PLA Small arms

MwRYum

Major
QBZ-95 was designed in the day when one rifle system encompass a whole line of infantry firearms, although in the decades followed to this day, rifle system in reality only adopts the baseline + grenadier (which is interchangeable) + carbine, and marksman (which usually used its own optimised munition, share with the rest only in emergency), for SAW and LMG roles we usually buy thoroughbred LMG outright, which again use its own optimised munition.

Assault rifle and carbine ain't meant to take that much ammo per magazine, because it just make it too bulky and heavy, wear down the shooter - LMG on the other hand are meant to deploy and provide sustained fire, so shooter typically don't have to keep the LMG at a stance like the rifleman does, can rely more on the sling to take the weight. If you want infantry to pack more ammo per magazine (i.e. more than 40 rounds), do so after caseless rounds and exoskeleton or even bio-mechanical augmentation becomes reality.

Speaking of which, it's been said that the so-called "QBZ-95-1+" that the PLA teams take to international competitions uses QBB-95, said due to its length and make gives it better performance than the standard rifle's barrel.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
System weapons are not a bad concept really it's just that no one has really done a full up proper system weapon since the Stoner M63 where in you had a true universal receiver the operated in either the traditional configuration or as a top loading mode and around that and the bolt a number of weapons could be built including sub carbines, carbines, full length assault rifles, a proper belt fed LMG, a medium calibre (7.62x51mm) belt fed LMG and who knows what else it could have become.
Since that weapon in the Vietnam era all the systems produced have been assault rifles with delusions of grandeur.

Now as to larger magazine sizes a number of conventional assault rifles like the South Africa R4 come with 40 round boxes. And MwrYum their are also newer ammo types like telescoping polymer cased. And both the RPK74 and MG36 have similar magazines. Casket magazines of between 40-60rounds I think are a fine option for a carbine or assault rifle as a first magazine in weapon at the start of a mission. And okay for those who have adopted the doctrine of a IAR.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
That's a good illustration now imagined if that drum is BEHIND his trigger hand!

Depending on how one handles it can be beneficial than having it in front of the trigger. Having it in the front of the trigger causes weight to be dragged down, think of it like firing a Tommy gun.

Tommy_Gun_Collection_001.jpgda6dcede-d587-4ed1-8d94-af9009055545Original.jpg
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Those are frankly equation poor examples as neither is in any national service and the magazines are after market along with the bullpup stocks themselves as both are converted from conventional rifles.
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
Those are frankly equation poor examples as neither is in any national service and the magazines are after market along with the bullpup stocks themselves as both are converted from conventional rifles.

But they are still made and sold to the public. Bottom line, bull pup rifles are not going away anytime soon.
 

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Ask any general worth his salt and he will list logistics as one of the most fundamentally important things that determine the outcome of wars, especially amongst peers and near peers.

Just because some people do not like it does not change that fundamental reality of warfare.

It is that factor which the PLA high command has firmly in mind when they are resisting fancy optics, especially red dots, holographics and the like which become expensive paperweights if the battery runs out.

Without back up irons, your fancy rail-covered gun also becomes a paperweight.

Even back during Iraqi Freedom, with all its advantages of free, unchallenged naval and air supply routes, friendly neighbouring bases and countless other overwhelming advantages, US and allied forces were still surfering very serious, and at times, potentially crippling logistical bottlenecks.

The PLA knows from bitter experience how crippling logistical shortcomings can be to an entire campaign or war, which is why the 95 family is designed to try and ease that logistical burden as much as possible.

The shared ammo and parts amongst the family of guns means fewer types of parts and munitions need to be supplied, and troopers could easily share out supplies to ensure every member of the fire team stays at peak combat efficiency instead of having members reduced to using side arms if they use a different ammo type to the rest of the squad and that particular ammo type wasn't amongst the latest resupply.

The insistence on reliability characteristics that would make 'modern' western guns cry is so replacement weapons for worn out guns almost never happens out in the field.

The great reluctance to switch to optics and insistence on keeping the iron backups is from the knowledge that once you start issuing optics, especially if you remove irons to do so, batteries become a critical logistical requirement on top of food, water, ammunition and medical supplies.

