chinese small arms thread

[MIGleader]

we really need one of these. lets start it off with some of the newer updates by sinodefence

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/type03rifle.asp
the type 03 rifle. it looks like a fire arm with much potential. does anyone have any more information regardign this rifle? sinodefence is rather sketchy. what was it an experiment for?

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/jssmg.asp
js 9mm submachine gun. pretty decent looking weapond, although i dont know how it would compare to the mp5. kinda liek a mini 95, and it may be just as contreversial as the 95 aswell.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/individual/rifle_95.asp
the type 95 we all know and love.

more to come later

[GreatYuran]

all the things ive read on the type 95 have been really mixed, some say its good some say its terrible. i was wondering if anyone has fired the gun and if they can give some feedback.

[MIGleader]

well, i dont think anyone here has fired a real type 95. (ive fired a type 95 cap gun when i was in china, but thats a whole different story:D )

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/individual/rifle_87.asp
the type 87a. personally, i think its an exelent rifle, combining good old ak-47 relibility with moder polymers and a 5.8 mm round. its only in service with airbourne troops unfortunately. i think it should be in serivce instead of the 95

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/individual/rifle_88.asp
looks modern. any one have any more information regarding it? sinodefence is very breif.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/type92pistol.asp
chinas first really modern hangun. probably an equivalent of the barretta m9. i can see polymer usage, and norinco claims the 9mm round in this gun is even more powerful than the 9mm barretta round.

a more detailed site on it:http://www.sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/type92pistol.asp
donfeng used to have a handgun page, but hes probbly reforming it now. ill post any updates.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/laserglaregun.asp
clearly a type 95 derivative...this time in laser blinder form. well wait for updares. i think the pap may use this as part of an anti-riot arsenal.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/individual/grenade_91.asp
gernade launcher, for both pla and pap units. i wonder if it can fire lapd style pepper round, bean bags, or plastic rounds.... maybe even the stink round!!

more to come

[Kampfwagen]

Now, according to a video-game (Ghost Recon 2), aparently there is a derivitive of the Type 95 that is in an OICW-type weapon aparently called the T-95P. (Dont laugh, its the only information I got.) Any information on possible OICW-Type Programes (on the lines of the canned XM29 and the current FN2000)? Or am I being mislead here?

EDIT:

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Now, according to a video-game (Ghost Recon 2), aparently there is a derivitive of the Type 95 that is in an OICW-type weapon aparently called the T-95P. (Dont laugh, its the only information I got.) Any information on possible OICW-Type Programes (on the lines of the canned XM29 and the current FN2000)? Or am I being mislead here?

EDIT:
The FN2000 is not canned that project is independent and functional. The XM29 is Frozen with only one derivative entering operation That being the XM25.

[Kampfwagen]

I know the FN2000 isint canned, I was only refering to the XM29. Forgive my grammar. And it seems unlikely as being very unlikely it will be introduced as the whole OICW weapons system any time soon, especialy with the supoused cancelation of the M8.

[sumdud]

That's weird, the type 63 rifle was dropped, and the type 64/67 silenced pistols are gone also with the type 84 minipistol.
No page for the 50 case revolving magazine SMG either.

[ahho]

i've got a question, could type-03 be an continuation of type-87 with improvement

[Red Guard]

okay. 87 was a protype. it was never massive issued to the troops. the production number of 87 is much much less than 63. it was a protype to prove to the army small calibre WORKS. from thsi piont, there is no point to do any "continuation" of 87. and, in chinese military forum, we had people who used both 87, 81, 95, 03 to compare 87 and 03. and if we just look at them on the photo, they are TOTALLY different things. well i myself say 03 looks like SSG551( did i spell it right?). but they are not the same thing....
i don't think 03 satisifies the army, and i don't think it's going to be issued.

anyhow, just you know, 87 was not alone. there are many versions of 87. their purpose when out was to be in the parade and show we use rifles different from AK.

[Kampfwagen]

Now from what I understand, the type 81 proved it's self to be a fine assault rifle. Why are they replacing it with a weapon who's reviews have been at best a mixed bag?

[MIGleader]

the type 95 offers improved firepower and less weight over the 81. its basically a more modern design.

i think the type 87a and 03 are the best for the pla. the 03 just came out, and may be undergoing eveluations. the 87a offers the same firepower and weight as the 95, but is more reliable and user friendly. the troops who used the 81 will probably find it easier to switch to a 87a than a 95.

[Kampfwagen]

Ah, Ala AK-47 to AK-74. But then again, I thought it was said that the Type 87 was just a prototype anyway to prove the 5.8 round can be utilized in a firearm and to prove it's efectiveness. I would really hate to be holding a Type 95 in a long-range engagement from the information this site suplies. IMHO, if I were an educated Chinese Solider, I would be wanting ether a type 81/87.

Btw...Where are types 82 through 86? ;)

[Red Guard]

Ah, Ala AK-47 to AK-74. But then again, I thought it was said that the Type 87 was just a prototype anyway to prove the 5.8 round can be utilized in a firearm and to prove it's efectiveness. I would really hate to be holding a Type 95 in a long-range engagement from the information this site suplies. IMHO, if I were an educated Chinese Solider, I would be wanting ether a type 81/87.

Btw...Where are types 82 through 86? ;)
oh, the old argue about 95 and 03. according to me 03 is stupid, it's like thes stupidest rifle PLA never designed. you guys are using the westen mind again. in china, soldiers fit into the weaponaries, not the weaponaries fit into the soldiers. infantry soldiers change with in a few years. and soldiers who started with 95 never had any problem with it. and people who used 81 claimed 95 is lighter and has a way better accuracy and small recoil force.

i don't think 03 is going to be in service, it's just another smart aXX idea from some people.
anyway. if people don't know, there are type 86, it's a bullpop version of Ak-47/type 56, designed to export. no one ever bought it. i think there are info about that on the site. and there WAS a type 82.it was the competitee with type 81. i think because 81 got a good name, "81", so it won the race. people say it's because 82 looks like 56 too much, but i think 81 82 look like each other....
here are some photos of 82.
i have another 2 over 100 KB, too bad you guys don't have the luck to see them.....

[sumdud]

Chinese rifles are classified by their year, so type 81 is from 1981. There's nothing between type 82 and 86 because there was no new rifle in those years.
Type 82? Never heard of it.
Choosing a rifle based on look? What the hel?
and soldiers who started with 95 never had any problem with it. and people who used 81 claimed 95 is lighter and has a way better accuracy and small recoil force.
??? Really no problem? But what about the hisses and heat they get after shooting? And the handles?
The accuracy and recoil is probably from the bullet. I doubt the type 95 would be liked for this if it used the good old immediate.
Type 95 is definitely lighter with its polymer construction.
But what about the type 87A and 03? wouldn't the type 87A or 03 be choosed?
Now why is type 03 being built at all?

Now I wonder about the new bullet, will it fragment and break on armor like the .223?, or go through with more velocity but less weight(punch).

[Kampfwagen]

Now dont think this is looks over quality. I am just as willing to accept a new rifle system as the next man, but all I am saying is that, from my POV I would rather pick up an 81 to a 95. But then again, this is my humble and personal opinion. The Soviet 7.62MM round is proven, the design of the 81 is proven, the accuracy, everything on that rifle is a proven fact. I would rather have the 'less accurate' system to some new peice of techno-age polymer if it does a better job.

And as far as looks? The Type 81 looks like an old post-WW2 AR while the Type 95 looks nice and sleek, so personaly, it has nothing to do with looks.

And of course, the 82 through 86 was sarcasam...Though I had heard of the 86 before.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/type86s.jpg

For those intrested in how this little failure looks.

[The_Zergling]

Actually I don't think you have weird taste, the average soldier (Not the kid who plays CS and thinks the M4 is the best rifle ever) would probably prefer the AK series over the M-16 series any day.

The M-16 sucks. I used to argue with my friends about M16s vs AKs, myself being a full-fledged M16 apologist... but they were right...

both rifles use an intermediate cartridge, neither are full sized rifle rounds. You can't debate a rifle based only on calibre... The design is critically flawed. "Oh, but the AR is so ergonomic!" Yeah, it looks cool, but what's the point if the gun doesn't even go click.

The design (AR-15, which is pretty much M-16) sucks by design. If you lay out its blueprints you'll find it's fundamentally flawed, it uses tolerances that are way too tight for a combat weapon. It's ammo sensitive to the point of being finicky, it uses soft alloy receivers and is fed from flimsy magazines that are too weak to operate properly when loaded to full capacity. (Hence you'll never see a true 30-round M16 mag)

The worst part is the gas system. The rifle farts where it eats thanks to its direct gas impingement system. Compounding to that bad idea, we have the use of a tiny gas tube and a horrible breah design that is impossible to clean properly without the skills and tools of a dentist.

