Type 95 Assault Rifle II

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Infra_Man99 said:

Hey Pointblank:

Yeah, I always read that Personal Defense Rifles were somewhat overrated: good for civilian usage, but not for military grade stuff.

Is that data with or without armor. If it is with armor, what type of armor? Every data I have seen shows that no armor, armor, and armor type affects a bullet's damage.

Anyhow, based on your provided charts, it seems that fat people get hurt more by bullets than skinny people. Of the bullets provided, only 3 bullets would deal more damage if your body is 20 cm thick or thinner than if your body is thicker than 20 cam, and all the other bullets do more damage if your body is more than 20 cam thick than if your body is 20 cm or less thick.

Maybe this is why there are many reports that the skinny Vietcong, terrorists, and Iraqi independent fighters can take unexpectedly many body shots by M14 and M16 assault rifles.

The more bloody bullets fragment upon penetration, but I believe this violates international war laws, and these bullets usually have a harder time penetrating through walls and other barriers.

Does anyone have data on the QBZ's bullet damage against unarmored bodies, damage against armored bodies (type of armor, too), and penetration ability through walls (wood, concrete, both wood and concrete, and steel) into bodies (unarmored and armored)?

I would love to see this data for ALL major military bullet types.

Click to expand...

Data without armour.

Most people are over 20cm from the front of the chest to the back. The standard M855 round is designed to penetrate armour, of which of the current wars we are fighting, most opponents aren't wearing armour. The new Mk262 round is heavier, and as you can see, does more damage against unarmoured targets. As such, the US Military is switching ammo provided to troops in theatre to the new Mk262 ammo, which has better terminal ballistics performance against unarmoured targets.

RedMercury said:

I like how the 5.56's main method of damaging tissue is against Geneva conventions. Everyone should make fragmenting bullets! It's OK as long as it's FMJ!

Click to expand...

Wrong treaty. It's the Hague Conventions. And they ban bullets that expand or explode on impact. These rounds are designed to tumble once they have penetrated.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

That picture is contrary to the saying that a longer barrel is better for the .223....
And I don't get why it's against the Geneva Convention to use hollow points, but I would really not want to be hit by a frag-er....
Frag isn't counted as explode?

What's FMJ?

And M14? That uses the 7.62x51, how's that weak?

As for gas, comne to think of it, hot gases rise, so if your nose is on the left side of the rifle and the ejection port is on the right, how will it come through? Only gun I can think of with this from a visual stand point is the FAMAS.

What I don't get in the pictures is why the Russian and Nazi(? WW2German) would have a double bulge.

If you are wearing armour, you are in a way wearing an extra inch or two of blubber (Well, it's about the stuff that the bullet needs to go through.) then I would see how an M16 bullet would have more killing power when attacking an armoured target than an unarmoured one.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

FMJ = Full Metal Jacket = high penetration, low fragmentation

From what I have read, the M14 and its round shoots a bullet that goes STRAIGHT THROUGH enemies. Unless you get a head shot, spine shot, heart shot, or liver shot; the M14's heavy, powerful round requires multiple hits through unarmored and armored bodies to bring down the enemy. This is true even though US soldiers bragged that the M14 was a "powerful" rifle.

To make matters worse, the M14 does not carry that many rounds, and M-14 users will need lots of rounds at a fast rate to quickly gun down their enemies, unless they shoot the head, heart, spine, or liver.

This is why the US military went for the M16's smaller round. They figured the smaller round would yaw and tumble/spin for better stopping power, but less penetration.

The problem is that military bullets are fundamentally designed for high penetration/low fragmentation, to deal with armored enemies and enemies hiding behind structures. Yaw and tumbling is overrated.

As Pointblank pointed out, the US army has and is using high er fragmentation bullets, but such bullets have lower penetration. There is NO such thing as a perfect bullet. Ideally, you pick a bullet for each situation for the best effects, but this is really expensive, even for the US.

Going back on topic, the complex, but reliable QBZ-95 and its high-penetration/low-fragmentation round makes sense for China:

1. Complex, but reliable rifle design permits easy firing control, which results in high accuracy, so the three-round burst mode is not needed. The smaller round with its flat flight and good distance adds to the accuracy.

2. The rifle has an auto mode, because the rifle's bullet does not have stopping power; high-penetration/low-fragmentation bullets go straight through unarmored and armored bodies. Low-penetration/high-fragmentation bullets tear up lots of flesh for good stopping power. The QBZ-95 and its round needs to fire many bullets to bring down unarmored and armored enemies (unless the rifle shoots the head, spine, heart, or liver).

3. The solid round has great penetration, yet simple and affordable to manufacture. China will be needing lots of these high-penetration/low-fragmentation rounds to hose down enemies, unless China's soldiers have uncanny aim.

4. The rifle and round has a semi-auto mode for head shots over good distances. The bullet should be able to easily penetrate heads, even if they are well-armored. The rifle and round can hold its own over distances.

