PLA Small arms

Discussion in 'Army' started by Vanguard1688, Sep 25, 2005.

  1. MwRYum
    Offline

    MwRYum Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,845
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    Well, it's not likely that Norinco or CS gonna invite Ian aka "Gun Jesus" over to China, for a trip of "hands-on experience" with everything from pre-1949 bolt action carbines to all those newest SMGs / pistols / ARs / sniper rifles / shotguns / anti-materiel rifles, be that of what's on Norinco catalogue or standard PLA issue stuff...
     
  2. MwRYum
    Offline

    MwRYum Captain

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    2,845
    Likes Received:
    1,386
    You know, the iron sight block unscrewing itself during operation, speaks anything but "reliability" or "robustness".
     
    Dfangsaur, N00813 and TerraN_EmpirE like this.
  3. plawolf
    Offline

    plawolf Brigadier

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    6,049
    Likes Received:
    12,112
    I have no doubt the PLA would not have put up with that kind of shoddy quality.

    What you get on the export market is not the same quality as what the PLA gets. It’s the same as the US military picking the very best defect free NODs while the rejected pile gets released to the civilian market.

    Although Ian seemed surprised himself that the sight block was giving him no issues as he was shooting the gun, which makes me somewhat suspicious he didn’t install it properly to start with. Given his extreme dislike for it, that would not really surprise me.
     
    mr.bean and N00813 like this.
  4. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,037
    Likes Received:
    10,380
    I kept my post short earlier as I hadn't the time to watch the video until just now.
    My two points were simple. 1) the PRC makers never walked entirely to bullpups. And 2) Ian is not entirely against bullpups.
    In this case I question whether the gun rebuild was worthwhile at all.
    9mm SMGs are a dime a dozen and being honest a 9mm SMG seems a poor choice for a bullpup. If compactness is the need a Submachine Pistol would have been better.
    In the video you can see the sight walking its self out as he shoots. This weapon is almost always seen with a red dot and I think that is for a reason. The fact he is able to hand adjust the screws doesn't lend itself to a sign of retention.

    The PLA version the Type 05 We know has a fixed carry handle and sight replicating the QBZ95's sights.
    Sigh...
    Okay let's go there. In the modern world where does an SMG stand?
    Where is it still the preferred weapon?
    The Military basically lost interest with SMGs as anything more than a nitch weapon.
    Police and Bodyguards are the two areas where a SMG can still compete.
    Ian is a lefty he owns a bullpup the Famas which he can convert and shot lefty but he also shoots right handed when needed.
    Now an assaults rifle bullpup like the Qbz95 can ignore lefty issues as it's a main issue assault rifle.
    it's bullpup form is simply to make it easy to carry in an APC, Helicopter, jumping out of a perfectly good airplane.
    For that form of operations battles in the field a righty only bullpup doesn't matter. You can fight across the Gobi, the mountains of the Hindu Kush, the jungles of south east Asia even the steppe of Siberia with out needing to shoot lefty. And even if you did. With Qbz95 it would be awkward but not entirely impossible. The ejection port is a bit forward and the ejection path is two.

    A modern SMG though is a CQB weapon. It's meant for room clearing, and combat inside ships, buildings and tight alleys.
    As such needing to corner and shoot offhanded (for a righty) is nessisary. Because of the compact size and design it doesn't allow for that. As a PDW or SMG that is questionable.

    Which is another oddity of the root of the weapon family.
    Type 05 I always figured was the Chinese attempt at translating the P90. The two are damn close in size. Both feature pistol versions of a low drag moderate velocity <6mm round from a 50 round magazine.
    Even the way they are gripped and shouldered seems close.
    Yet P90 takes great pains to be Ambexterous. The top loading magazine for downward ejection. The selector dial, ambi charging handle. Infact it's ambi to a fault as in the event of a jam the user is striping the weapon.
    However in this thread it's said no.
    Apparently supposed to be the PLA's attempt at a 'silenced' weapon.

    Well. I think they missed the mark then.
    If the aim was a compact suppressed weapon with a pistol caliber. Why not make an integral suppressor? Like the old type 64.
    Integral suppressors tend to Ballance better and weight less due to not needing a QD mount, being part of the barrel they have better accuracy and tend to have better heat characteristics. In the form of a bullpup the suppressor could have been integrated into the barrel inside the foreend of the weapon reducing the length.

    For Type 05 We know that ammo should stabilize from a pistol length barrel, after all the standard side arms of the PLA are the same caliber and they have suppressed pistols. The added barrel length is really only marginally better range.

    And in the 9mm form why bother with a bullpup? If compactness a Submachine Pistol with a folding or Teliscoped stock would do.
    And then there is the other weirdo the Chinese type 06 SMG. Both weapons seem to be completely over complicated.
    what about this gun isn't rare or unusual?
    It's a bullpup 9mm SMG derived from a 5.8x21mm weapon from the PRC.
    For Ian this is a freaken Unicorn!
    His reviews tend to be straight forward to the practical. He likes unusual guns but he loves them when they work. And if a gun has an issue he will be forward about it.
    *Cough* OST-11*Cough*
    So dry this time of year...
    Jokes aside. Being blunt I think the designs the Chinese introduced in that time period for SMG and the earlier 'Modern' small arms of the PLA circa the Chinese take over Hong Kong have some obvious over complication features and clear elements of Rushed to service.

    the known issues of first gen QBZ95 that lead to a redesign in the 95-1. Despite the overall package being very conservative the fact no one bothered to consider the location of the fire control selector seems a glaring issue. One equally at fault to the SA80 series as well.

