Reply With Quotewell 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
This is a discussion on chinese small arms thread within the Army forums, part of the China Defense & Military category; Well it though the Type 95 have may have some design and operation fault. Nevertheless the cock being up at ...
.jpg)
NO WAR PLS
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.
Member
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
NO WAR PLS
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.
Member
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
NO WAR PLS
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.
Senior Member
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.
There is no great genius without a mixture of madness.
Aristotle
Super Moderator
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?
I want Asia on my front porch and America as my backyard.
Disclaimer: By America, I meant the Continent. And yes, I know Asian homes have neither a backyard nor a porch in the American sense.
Senior Member
the Brittish use a veriant of the L85A1 known as the L86A1 as a SAW it can some times be seen with a drum.Originally Posted by sumdud
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.
There is no great genius without a mixture of madness.
Aristotle
Junior Member
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.
Last edited by sumdud; 06-14-2006 at 12:06 AM.
Member
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.
Junior Member
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.
Super Moderator
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.
I want Asia on my front porch and America as my backyard.
Disclaimer: By America, I meant the Continent. And yes, I know Asian homes have neither a backyard nor a porch in the American sense.
Tailgunner
PLAN uses AKS-74u copy? This gun joust doesn’t look like any type81 variant I have seen before…
Junior Member
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.
Tailgunner
Thanks mate. I little odd that they didn’t make shortened version of type81… Probably this was cheaper…
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks