Type 95 assault rifle

Originally Posted by TerraN_EmpirE

The Magazine Also Caught my eye It looks ( I am not sure I Want too say Wrong) different almost like a Pmag. And the Fore grip looks like a grip pod but it's so small ( posibly indicating a PS)

Are you talking about the SMG pics I posted? Because they are in service with PLA and PAP in those exact configurations.




Oh nvm you're talking about the type 95, lol ..

Originally Posted by plawolf

Well I'm not seeing any signs that the image has been tampered with. Have you actually got anything solid you can point to to suggest that the gun isn't real other than your insistence on only believing it's real after seeing it at an expo?

Because there are plenty of things that are not shown at any expos but are perfectly real. A few examples.

That's because those in your pic are aftermarket add-on kit, target customers are local police SWAT / PAP outfits that has the budget for stuff like that and without the strict restriction imposed on the PLA regular outfit...though that said, attachment kits witnessed with HK garrison on exercise could've been on trial; or those seen with Somalia expedition were thanks to certain level of blessing from the top (clamp-style torchlight attachment, gillie suit, etc).

With just one picture, there's simply not enough material to prove it to be real deal, we need more material.

Originally Posted by MwRYum

That's because those in your pic are aftermarket add-on kit, target customers are local police SWAT / PAP outfits that has the budget for stuff like that and without the strict restriction imposed on the PLA regular outfit...though that said, attachment kits witnessed with HK garrison on exercise could've been on trial; or those seen with Somalia expedition were thanks to certain level of blessing from the top (clamp-style torchlight attachment, gillie suit, etc).

With just one picture, there's simply not enough material to prove it to be real deal, we need more material.

I agree, but your previous assertion that it was a PS, even when there was nothing which pointed to it, is flawed and just because it wasn't shown at an expo (yet) doesn't mean it's not real.

Although folks on CDF are saying it's a PS, and the lack of other photos and the complexity of such a modification makes me think this may not be real.

why PS?

@ Equ As Bltzo pointed out I was commenting on the pic posted on the link form Zaabar clip2net.com/s/1C7Rj that it seems is no longer active. Luckily I was able of finding it else where along with another one that is a obviousness PS.
0753.QBZ-95 new.jpg
note the missing charging handle the weird magazine and the rails.
13811870.jpg
This one is no-doubt a Photoshop the sights are G36 optics scaled up and pasted on too the rail.

When Compared too real confirmed pics It's just one more too chalk up too the PS file

Originally Posted by Infra_Man99

Based on what I know and in regards to that video of the bullet:

1. That bullet seemed to lack any yaw and spin. The bullet went pretty straight past the armor and through to the back of the blob.

2. All that motion in the blob seemed to be shock, not the yaw and spin.

3. Medical studies show that human flesh does not get greatly injured by a bullet's shock. The human flesh is quite flexible.

4. The M14 and M16 is reported to poke a straight hole through unarmored people (i.e., Vietcong, terrorists and Iraqi independence fighters/insurgents/whatever), so an M14 or M16 needs one head shot or lots of body shots to QUICKLY put down a person. The M14 and M16 responds to different types of armor differently.

5. The AK-47 goes straight pass you, too, but it hits a person with MUCH greater force and it penetrates objects/walls MUCH better than the M14 and M16. Because of its iron sights, the AK-47 has worse accuracy than expected. With good iron sights, the AK-47 has good accuracy.

Well you are wrong about a few things... the M16 has much greater stopping power than the AK-47 because the high velocity of the 5.56 tumbles, yaws, and finally fragments in a person's body. The inferior AK-47 7.62 x 39mm does not do this, and pokes a medium sized hole. And the heavy and slow 7.62 is not actually very accurate; it has about 1/2 the range of a 5.56 even when the AK has a scope or iron sights. Added' the 5.56x45 penetrates kevlar easier because of less surface area catching onto the fibers. You dont have to look far to find someone who has been shot by an AK-47; you have to look in a jail or a graveyard to find someone who has been hit by the 5.56x45. and as for the 5.8, appearently reports show that it doesnt tumble in Human flesh. But we will have to wait till it sees major combat to see what it does to humans. all in all, China was smart to use the 5.8 instead of the 7.62. However, I believe that the 5.56 is still the most effective anti-infantry round in service today.

Originally Posted by hubjubjub

Well you are wrong about a few things... the M16 has much greater stopping power than the AK-47 because the high velocity of the 5.56 tumbles, yaws, and finally fragments in a person's body. The inferior AK-47 7.62 x 39mm does not do this, and pokes a medium sized hole. And the heavy and slow 7.62 is not actually very accurate; it has about 1/2 the range of a 5.56 even when the AK has a scope or iron sights. Added' the 5.56x45 penetrates kevlar easier because of less surface area catching onto the fibers. You dont have to look far to find someone who has been shot by an AK-47; you have to look in a jail or a graveyard to find someone who has been hit by the 5.56x45. and as for the 5.8, appearently reports show that it doesnt tumble in Human flesh. But we will have to wait till it sees major combat to see what it does to humans. all in all, China was smart to use the 5.8 instead of the 7.62. However, I believe that the 5.56 is still the most effective anti-infantry round in service today.