Not only is the reliance of battery operated optics a logistical burden, it's also a tactical and strategic vulnerability.

Militaries spend a great deal to ensure all their key electronics are EMP hardened. But the batteries they use in their sights are just your bog standard garden variety.

Against rag tag insurgents its a non-issue, but against a top technical opponent, you run the risk they will let rip with tactical EMP weapons during key engagements, and suddenly, your entire frontline ground troops' fancy red dots and holographics goes bye-bye. With many modern western frontline rifles not even having flip up irons back ups as standard, that's almost asking for a turkey-shoot.

That's why you will never see PLA troops adopt red dots and holographics en mass.

The odd special forces units might well use them, but for line troops, even if the PLA commits to optics, they will use etched glass short scopes that do not require batteries and insist on keeping the irons as back ups, since glass optics are inherently more likely to be damaged during extended optetational use.

What you might see the PLA start fielding are more asymmetrical weapons designed to cripple the fancy scopes and optics of enemies.

I would expect Chinese R&D units to be devoting significant time and resources into looking into developing infantry field able devices that can cripple the modern optics of enemy troopers.

The PLA is certainly not resistant or adverse to high technological advancement, in fact, that is one of their primary focuses and goals.

What the PLA is exceptionally good at is making very sober and rational cost-benefit analysis.

That analysis takes into account not only the costs (both direct and opportunity costs of things given up for it) but also the vulnerabilities and weakness of things.

Too often those who champion optics only look at the positives, while totally ignoring the costs and risks associated with adapting them.

You can call those who do not share your views 'backwards' or 'old fashioned' or whatever, but I doubt that would be much comfort if you ever find yourself out in the field, staring through a piece of crystal clear optics at someone aiming his gun through irons at you, without a clue where your gun is aiming because the batteries have gone and you haven't got any spares left, or the enemy has just dropped a tactical EMP over your head.

The western preference for fancy optics and total removal of iron back ups, like so many other recent western 'innovations', are bad, short-term oriented choices made to maximise effectiveness against the rag-tag insurgents and 3rd rate national army opponents the west have gotten accustomed to fighting in recent decades.

The PLA are not expecting to, nor interested in fighting those kinds of opponents.

They are preparing to fight far more capable and deadlier foes, which is why they are making markedly different choices compared to western armies.

We, of course, all never wish to see such a day, but if the PLA ever cross swords with western armies once more, I think a great many of their more 'conservative' choices will be vindicated while many western indulgences will be revealed for the poor choices that they are.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
But they are still made and sold to the public. Bottom line, bull pup rifles are not going away anytime soon.
Never said that they were. A number of new models are entering the market but at the same time the bull-est future has taken a number of set backs in military uses with indications of the French and UK walking away from Famas and SA80.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Ask any general worth his salt and he will list logistics as one of the most fundamentally important things that determine the outcome of wars, especially amongst peers and near peers.
often THE key factor. Both the second world war, the American Civil war and the Berlin blockade were won by the side with more men, more beans more boots and more bullets... your point?
Just because some people do not like it does not change that fundamental reality of warfare.

It is that factor which the PLA high command has firmly in mind when they are resisting fancy optics, especially red dots, holographics and the like which become expensive paperweights if the battery runs out.
Aimpoint optics have battery lives measured in months almost years. What else you got?
Without back up irons, your fancy rail-covered gun also becomes a paperweight.
most if not all modern flat top and railed assault rifles come with back up irons or provisions to mount such. [/quote]

Even back during Iraqi Freedom, with all its advantages of free, unchallenged naval and air supply routes, friendly neighbouring bases and countless other overwhelming advantages, US and allied forces were still surfering very serious, and at times, potentially crippling logistical bottlenecks.
[/quote] true of any fighting force I mean what if the PLA had it's lines cut they would loose access to their unique ammunition type.
The PLA knows from bitter experience how crippling logistical shortcomings can be to an entire campaign or war, which is why the 95 family is designed to try and ease that logistical burden as much as possible.