Defenders of the M16 series like to say, "It functions well if cleaned properly" A soldier's rifle should work well all the time even if you don't have the time to clean it. Like when people are shooting at you. If it gets too muddy you should be able to open the action, piss in it to get rid of mud chunks and be back in the fight...

Don't think that you're weird about liking the AK over the M16...

Sorry if this was a bit of a rant and a bit off topic, I have to get to bed and I'm not thinking clearly...

[sumdud]

Sorry, when I was talking about looks, I meant when he was talking about choosing between type 81 and 82.
"It functions well if cleaned properly" A soldier's rifle should work well all the time even if you don't have the time to clean it. Like when people are shooting at you. If it gets too muddy you should be able to open the action, piss in it to get rid of mud chunks and be back in the fight...
Totally agree on that part. But don't they say that people pee on the AKs to cool the thing when it's overheated?

[FriedRiceNSpice]

Sorry, when I was talking about looks, I meant when he was talking about choosing between type 81 and 82.

Totally agree on that part. But don't they say that people pee on the AKs to cool the thing when it's overheated?

How would that work? Isn't urine warm? And you would need ALOT of urine to cool an AK. Plus, it would make the gun sticky and smell horrid.

[Kampfwagen]

Actualy, during World Wars one and two and in Korea, it was common for soliders on both sides (Germany moreso in WW1) to urinate on their weapons to cool them down. It isint that far-fectched a concept. And no-one cares when their guns are sticky and smelly. In fact, bodily waste is sometimes welcomed.

[darth sidious]

the type 87 was to prove to the pla that small caliber woks beacuse some of the older leaders had a bad experince with the jap arisaka rifle witch fired the 6.5mm round they dont kill

[Red Guard]

okay when i said i think 82 has a better look. i just mean i like the look of 82. i don't mean i choose 82 over 81. myself personally think amount all of the service rifles, 81 has the best look.
about 95s. i heard you people. and i also heard the soldiers in the army. so far, the only complaints we got fromt he soldiers, are the first productions of 95 were too ....easy to break. we heard the first production for 97 in hongkong almost all broken down. so far, no other complaints about 95, other than good words about it. soldiers like it short, like it light, like it more accurate. it's basicly a winning rifle of all. we had lots of great argues in chinese military forum. today, we have fewer and fewer of them. 95 is proven to be a good rifle in the services. if the soldiers don't spit on it, why should we? we considered it all. the left hand thing, the smoke, the muzzle flame, the bang on your ears. but so far, no one in the services said a word about those.....maybe chiense soldiers are dumb.
oh and by the way. just because a rifle is out. it doesn't mean it will be issued to the troop. there were 87, 86, 97, and tones of pistols, revolves,, you heard them entering service? no. they were designed to either prove soemthing, or try to sell to someone, or....for fun.

[MadMax]

i belive this is the O.I.C.W. that was mentioned earlier
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/Number1azn365/PLA.jpg
has any one noticed that the type 99 anti-material rifle looks verry simaller to the Acuracy international AS50 rifle
heres the type 99
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/type99sniper.jpg
heres the AS50
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn67-e.htm
the gas system looks almost identical

[sumdud]

For the OICW, I think that was really a picture of China's (demo?) laser rifle.

[MadMax]

ive heard that a few times but i dont think so because the back rifle magazine has an ejection port over it and so dose the the forward magazine wich is probably a grenade launcher and a lazer wouldnt need an ejection port because there are no shell casings

[Red Guard]

ja, no, that's the "chinese OICW". the chinese laser gun is another one.

[RedMercury]

a more detailed site on it:http://www.sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/type92pistol.aspchrome://targetalert/content/skin/new.png (http://www.sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/type92pistol.asp)
donfeng used to have a handgun page, but hes probbly reforming it now. ill post any updates.
The 92 pistol's main advantage is the new 5.8mm pistol round, a spitzer round that is claimed to have good penetration against soft body armor. Sort of like the idea behind FN's 5.7mm round. The 9mm version is just for police and export. The pistol is claimed to be very reliable, passing some amusing environmental tests. This is all from a article in Chinese I read awhile ago, judge for yourself.

