Think about it, laser doesn't work that well during day time, and using NVG paired with optics you can largely minus it from your kit as well; in close quarter, flashlight trumps laser, especially if you have strobe mode to let you "cheat"...furthermore, flashlight unit weight far less.
Which is my point, very few of the myriad of accessories available on the market are truly that useful in real life combat operations.
Speaking of that one-piece exercise MILES kit, I find it quite a moronic design, especially previously they've one that mount onto the barrel, which users could simply adopt the standard shooting posture instead of adopt that awakward stance of higher sightline.
I think that was probably more down to them just using their own universal modular standard (the 95 does have an integrated proprietary rail interface for optics - it's just most pundits tend to dismiss it because it isn't a picatinny, but it does exist, and I think the PLA has it's own proprietary rail interface standard that is deliberately not picatinny, but otherwise works the same) kit off-the-shelf instead of buying something that was especially designed for the 95.
That MILES scope would have been just fine if used on a traditional rifle as opposed to being mounted on an already elevated carrying handle.
Well there's a reason they keep the Type 03 rifle (a conventionally designed model) in limited service, and even build their OICW around it. To this day, bullpup design still isn't that sold in China.
I think the millions of examples of 95s in frontline service in the PLA would dispute that.
If bullpumps truly isn't sold in China, it would be the 03 that is the primary combat rifle with the 95 in limited service.
As far as I know, its only the paratroopers who prefer the 03, and that is because of its better accuracy. They expect to operate for pro-longed periods behind enemy lines, potentially with very limited resupply opportunities, so want to make sure every shot counts.
Personally, I think the PLA paras should be training with both the 97s/another 5.56 rifle and also the 7.62 81/03 rifles and pick which ones to use on operational deployment based on what the enemy local forces are primarily using.
The traditional PLA insistence that foreign invading forces have a hard time trying to make use of captured PLA arms and ammo doesn't really apply to paratroopers, since they will be operating behind enemy lines most of the time, so being able to make use of captured enemy arms and munitions would be a massive advantage to them, but that's a little OT.
As for age OICW, well most designs using a conventional rifle design and bullpump grenade launcher layout because that just works a lot better.
Anyways, the whole conventional vs bullpump dispute is not really something that I see as relevant here.
But I could imagine the kind of PR horror if they use Type 81 instead...lucky for them they don't have to wait for a shooting war to expose the design flaws.
As design flaws goes, the 95's safety/selector issue is pretty mild in comparison to some of the horror stories troops from other countries have had to deal with.
Most PLA troopers simply don't camber their rifle until they intend to use them, which doesn't take that much longer than flipping the safety off. The 95 is so well balanced that you can burst fire them with little difficulty or loss of accuracy.
That said, there's a reason why eventhough as replicas, optical sights that are made just for airsoft (for looks only) and those that can stand-in for real gun use, their prices are so different - the former are more expensive obviously. In any case, it'll take time for the Chinese to warm up to the accessories we've long been taken for granted.
TBH, I think accessories manufactures rack up extremely fat profit margins on their goods.
Yes it costs to make something military grade, but not as much as what they are charging.
That is one of the big problems with the military adopting the picatinny rail standard in my view - arms manufactures are charging civilian retail prices to the military when the military are ordering in bulk, and so should be getting wholesale prices at minimum.
That is tolerated because it's become just about part of the gravy train western defence budgets have become.
There are cases where I know people have bought dirt cheap sights from China off the internet almost as a lark, and they work just fine with high-powered centerfire rifles.
Problem is that it is really pot luck, since some will work ok, while others will be totally useless because of the recoil shock knocking the aim all over the place.
The point is that I think it is certainly possible to reliable build decent quality optics that are up to combat standards at a fraction of the cost of the kit being peddled to your average western recreational shoot and military forces for thousands a pop.
If and when the PLA does decide to adopt optics en mass, I think a lot of western recreational shooters will suddenly discover a newfound enthusiasm for Chinese military grade optics that work just as well as western ones but cost a small fraction, and we may even start to see future western civilian rifles made with options of having Chinese rail interfaces built-in over picatinny (until the Trump White House slaps a ban on Chinese optics imports that is
).
As for accessories we take for granted, well from personal experience, when I first got my rifle, I blinging it up with all sorts of goodies, lasers, 45 degree red dot, all the works. But now I have it stripped right back to the bare basics of a scope and bipod because of the weight, and also because most of those accessories are just not that useful.