The shared ammo and parts amongst the family of guns means fewer types of parts and munitions need to be supplied, and troopers could easily share out supplies to ensure every member of the fire team stays at peak combat efficiency instead of having members reduced to using side arms if they use a different ammo type to the rest of the squad and that particular ammo type wasn't amongst the latest resupply.
and that is why NATO standardized it's rifle rounds and same for the Warsaw pact.
The insistence on reliability characteristics that would make 'modern' western guns cry is so replacement weapons for worn out guns almost never happens out in the field.
I am sorry no. Modern small arms are tested to extremes for reliability from coldest cold to hottest hot. They may demand maintenance but all weapons other then clubs and rocks do.
The great reluctance to switch to optics and insistence on keeping the iron backups is from the knowledge that once you start issuing optics, especially if you remove irons to do so, batteries become a critical logistical requirement on top of food, water, ammunition and medical supplies.
the same became true for the introduction of the radio and NGVs modern military batteries are becoming rechargeable more and more. A number of gear makers have started introducing features like personal solar panels for recharge of gear.
Not only is the reliance of battery operated optics a logistical burden, it's also a tactical and strategic vulnerability.
so we should go back to.world war 1?
Militaries spend a great deal to ensure all their key electronics are EMP hardened. But the batteries they use in their sights are just your bog standard garden variety.

Against rag tag insurgents its a non-issue, but against a top technical opponent, you run the risk they will let rip with tactical EMP weapons during key engagements, and suddenly, your entire frontline ground troops' fancy red dots and holographics goes bye-bye. With many modern western frontline rifles not even having flip up irons back ups as standard, that's almost asking for a turkey-shoot.
..... hang on I need a moment to stop laughing.
Aimpoint, eotech and other military spec red dot makers often have this covered in their FAQ. If we were talking about smart scopes like tracking point I would say there may be a issue. But for red dots these are actually a very simple system just a projector and a dot. Some dots have non battery powered modes. Others that are pure battery powered but even then the operation is so simple being little more than a projector with a LED to point a beam at a reflecting lens that it is basically unaffected. Even if it shorted the battery smarter dots can still be used by cowitness with backup irons or just as a close quarters sight by simply framing the target in the center of the scope.
That's why you will never see PLA troops adopt red dots and holographics en mass.

The odd special forces units might well use them, but for line troops, even if the PLA commits to optics, they will use etched glass short scopes that do not require batteries and insist on keeping the irons as back ups, since glass optics are inherently more likely to be damaged during extended optetational use.
bogus, quality dots and scopes have been proven and stopped bullets. These are not champagne glasses these are hardened combat tools.
What you might see the PLA start fielding are more asymmetrical weapons designed to cripple the fancy scopes and optics of enemies.
paint balls?! EMP is bogus, so I guess that or try and smash then with a heavy sledgehammer.
I would expect Chinese R&D units to be devoting significant time and resources into looking into developing infantry field able devices that can cripple the modern optics of enemy troopers.
maybe blinding lasers... oh wait laser resistant glasses are on the market now so yeah and in case you have not noticed this. Wolf a lot of the new PLA sniper scopes feature range finding features which would be more susceptible to EMP then a red dot.
 

MwRYum

Major
Ask any general worth his salt and he will list logistics as one of the most fundamentally important things that determine the outcome of wars, especially amongst peers and near peers.

Just because some people do not like it does not change that fundamental reality of warfare.

It is that factor which the PLA high command has firmly in mind when they are resisting fancy optics, especially red dots, holographics and the like which become expensive paperweights if the battery runs out.

Without back up irons, your fancy rail-covered gun also becomes a paperweight.

Even back during Iraqi Freedom, with all its advantages of free, unchallenged naval and air supply routes, friendly neighbouring bases and countless other overwhelming advantages, US and allied forces were still surfering very serious, and at times, potentially crippling logistical bottlenecks.

The PLA knows from bitter experience how crippling logistical shortcomings can be to an entire campaign or war, which is why the 95 family is designed to try and ease that logistical burden as much as possible.

The shared ammo and parts amongst the family of guns means fewer types of parts and munitions need to be supplied, and troopers could easily share out supplies to ensure every member of the fire team stays at peak combat efficiency instead of having members reduced to using side arms if they use a different ammo type to the rest of the squad and that particular ammo type wasn't amongst the latest resupply.