Check out http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn68-e.htm for an article about the QBU-88. world.guns.ru also have new articles about the new SMG. But of course, their source is just another enthusiast from CDF.

I used to be surprised that they replaced the solid Type-81 (and did not pick the 5.8mm version of it). But after reading articles about the design process of Type-95, how much thought and engineering went into it, I think it's probably a far more modern and well-rounded design, if less mature/proven. Like the AK-47, which is a great, reliable rifle, the Type-81's technology is just outdated. But then, there's the question of how much do you gain by replacing the Type-81 with the Type-95? Such a big change like that (weapon and ammo) has huge costs. So the decision makers must have been impressed enough to bite and bullet and make the switch.

I read in an article written by an enthusiast who got to test fire a Type-95 SAW that the smoke comes from the layer of protective grease the factory puts on it, after that burns off, it's fine. The other initial complaints about the rifle were arguable partly "inertia", soldiers used to the balance of the standard rifle not being used to the balance of the bullpup. But considering the round and the effort that went into balancing the internals, the Type-95 probably has less felt recoil. But I would be freaked out by the spent cartridges flying out near my face! :D I'm surprised why they don't just put a deflector or something over it.

Oh gosh, just remembered one idea that went into the Type-03. The article was talking about the necessity of a carrying handle. That the bullpup needed one while the traditional type didn't. The problem with the carrying handle was that if optics had to be installed, it would mean the soldier's head was rather exposed (which you can see from some example pics) because of how high the optics would be compared to the barrel. That's why the 03 didn't have a handle.

[Nethappy]

The Type 95 might have there hisses and heat after firing but it bullpup design and for infomation it very well suited for Urban combat. Nevertheless, do believe ejected cartridges has to be fix up with a deflector b4 it become the main service rifle. But over all it should be a great design.

The advantage of a bullpup design is great, but what I really like to see is if China can keep up with the level of quality of each rifle. As quality deflect can really hitch a rifle capability.

[ahho]

do you think that they can put the cock the gun on the side instead of the top?? this could be a solution of the handle bar causing the ooptics to be put on the handle bar of the type 95

[RedMercury]

I think they should worry about the position of the safety as well. Rather difficult to reach in a hurry. Now if it came with optics built-in to the handle, drool. And that front handle strikes me as a bit small, maybe something more handly to handle.

[MIGleader]

i belive this is the O.I.C.W. that was mentioned earlier
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/Number1azn365/PLA.jpg
has any one noticed that the type 99 anti-material rifle looks verry simaller to the Acuracy international AS50 rifle
heres the type 99
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/type99sniper.jpg
heres the AS50
http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn67-e.htm
the gas system looks almost identical

they look similar in some aspects, but are no where near identical. The barrels themselves have multiple differences.

for the type 95, it appears to be well balanced.
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/individual/type95_rifle58_1.jpg

The rifle is lighter than previous models, so the increased recoil is not a defect, but an unwanted by product.

[Nethappy]

Well it though the Type 95 have may have some design and operation fault.
Nevertheless the cock being up at the top is a desgin token from the French FAMAS and yes it possible to redesign the cock to side.
The carrying handle and optics shouldn't be much of a problem as most optics sign use for the combat range this rifle is design for to would be small x3 scope, which is more then enough for the average soldier. But yes it a good idea to eliminate handle in future redesign as top-end scope which a getting bigger.

As I said before overall it should be a great design, with lot of potential of becoming another world class rifle.

[ahho]

well i would say keep the handle bar for normal infantry, but i would assume that they should remove it like the m16 removable ones for marksman and grenadier

[Nethappy]

Well they need to increase the lenght of the fronts handle bar to make it effective, it just to short at the moment. But chinese nomally have smaller hand so it mind be alrite for most infantry.

[ahho]

well i think the handle bar is a good size now. I don't like long handle bars that is like famas, it does look a bit ugly

[Nethappy]

Well I really dun think the PLA cares about how ugly it look. It just care about how well it can kill. Hehe.
Anyway the Handle Bar is quite helpful in CQB, in my presonally experience it much easy to handle and maneuver.

[TerraN_EmpirE]

I was resently reading an artical in an american fire arms magazine about the type 95, type 88 and other new chinese arms. a number of problems i did not know of were brought to my attention.

