or penetrate obstacles at short range such thick foliage, concrete walls, or whatnot in order to kill or wound enemy hiding behind them.
As to whether there is a substantial difference between the 5.56mm and the 5.8 mm, any such difference itself is unlikely to be of much comparison to the difference between them on the one hand, and full-power rounds such as the 7.52x54R and 7.62mm NATO on the other. Those two calibres have decidely noticeable recoil, but will despatch two-legged targets at ranges of 800 or 900 metres, which 5.56 and 5.8 mm will not. The 7.62x54R and 7.62 NATO rounds were the typical GPMG and sniper rifle rounds for many decades even long after the introduction of the lower-powered assault rifle rounds, and for good reason - at the ranges they could be accurately used, they worked.
But now that kill shots over 1000m or behind armour, masonry, or other heavy/thick media are desired, the 7.62mm itself is being largely replaced in sniper rifles by much more powerful calibres, such as .300 Win. Mag and .338 Lapua Mag, and of course the .50 BMG, etc.
Last edited:
Equation
Lieutenant General
Re: Type 95 assault rifle
It's not so much the timing to take aim for the shooter, it's more to do with the breathing (squeeze the trigger either at the point of inhale or exhale of breath) and steadiness. In qualifications you have only so much rounds and so much amount of time to shoot your targets when it pops up.
It's not so much the timing to take aim for the shooter, it's more to do with the breathing (squeeze the trigger either at the point of inhale or exhale of breath) and steadiness. In qualifications you have only so much rounds and so much amount of time to shoot your targets when it pops up.
Re: Type 95 assault rifle
What does the introduction of the heavier small-bore rounds, like the M855A1 change in regards to these infantry combat doctrines? Tests with these rounds indicates, that they provide even greater armour piercing capabilities with their steel-tip and bismuth/tin alloy core than even 7.62x51mm ball rounds at comparative ranges (in that case, 600 yards IIRC)?
After all, this seems to be a reaction of the complaint of soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, who couldnt penetrate mud-walls reliably with their 5.56 chambered rifles, as oppossed to the Taliban, who armed with AKs, could.
With China already somehow 'pioneered' the usage of those small-bore armour-piercing rounds, like the DBP88 (machinegun round with hardened steel-core), DBP87/95 (standard round with mild steel core), the new DBP10 armour piercing common round (with hardened steel core for both MG and Rifle) and the even newer DBP12 heavy armour piercing round with hardened steel tip, might reinforce the idea of using a common, small-bore but heavy round with improved penetration capabilities, for engagement ranges and against targets, not typically fitting for these rounds.
Goddammit. Upload fails all the time. I would have liked to share the other pictures portraying the chinese rounds I wrote of.
What does the introduction of the heavier small-bore rounds, like the M855A1 change in regards to these infantry combat doctrines? Tests with these rounds indicates, that they provide even greater armour piercing capabilities with their steel-tip and bismuth/tin alloy core than even 7.62x51mm ball rounds at comparative ranges (in that case, 600 yards IIRC)?
After all, this seems to be a reaction of the complaint of soldiers fighting in Afghanistan, who couldnt penetrate mud-walls reliably with their 5.56 chambered rifles, as oppossed to the Taliban, who armed with AKs, could.
With China already somehow 'pioneered' the usage of those small-bore armour-piercing rounds, like the DBP88 (machinegun round with hardened steel-core), DBP87/95 (standard round with mild steel core), the new DBP10 armour piercing common round (with hardened steel core for both MG and Rifle) and the even newer DBP12 heavy armour piercing round with hardened steel tip, might reinforce the idea of using a common, small-bore but heavy round with improved penetration capabilities, for engagement ranges and against targets, not typically fitting for these rounds.
Goddammit. Upload fails all the time. I would have liked to share the other pictures portraying the chinese rounds I wrote of.
Last edited:
MwRYum
Major
Re: Type 95 assault rifle
Really? With the domestically developed 5.8mm sniper rifle? Not with Remington imports as with previous years? Haven't heard that one yet so far...
Really? With the domestically developed 5.8mm sniper rifle? Not with Remington imports as with previous years? Haven't heard that one yet so far...
Re: Type 95 assault rifle
Insignius wrote:
If my understanding of the (publicly released) test performance results of the latest, new and improved green tip is correct, then doctrinally-speaking, nothing will change. To 300 metres, the latest 5.56mm green tip should reliably take down enemy troops; beyond that, the 7.62mm probably remains king. And while the tests may claim superior AP performance out to 600 (I haven't seen anything about this myself), this doesn't necessarily translate to improved killing power over the 7.62 after punching through armour or cover at short ranges (like walls, heavy foliage, etc.); in short, it may or may not, though I rather very much doubt it. In the end, the troops on the ground will make that determination, not the testers.
Trying to add armour-piercing performance to what are, by their nature, anti-personnel rounds is somewhat self-defeating to a degree. The old 5.56mm (SS109-based M-855) green tip introduced in the M-16A2 and the Minimi LMG had improved AP performance over the older 5.56mm (M-193) used in the M-16A1, but the newer 5.56 round subsequently seemed to proved less effective on human targets (especially if they were not wearing body armour) than the old 5.56 round used in Vietnam. The heavy semi-AP metal penetrator in the newer bullet and the tighter rifling twist in the newer versions of the M-16 reduced bullet instability and thus yaw, although I think that's somewhat oversimplifying the matter. The new M-855A1 green tip may more or less solve this problem.