The insistence on reliability characteristics that would make 'modern' western guns cry is so replacement weapons for worn out guns almost never happens out in the field.

The great reluctance to switch to optics and insistence on keeping the iron backups is from the knowledge that once you start issuing optics, especially if you remove irons to do so, batteries become a critical logistical requirement on top of food, water, ammunition and medical supplies.

Not only is the reliance of battery operated optics a logistical burden, it's also a tactical and strategic vulnerability.

Militaries spend a great deal to ensure all their key electronics are EMP hardened. But the batteries they use in their sights are just your bog standard garden variety.

Against rag tag insurgents its a non-issue, but against a top technical opponent, you run the risk they will let rip with tactical EMP weapons during key engagements, and suddenly, your entire frontline ground troops' fancy red dots and holographics goes bye-bye. With many modern western frontline rifles not even having flip up irons back ups as standard, that's almost asking for a turkey-shoot.

That's why you will never see PLA troops adopt red dots and holographics en mass.

The odd special forces units might well use them, but for line troops, even if the PLA commits to optics, they will use etched glass short scopes that do not require batteries and insist on keeping the irons as back ups, since glass optics are inherently more likely to be damaged during extended optetational use.

What you might see the PLA start fielding are more asymmetrical weapons designed to cripple the fancy scopes and optics of enemies.

I would expect Chinese R&D units to be devoting significant time and resources into looking into developing infantry field able devices that can cripple the modern optics of enemy troopers.

The PLA is certainly not resistant or adverse to high technological advancement, in fact, that is one of their primary focuses and goals.

What the PLA is exceptionally good at is making very sober and rational cost-benefit analysis.

That analysis takes into account not only the costs (both direct and opportunity costs of things given up for it) but also the vulnerabilities and weakness of things.

Too often those who champion optics only look at the positives, while totally ignoring the costs and risks associated with adapting them.

You can call those who do not share your views 'backwards' or 'old fashioned' or whatever, but I doubt that would be much comfort if you ever find yourself out in the field, staring through a piece of crystal clear optics at someone aiming his gun through irons at you, without a clue where your gun is aiming because the batteries have gone and you haven't got any spares left, or the enemy has just dropped a tactical EMP over your head.

The western preference for fancy optics and total removal of iron back ups, like so many other recent western 'innovations', are bad, short-term oriented choices made to maximise effectiveness against the rag-tag insurgents and 3rd rate national army opponents the west have gotten accustomed to fighting in recent decades.

The PLA are not expecting to, nor interested in fighting those kinds of opponents.

They are preparing to fight far more capable and deadlier foes, which is why they are making markedly different choices compared to western armies.

We, of course, all never wish to see such a day, but if the PLA ever cross swords with western armies once more, I think a great many of their more 'conservative' choices will be vindicated while many western indulgences will be revealed for the poor choices that they are.
To be brutally honest though, if you want irons as reliable main and optics never be more than a side dish, then steer away from bullpup because such platform won't perform well with traditional iron sights, given the shorter sight-line restriction such platform has.

And not all optics need battery powered, low-zoom ACOG sights has other than battery powered LED illumination, though I admit tritium illumination is expensive, even if it has 10-15 years life before expiry. Typical line grunt only needs 1-2x zoom power with day-light sights anyway. Such requirement should lower the cost requirement to manufacture reliable optics.

Your argument against technology has been heard from others, even decades since electronics begin to make such headway down to infantry level. But let's remember: the new Cold War is fully under way, China is beset with enemies on almost all points of the compass, almost all are techno-savvy thanks to the US supplied gears, or better yet the US themselves come join the fray. Unless the Chinese has fielded reliable means and methods to take those enemies' tech off the chessboard within the first hour, they'll be reminded once again how technological inferiority would cost them - modern day China's history is a litany of military defeats caused by technological inferiority, the worse amongst them were those when technology gap was ignored, and pyrrhic victory through horrific level of casualties. The next 4 years will be critical whether this Cold War would go hot. Never a decade goes by with the US not fighting anyone, and barring any unexpected development, China is next on the menu.
 
Top