First the standerd issue 5.8mm rouns use a steel case with a coroding powder.
second to help seal the rounds a laqure coating is used.
third that the rounds performence is more suited to use as a Armour peircer that it is not a man stopper round.
and last but least that the Automatic weapon versions drum magazine is to wide to be properly used.

the first and second issue have more to do with poor choices of miterial.
the third is not so much a problem unless your engaged in battle with a unarmored group in close quarters of Mout where civilians could be harmed via over penitration.
the last is corected by units in the feild who don,t use the drums. it's also a common issue when trying to load a drum in a bull pup. the best sulution is not to and insted use a real SAW.

another thing the artical brought up was that the Chinese were going to phase out the 7.62x54R round in favor of the 5.8mm sniper load.

[sumdud]

What's in the laqure coating?
As for the 3rd part, what methods of wounding does the Chinese round use?Anywords? The .223 is a frag. round, the 5.45mm round is known as the poison bullets, and the 7.62x39mm has a tapered end.
The 4th part is no suprise though.
What other bullpups uses drums anyway?

[TerraN_EmpirE]

What's in the laqure coating?
As for the 3rd part, what methods of wounding does the Chinese round use?Anywords? The .223 is a frag. round, the 5.45mm round is known as the poison bullets, and the 7.62x39mm has a tapered end.
The 4th part is no suprise though.
What other bullpups uses drums anyway?
the Brittish use a veriant of the L85A1 known as the L86A1 as a SAW it can some times be seen with a drum.

as for whats in the laqure that i don't have a clue on acording to the artical though it was supposed to prevent the bullet from rusting but because of the choice of propellent it was failing.
as for the bullet it has a steel penitraror style of bullet wich makes it a armor peircer type. the articale was limmited but informitive I will see if i can find it again.

[RedMercury]

Why don't you go to cdf and talk to the author himself.

I hope you know one-liners aren't allowedin this forum.

Also, if you are talking to me, I am too busy and do not have an account there.

[PanAsian]

I've seen a promo picture of the Type 95 with drum magazine attached. What idiocy! I hope that was a pure experiment or PR mistake. Has anyone in the forum actually fired or worked with the Chinese small arms we are discussing? Any opinions to share? I am curious how the Type 81 onward designs compare with other rifles.

[Kampfwagen]

Looks like the idea that the T-95 will be using the concept of a weapon system with a universal recever is now out of the question. Will they abandon the SAW version or do what the Brit's did with their L85A1 SAW rifles and make them ad hoc Marksmen's Rifles?

By the way, has anyone heard anything on the Type-95 Carbine? I havent heard anything about it recently.

[sumdud]

Guys, look at this.
http://sinodefence.com/army/small_arms/type95rifle3.asp

If you look at the drum carefully, it is lop-sided. The drum actually leans toward one side, not the usually middle. That being side, maybe the type 95-LMG is fully capable of accepting drum for soldiers.

As for the type 95 SMG, China need to realize that thing will be a nightmare at CQB on the right corner.

[isthvan]

http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/2599/713028253ox.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

PLAN uses AKS-74u copy? This gun joust doesn’t look like any type81 variant I have seen before…

[RedMercury]

New variant of the old type-56, Type-56C carbine. Polymer furniture and shorter barrel, for non-combat personnel. Too much 7.62x39 ammo around I guess. There was an article in "Small Arms" about it last year about this time. I guess by now it's deployed.

[isthvan]

New variant of the old type-56, Type-56C carbine. Polymer furniture and shorter barrel, for non-combat personnel. Too much 7.62x39 ammo around I guess. There was an article in "Small Arms" about it last year about this time. I guess by now it's deployed.


Thanks mate. I little odd that they didn’t make shortened version of type81… Probably this was cheaper…

[RedMercury]

Thanks mate. I little odd that they didn’t make shortened version of type81… Probably this was cheaper… Probably. These non-combat guards don't need something like a type-81. Probably lots of manufacturing lines tooled for type-56, and conversion to type-56c is easy compared to conversinon to type-81, since the mechanism is somewhat different. Also, there's no bolt hold-open on the 56 compared to 81, so maybe partly for commonality of existing magazines. This new carbine looks spiffy and the shooting reviews for it are not bad (iirc, somewhat better recoil than type-56ii). The biggest complaint the reviewer had were sharp edges that could cut.

[Kampfwagen]

I dont see why they would have a Carbine version of the Type 81. Although the barrels are the same length, the stocks for most modern Type 81 rifles are folding.