    The QBB95 Drum is also a off choice. But less so than the Type 05's 50 round coffin magazine. Coffin and drum magazines are fairly notorious for jamming. The magazine is often the most troublesome part of any self loading rifle yet despite the conservative nature of the weapons they seem to have chosen very 'sexy' feed systems.
     
    #1604 TerraN_EmpirE, Feb 10, 2019
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
    Dfangsaur likes this.
  5. Dfangsaur
    Offline

    Dfangsaur Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2017
    Messages:
    303
    Likes Received:
    580
    I feel that the top consideration when developing small arms for PLA has always been ease of (mass) production, and ergonomics is always the design element that's sacrificed.
     
    N00813 likes this.
  6. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    794
    Eh in general I’d say they have more of a ballistics bias. Nearly every gun, from lowly 5.8mm to 125mms on tanks and towed platforms must be made to have higher muzzle velocity, heavier round, higher penetration etc. than equivalent platforms.

    The 95G and 03 doesn’t seem either remarkably easy or hard to manufacture. Ergonomically it isn’t more difficult than other military rifles either.

    The QTS-11 is another matter entirely. It’s terribly heavy compared to previous guns. I think it’s primarily designed with performance in mind and sacrificing everything else. Honestly it’s hard to say whether increased effectiveness would warrant the difficulty of lugging it around.
     
    montyp165 and N00813 like this.
  7. SinoSoldier
    Offline

    SinoSoldier Colonel

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    6,793
    It is well-known that legacy Chinese firearms (i.e. QB series and the old bullpup SMGs) have terrible reliability and are of inferior quality and performance compared to their European or American counterparts. Same goes for their pistols.
     
  8. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    794
    The QBZs are new. You mean the “Type XXs” right?

    They performed decent vs Vietnam and India, both difficult terrain for reliability. So I would not call them terrible by any stretch. Maybe mediocre.

    I’ve also heard that the Type 81 deals nastier wounds compared to either of the QBZs, although it’s penetration power is much worse.
     
  9. TerraN_EmpirE
    Offline

    TerraN_EmpirE Tyrant King

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,037
    Likes Received:
    10,380
    If it was purely Mass production, they never would have bothered changing to 5.8mm just sticking with 7.62x39mm would have saved a lot of time and energy.
    Not really either the Type 89 tank destroyer was a 120mm smooth bore. They defaulted to the 125mm more than chose it as they couldn't get the range and power they wanted.
    Yet in the case of the 5.8mm it's a bit different.
    They chose that as they wanted a universal cartridge. To ease in production of bullets. Not so much the weapons. They wanted a general issue bullet that worked from the infantry to the armored corps but it didn't entirely work as the tanks kept the 7.62x54R ammo.
    In the infantry range of weapons since from sniper rifles to battle rifles they try in the 5.8 range first and if it fails then they fall back to a more traditional round.
    that depends on the weapons you are looking at.
    You pointed to the Improved QBZ95 but not the original. Back in 95 when it was brand new there were already lots of bullpup rifles that solved the selector safety switch location. It's still found mind you but mostly on rifles that were either converted from conventional rifles or bullpups that were rushed to fielding.
    The rail system was also noted as being of iffy quality with inconsistent mounts between rifles.
    The ability to swap sides was also a long time feature of many bull pups. All off these by the way were nicely delt with by one of the first production bull pups the AUG dating back to the 70s.
    And by 2000 most of the other bullpup rifles that had those issues that dated to the same 96 time frame had already either not entered production, or been redesigned to correct it.

    The 95G as you refered to it didn't emerge until a decade and a half later.
    As to the Type 03 it was an update if they type87 which in turn an uupdate and rechambering of the type81.
    Since he specifically says Bullpup SMG, that means the Type 05 and likely by extension the QBZ95 series. Which may have been used in a very small scale skirmish with India but didn't fight Vietnam.
    The conflicts you are referring predate these weapons. Much as I had to correct you about the Type 99 not existing in the First gulf war era.

    .339 vs a more modern small caliber in the .24 range. Well that would depend on the ammo and the target. Most of this falls into the "perception" of firepower. IE a claims that an M14 was a one shot killer vs M16. Truth is it normally comes down to the hit. Was it an actual hit or a near miss? Did you hit him in a vital organ or just flesh? And what kind of ammo was used. Legally there are restrictions on some types of ammo for military action, for the record some types of Hollow point are legal as the deformation effects are incidental.

    The Change from the first generation Qbz95 to the second QBZ95G or I included rechambering for the heavier version of the 5.8mm So at least some part of the PLA felt the round was wanting.

    The recent reports of a New rifle in the works also show that the PLA seems to feel dissatisfied with the 95.
     
  10. Biscuits
    Offline

    Biscuits Junior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    571
    Likes Received:
    794
    @TerraN_EmpirE

    As little info we have on the 120mm, it was supposed to have the same traits that makes the 125mm special, such as high bore pressure etc.

    He’s talking about legacy firearms, you should stop trying to put your words in my mouth.
    The 95s are not “legacy” by any means.

    The only war tested rifles were the ones I named, and they did not have especially bad reliability and in fact operated in difficult areas with no complaints at all.

    As for the new infantry weapons... they’re smuch heavier than the 95-1. And it’s bullet ballistic performance is similar to the other rifles in service.
     
Loading...

Share This Page