WOW!!! your comment is totally inaccurate altogether! round for round ... a 5.56 round DOES NOT have more stopping power than a 7.62. That's a straight out lie or ignorant statement. I've shot both into ballistics gel. Pls refrain from posting myths or half truths. I promise you everything else being equal a round from an AK-47 does more damage to the body cavity than from an M-4 or M 16.
There are a lot of advantages a M-16 or M-4 has over a Kalashnikov but stopping power is not one of them!

7.62 x 39 versus .223 nato
First of all you need to compare same type of ammo!
Standard war-pac era 'ball'ammo for ak has a mild steel insert and so naturally is semi-AP
At short distance .223 creates havoc upon hitting soft tissue due to its extremely high velocity, specially te original (lighter) US round; later SS109 rounds a bit less, but are more stable en give better perforation, specially at medium range.
A normal AK is claimed to be accurate at mansized targets out to 150m; i myself shoot sa hort barreled saiga MK104 at 100m not getting out of pistol size target in rapid semi-auto fire!
can you see, and identify a human at 100m???

why do you think so many nations still use russian style weapons and ammo if they would be less effective?
Theory and reality my friend!

Availability also factors in. For the Record the First Gen AR15 deployed way back in the brush fire wars of the 1960's did yaw and do nasty things but the 5.56mm M16's deployed ( post A1) now lost that ability with a change in rifling and stability due too concern in arctic environments and a change in needs. This has caused the US problems regarding So called Ice pick wounds where the round just goes though leaving little in the way of a wound of Course the way around this is too use the superior accuracy too end the fight with head and heart shots, The current stock of optics allowing superior targeting but the want of better power is part of the reason of the new crop of rounds like 6.8,6.5 and .300 black out.
For the record Yes you cans see and ID a Human sized target at 100 meters in most cases in fact the current service issue are rather close range when compared too some old school the Springfield M1903 for example a Mauser based action firing 30.06 had an effective range of over 600meters since the end of world war 2 ranges of weapons have shrank.

Originally Posted by TerraN_EmpirE

For the record Yes you cans see and ID a Human sized target at 100 meters in most cases in fact the current service issue are rather close range when compared too some old school the Springfield M1903 for example a Mauser based action firing 30.06 had an effective range of over 600meters since the end of world war 2 ranges of weapons have shrank.

Yep. As late as the 1980's, Commonwealth Armies equipped with 7.62mm FN rifles often still required infantrymen to qualify out to 600 metres (3 out of 5 rounds on target). Whooo, boy, is that a long way! A skill rarely needed, but when it is... Now, in Afghanistan, the unusually long lines-of-sight that are often afforded by the hilly/mountainous terrain and ridges have allowed guerrillas to use harassing fire with rifles and PK machine guns from ranges as far out as 900m in some cases. Properly, this is work for 7.62mm crew-served weapons (GPMG's) or rifles. Since 5.56mm weapons are almost useless at such ranges, the Canadians adopted some 7.62mm AR-10T rifles, and the Brits even would go so far as to use Javelin ATGW at 150 grand a pop. The Americans of course broke out the old M-14 while awaiting arrival of the M-110. But straying off topic... Trying to make an assault rifle cartridge the "do-all" calibre of a rifle squad or section may work most of the time, but when you really need to reach out and touch someone beyond "typical", or rather, expected, ranges, there is no substitute for a full-powered rifle round. The Type 95 really needs to be supplemented by an LMG or a heavy rifle chambered for the 7.62x54R. The 5.8mm cartridge just can't reasonably be expected to do it all by itself under all circumstances, particularly much beyond 200 or at most 300 metres. Especially the further outward from the Chinese heartland the PLA may find itself having to operate in the future.

^^^ When you say qualify to 600meters, is that with iron sight or optic sight?

Originally Posted by no_name

^^^ When you say qualify to 600meters, is that with iron sight or optic sight?

Gotta be optic sighting, because 300 meters is very far (like three football put together from end to end), it's barley a dot on the field.

no-name wrote:

When you say qualify to 600meters, is that with iron sight or optic sight?

no-name, the qualifications standards from the early 1900's, with the .303 in Commonwealth Armies until the 1950's, and then the 7.62mm NATO until the 1980's, used only iron sights. Optical sights for standard infantry rifles (as opposed to sniper rifles) only became generally available from about the 1980's and 1990's onward. I remember he Elcan 1.5X (?) sight being introduced in the early 1990's, and the Brits had already received the SA-80/L-85 5.56mm bullpup with its integral optical sights sometime in the mid or late 1980's.

The USMC Qualified out too 500 yards using irons on A M16A2 until at least 2007.