[duskylim]

Dear Guys,

It seems to me that the initial controversy over the adoption of the Type 95 versus the older Type 81 came when the older users tried out the new rifle. Aside from the usual teething problems when you introduce a new piece of ordnance (or any military gear for that matter) there was the fact that at the same time they introduced a new cartridge (the 5.8 mm) to go with it.

What follows is just my humble opinion.

An experienced rifleman, coming from the Type 81 rifle firing the 7.62x39 mm Bloc cartridge will experience relatively weak blast effect during firing due to the following : 1) the intermediate cartridge has less propellant, 2) the Type 81 barrel is longer than its predecessor the AK-47 and, 3) the conventional layout means that the muzzle is farther away from his face.

When that person switches to the Type 95 rifle, he will experience typically more muzzle blast due to: 1) the choice of a magnum cartridge with more propellant, 2) the smaller calibre hence a higher operating pressure, and 3) the bull-pup layout, ensuring that the muzzle is much closer to his face.

As the greater blast effect is a new experience to him, he will probably flinch and this will effect his accuracy and his comfort with the weapon. Also in the bull-pup layout, the distance between the front and rear sights is less than in a conventional layout and as a result, accuracy (over open sights) is typically less.

The advantages of the bull-pup layout is a shorter weapon (invaluable in close quarters like the interior of an APC/IFV) and less weight for the same barrel length. That is you get a more compact weapon, and the weight saved can go into other things like more ammunition, etc.

The choice of a small calibre bullet (the 5.8 mm) would in most circumstances result in improved accuracy as the lighter, smaller bullet would have a flatter trajectory and would generate less recoil. The layout also produces straight-line recoil with less muzzle jump. Unless of course you have soldiers flinching when they shoot. The smaller calibre has another virtue - it is cheaper to make than the larger one.

Like many issues with regards to small arms, taste and individual preference enter into consideration. I believe that when a generation of soldiers with no experience with the Type 81 rifle enter into service, the will find the characteristics of the Type 95 to be perfectly normal.

Best Regards

Dusky Lim

[Nethappy]

Nicely said duskylim.

But I disagree with you.. when u said accuracy is typically less with open sights, it really depend on the user. I'm actually more accuracy when I am using a bullpup.

[The_Zergling]

Good post indeed, duskylim.

Although my opinion regarding accuracy is that the "problems" with the bullpup configuration are mostly teething problems. Unless the design of the gun itself is inherently flawed, I'd assume a good soldier is able to put a bullet where he wants it as long as he knows where the sights are referring to...

Which brings me to my question. How big is the difference in (open) sights between bullpup and standard configuration? I'm guessing maybe at the most 10~20 centimeters which probably wouldn't make *too* much of a difference at most combat distances... but as I really don't have much experience with bullpup rifles (with open sights) it's just an educated guess.

[Nethappy]

Well, actually the difference on the open sights between bullpup and standard configuration wouldn't have much effective within it effective combat range. As they a both limited to the person visual range any thing longer would require a sight. In most cases the bullpup would provide better performance over the standard configuration when using open sights due to it better handling at close range.

[duskylim]

Dear Guys,

Thanks for the compliments. Much appreciated. I wish to clarify my "accuracy" over open sights statement. This is what I mean. Generally the accuracy of a weapon is greater if the distance between the front and rear sight is larger.

Why?

Rifles are direct-fire weapons. You see the target, point-and-shoot. The image size of the front sight is larger if it is closer to the rear sight. This is because it takes up more of your field-of-view. Thus it will appear both wider/thicker if up-close than farther away. The consequence of this is it appears thicker when placed on the target, so you have more room for lateral (side-to-side) error.

It the heat of combat (which fortunately I've never really experienced - I'm from the artillery and a bad shot to boot!) accurate sight placement is thus less than if the front sight were a little farther away (where it would appear to be finer/thinner). So therefore, the closer together your sights, the less the inherent accuracy. See the point?

Of course there are two possible fixes.

The first is to make the front sight finer/thinner, the limitation being strength and ruggedness, too fine or thin and it might break.

The second is to make the rear aperture smaller, reducing the alignment error. The problem with that, is the resultant smaller sight picture, you can't see much of anything around the target, making quick placement on target (registration) more difficult.