And the M-995 black tip AP round exists in any case to give infantry the theoretical ability to punch through the sides of APC's at short range in order to kill the enemy infantry inside before they dismount. But I don't see this as terribly practical or even really desirable. Maybe it's just me.
Try Tony Williams if you haven't already for some more or less professional info on stuff like this. He's quite good on the technical aspects, and not so bad on the doctrine.
Insignius wrote:
If my understanding of the (publicly released) test performance results of the latest, new and improved green tip is correct, then doctrinally-speaking, nothing will change. To 300 metres, the latest 5.56mm green tip should reliably take down enemy troops; beyond that, the 7.62mm probably remains king. And while the tests may claim superior AP performance out to 600 (I haven't seen anything about this myself), this doesn't necessarily translate to improved killing power over the 7.62 after punching through armour or cover at short ranges (like walls, heavy foliage, etc.); in short, it may or may not, though I rather very much doubt it. In the end, the troops on the ground will make that determination, not the testers.
Trying to add armour-piercing performance to what are, by their nature, anti-personnel rounds is somewhat self-defeating to a degree. The old 5.56mm (SS109-based M-855) green tip introduced in the M-16A2 and the Minimi LMG had improved AP performance over the older 5.56mm (M-193) used in the M-16A1, but the newer 5.56 round subsequently seemed to proved less effective on human targets (especially if they were not wearing body armour) than the old 5.56 round used in Vietnam. The heavy semi-AP metal penetrator in the newer bullet and the tighter rifling twist in the newer versions of the M-16 reduced bullet instability and thus yaw, although I think that's somewhat oversimplifying the matter. The new M-855A1 green tip may more or less solve this problem.
And the M-995 black tip AP round exists in any case to give infantry the theoretical ability to punch through the sides of APC's at short range in order to kill the enemy infantry inside before they dismount. But I don't see this as terribly practical or even really desirable. Maybe it's just me.
Try Tony Williams if you haven't already for some more or less professional info on stuff like this. He's quite good on the technical aspects, and not so bad on the doctrine.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
Re: Type 95 assault rifle
Not sure if these are new photos.
Not sure if these are new photos.
MwRYum
Major
Re: Type 95 assault rifle
Nah, the rumored "Chinese OICW" build upon the Type 03 assault rifle, though these images are of better quality than those before.
Not sure if these are new photos.
Nah, the rumored "Chinese OICW" build upon the Type 03 assault rifle, though these images are of better quality than those before.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Re: Type 95 assault rifle
Sorry for the very late reply, but your original post seemed to have slipped past me.
The Chinese sniper rifle used as the 5.8mm FY-JS rifle. You can find more info on it here.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/army/china-takes-home-world-sniper-cup-2011-a-5607.html
---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------
I always thought the problem with the NATO 5.56mm in terms of unarmed targets was one of over penetration, which was also what the Japanese experienced in WWII with their 6.5mm Type 38s (which is one of the reasons why they went to 7.7mm in the Type99).
When you fire small cal. rounds at an unarmed target, the round could easily pass straight through the target without transfering much enemy to it, causing a very small wound. Unless the round hit bone or a critical major organ like the heart or brain, often the damage could heal in as little as a few weeks.
The introduction of the newer green tip with enhanced armor piercing qualities was mainly due to a completely different set of problems experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan, where NATO 5.56mm rounds would often struggle to penetrate things like car windshields or light walls reliably. Although this shift to add more armor piercing potential to rounds may actually make the over-penetration problem worse.
I have heard that a new round was being designed to be more bottom heavy to create greater instability and increase the chance that the round would tumble after entering an unarmored target, although I did not follow this up so I am unsure if this new feature has also been incorporated into the new 'green tip'. Does anyone have any more info on this or could confirm or deny whether this tumbling feature was intended for the 'green tip' or a different round altogether?
Sorry for the very late reply, but your original post seemed to have slipped past me.
The Chinese sniper rifle used as the 5.8mm FY-JS rifle. You can find more info on it here.
http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/army/china-takes-home-world-sniper-cup-2011-a-5607.html
---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------
I always thought the problem with the NATO 5.56mm in terms of unarmed targets was one of over penetration, which was also what the Japanese experienced in WWII with their 6.5mm Type 38s (which is one of the reasons why they went to 7.7mm in the Type99).
When you fire small cal. rounds at an unarmed target, the round could easily pass straight through the target without transfering much enemy to it, causing a very small wound. Unless the round hit bone or a critical major organ like the heart or brain, often the damage could heal in as little as a few weeks.
The introduction of the newer green tip with enhanced armor piercing qualities was mainly due to a completely different set of problems experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan, where NATO 5.56mm rounds would often struggle to penetrate things like car windshields or light walls reliably. Although this shift to add more armor piercing potential to rounds may actually make the over-penetration problem worse.
I have heard that a new round was being designed to be more bottom heavy to create greater instability and increase the chance that the round would tumble after entering an unarmored target, although I did not follow this up so I am unsure if this new feature has also been incorporated into the new 'green tip'. Does anyone have any more info on this or could confirm or deny whether this tumbling feature was intended for the 'green tip' or a different round altogether?