Generally its all about compromise. No one solution is perfect. The conventional layout just allows you to keep the sights farther apart than the bullpup design. But the bullpup design has advantages of it's own. The designer has to decide for himself which of these is most important.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

[Nethappy]

Mate. I am from the infantry. It doesn't make much different when ya using the open sight, it just take getting use too. There not really much of an arguement here cos I know people who I served with would perfer standard configuration. Nevertheless, as I said again the different in the open sight shouldn't make much differnet to a trained infantry within it effective range, and it almost a stardand prastise dat sights are attached on rifle nowaday anyway.

[without one]

Don't know if this is already old news.....new sniper for the PLA being tested:

M99 12.7mm semi automatic sniper

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/4068/medium/13448439_2006070511060365073600.jpg

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/4068/medium/13448439_2006070511060352190200.jpg

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/4068/medium/13448439_2006070511060439145900.jpg

Bore diameter :12.7mm
velocity :800m/s
efective range :1300m
weight:12.5kg
lenght:1480mm
armor penitration:10mm

bullet for M99:

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/4068/medium/13448439_2006070511060427120100.jpg

It says:this can do quite a lot of damage

[Bueller]

That looks more like a 50 BMG instead of Russian 12.7 x 107mm. Can someone confirm that?

[sumdud]

I would not be surprised if it was the NATO round, since (if I am correct) this gun is copied or derived from a Western gun, and the Russian round is a purely MG round, and has very poor accuracy. (If you check out most of Russia's .50 sniper rifle, their range is only 300m. The VSSK Exhaust, which is silenced, has a 600m range but it has a newly designed bullet.) I don't think this will become a logistical problem for China either since it has so many resources and NORICO has made many copies of Western firearms, M-16, M-4 and P-226.

PS. Bad camouflage!

[without one]

I would not be surprised if it was the NATO round, since (if I am correct) this gun is copied or derived from a Western gun, and the Russian round is a purely MG round, and has very poor accuracy. (If you check out most of Russia's .50 sniper rifle, their range is only 300m. The VSSK Exhaust, which is silenced, has a 600m range but it has a newly designed bullet.) I don't think this will become a logistical problem for China either since it has so many resources and NORICO has made many copies of Western firearms, M-16, M-4 and P-226.

PS. Bad camouflage!

I think you are right sumdud,Lately chinese system have been trying to adopt a lot of western ideas into our exsiting soviet systems to compensate the flaws of soviet systems.

By the way,a question for the military pros:

why the muzzle for snipers sometimes looks like this?Is it for accuracy or reducing sound?

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/4068/medium/13448439_200607051106047199500.jpg

[duskylim]

Dear Sir:

That device you see on the end of the sniper rifle's barrel is a baffle-type (sorry my mistake - I previously wrote cage-type and that clearly is not the case) muzzle brake. Its purpose is to reduce the amount of recoil by deflecting a portion of the propellant gases backwards.

It was first used generally during the second world war on high velocity anti-tank or field pieces, like the German 75 mm anti-tank gun (Pak) or the Russian standard 76 mm field gun. One was also mounted on the PZKW VI (Tiger Tank's) 88 mm gun.

The post-war American 90 mm gun on the M-47/M-48 (Patton?) tanks features a unique and prominent T-piece type of muzzle brake. Strangely enough although rather beneficial, its use (except on field artillery weapons) has declined lately.

In the case of modern tanks (armour), the reason is due to the adoption of discarding-sabot ammunition, the close fitting muzzle brake tends to interfere with the separation of the sabot with disastrous consequences.

The brake allows the gun's recoil assembly to be reduced in size and weight. This is particularly critical for an individual weapon like a heavy caliber sniper rifle, which for mobility/portability/simplicity/reliability cannot have a heavy recoil assembly.

Unfortunately one of the consequences of its use is back-blast. This is because to be effective/efficient the propellant gases have to be deflected almost straight backwards (with unfortunate consequences for the gunners!).

As is usual in most engineering design, it's use involves some compromise.

Best Regards,

Dusky Lim

PS: Cute girl! Now why aren't the spotters in our army that good looking?

[RedMercury]

That weapon was described in a magazine (QBQ?) a bit back. Uses latest technology and human interface ideas, however its accuracy is still somewhat less than the latest Barret .50 cal rifles. The article said that a dedicated anti-material sniper round with better accuracy was under development.

[without one]

Dear Sir:

That device you see on the end of the sniper rifle's barrel is a baffle-type (sorry my mistake - I previously wrote cage-type and that clearly is not the case) muzzle brake. Its purpose is to reduce the amount of....


Thank you duskylim for the info,I alway thought it was for reducing sound or something unimportant,I never realized it had such important use.

About the spotter,I don't think thats the spotter,It's a reporter interviewing about the new sniper.

That weapon was described in a magazine (QBQ?) a bit back. Uses ....

I heard my friend(he got some inside knowledge in the PLA) talk about this anti-material sniper round too...he says the PLA is going to standardize the next genaration of small arms,including bullets etc in the following stages of the mordenization programs.This will takes many years,but it is the eventual goal.

[Ryz05]

How did the US acquire the Type 81? Is this in Iraq?

http://bp1.blogger.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/Rdugu1y5UrI/AAAAAAAAAFw/psWjos8mWeQ/s1600-h/Type81_26_14331_edf7e0862bb38d5.jpg

[UCSDAE]

not suprise at all. there all reports that arms dealers, in lieu with the ppl in charge of savage dumps and refurbish old, used up weapons or weapon system to sale to buyers that are.. a bit cash strapped...or are facing a transportation problem(like the insurgents in Iraq, although I doubt they lack any of this).

As for the hissing and smoke problem with the 95, the smoke is from too much lube. if u use too much, that's what happens. but switching from conventional layout to bullup is a bit of getting use to.

Type 03 is....i dont like it, just personal opinion.

[ahho]

not suprise at all. there all reports that arms dealers, in lieu with the ppl in charge of savage dumps and refurbish old, used up weapons or weapon system to sale to buyers that are.. a bit cash strapped...or are facing a transportation problem(like the insurgents in Iraq, although I doubt they lack any of this).

As for the hissing and smoke problem with the 95, the smoke is from too much lube. if u use too much, that's what happens. but switching from conventional layout to bullup is a bit of getting use to.

Type 03 is....i dont like it, just personal opinion.

what don't you like about type-03, i want to hear your opinion. For me i am indifferent as it looks like the type-81 in some ways

[UCSDAE]

it's one of those thing that u just dont like but u cant quiet explain why. However, the type 95 does offer tactical flexibilty because of it's length and is easy to manuver in CQC,and that is a advantage bullpup has over conventional layout. The type 03,if it were to obtain the same flexibility, has to have a retractable/foldable stock, just like the M4 and M16 in Iraq. besides, if u fold or retract the stock, that would just kinda make your conventional layout rifle into a de facto bullpup.
if u fired an AK with the stock folded(or any assault rifle for that matter), u will realized that it becomes even more difficult to control the recoil and fire with acceptable accuracy. This might be so for me cuz i m a noob when it comes to marksmanship(comparing to some of our members).

[sumdud]

I can't imagine anyone who can fire better with folded stocks. Afterall, your shoulder is much more rigid than your jointy hands. If you shoot a gun without stock, you split the recoil in 2 instead of 3, what'd you expect?
There is no reason for there to be a Type 03 (or 05 for that matter) IMO when you have the Type 81.
Come to think, this just sounds like going from Rk-62 to 76 to 95. :p

That Type 81 could be coming from Afghanistan too, as it does share border with China and Pakistan. (I hope that soldier is from the Bay Area.)

[ahho]

I can't imagine anyone who can fire better with folded stocks. Afterall, your shoulder is much more rigid than your jointy hands. If you shoot a gun without stock, you split the recoil in 2 instead of 3, what'd you expect?
There is no reason for there to be a Type 03 (or 05 for that matter) IMO when you have the Type 81.
Come to think, this just sounds like going from Rk-62 to 76 to 95. :p

That Type 81 could be coming from Afghanistan too, as it does share border with China and Pakistan. (I hope that soldier is from the Bay Area.)

just wondering, what was the difference internally between type-81,97 and 03/05??? all i know is that 81 is ussing the russian round while the other use the 5.8mm round

[dannytoro]

...I'm very partial to the little Czech S.61 as a back up gun. Plus you can go silently hunting in trenchs at night with it too:

http://sweb.cz/rainbow6/images/sa61-tlumic.jpg

.....Then unscrew the silencer and stock and back on the thigh holster it goes....

[sumdud]

Hmm? Wrong thread?

[dannytoro]

...Oh, I thought they wanted ideal firearms, not just chinese ones. Sorry, my mistake

[f.hind]

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/data/3127/medium/PLA-DefenceTalk.com.jpg.jpg

What do you think? Possibly for long-term recon missions behind enemy lines?