5. The bull-pup shape allows the gun to be easily handled through jungles, forests, crowded fire fights, and city environments.

China made an cost-effective gun and round to defeat well-armored enemies with high accuracy over good distances (semi-auto mode) or with high firing rate (auto mode) over shorter distances, even if they are hiding behind plant life or structures.

However, this gun and round will be bad against unarmored enemies (and really long distances that should be left for superb marksmen or snipers).

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Many reports say the AK-47 and its round has good stopping power, but I doubt that based on what we know about other, similar bullets. I think it feels more powerful, so people assume it has more stopping power, even though it doesn't.

However, I could be wrong. Many US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan today say the AK-47 has better stopping power than the M-16 and its derivatives, but the latter is more accurate.

Like I said, I wish someone would publish a book detailing every bullet by these standards:

1. Penetration vs fragmentation (how much armor can it penetrate or how much flesh can it tear up)

2. Penetration or fragmentation over close distances, medium distances, and long distances

3. Accuracy (flat trajectory over a long distance and low kick)

4. Shelf life and ruggedness

5. Manufacturing cost

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

RedMercury said:

Interestingly, recent photos show more and more of Type-03 in service. I wonder what criterion is used to decide which of the 95 and 03 is issued.

Click to expand...

I recommend you to watch the video of PLA military exercise of 2006 in youtube.com and see what weapon the soldiers have in their hands... is not the Type03

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

aquilis182 said:

Excuse me sir, The QBZ-95 assault rifle or a.k.a. Type-95. I read at wikipedia that the QBZ-95 was designed to replace thouse Type-81 assault rifle (that I also read at wikipedia that is as reliable as the russian/soviet AK series but almost as acurate as the American M16s) The only problem that I hera about the QBZ-95 is that cant be fired from left handed shoulder cause it's dangerous for the soldier due the ejection chamber can eject the round remanent part (or whatever the neme in english is) to the soldier's face. I also read Chinas clame that is 5.8mm ammunition have better penetration power than both... the 5.56mm Nato and the 5.45mm Russian (they already testet) also the QBZ-95 is designed very likley as the british SA-80 assault rifle. Here som pics of the QBZ-95s
[qimg]http://www.enemyforces.com/firearms/qbz95.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.enemyforces.com/firearms/qbz95_2.jpg[/qimg]
and right here you can observe the british SA-80 assault rifle

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

you can see clearly how mush they looks like. Right here you can read pros and conts about the QBZ-95

Advantages

The QBZ-95 (Type 95) can be compared in it's reliability with the AK Assault Rifles. Assault Rifle features low recoil power and cold hammer forged barrel. These features provide high fire accuracy. Furthermore it executes three shot burst fire. Weapon's compact dimensions, light weight, additional pistol and carrying handles provide comfortable handling and usage including in a limited space areas. It has can be reloaded from the each hand. One more advantage is ability to fed it from the 75 round drum magazine.

Disadvantages

High sighting line makes quiet dangerous firing from the covers as the shooter must uncover almost till his waist to make a sighted shot. All the "bullpup" design rifles feature uncomfortable magazines replacement. One more disadvantage is that the QBZ built on the "bullpup" principle has insufficient ambidextrous abilities as the extraction opening is placed right.

As for your question friend. you if you see pics from the PLA soldiers when the british give them Honk Kong you can observe they have QBZ-95s in their hands... That sound to me like they already adopt the riffle (you can chek that out at wikipedia)

Click to expand...

Actually the sighting ontop of the carrying handle is same height as the M-16 sightings, so dont know what the big fuss is all about. The only problem would have to be the saftey/fire switch near the stock.

OK after some thinking about this left and right side issue, about how the ejection port is on the right. Wouldnt this be a possibility to fix this problem. Keep the existing ejection port on the right but also have one paralel on the left side. To determine which side the casing wants to be ejected a simple bolt on deflector. Where bolted onto the left port the casing will spent right, where bolted on the right the casing will spent left.

What are your guys thoughts?

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

That optional, dual-sided ejection port would work. Other nations have done it. The problem is the cost benefits.

Are you going to make optional,dual-sided ejection ports so that lefties can feel more comfortable wielding a bullpup rifle? How many lefties are in the Chinese ground forces? Is it hard for lefties to learn how to and train their bodies to shoot from the right shoulder? How much will having this feature benefit/hurt the PLA?

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Comrades is the Type 95 assault rifle a good competition against the American XM29 camera, Burst Grenade, and Laser targeted system assault rifle. Who wins the XM29 or the China made Type 95 assault rifle. Anyone till me.:coffee:

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Infra_Man99 said:

That optional, dual-sided ejection port would work. Other nations have done it. The problem is the cost benefits.

Are you going to make optional,dual-sided ejection ports so that lefties can feel more comfortable wielding a bullpup rifle? How many lefties are in the Chinese ground forces? Is it hard for lefties to learn how to and train their bodies to shoot from the right shoulder? How much will having this feature benefit/hurt the PLA?

Click to expand...

I would have designed the weapon so that the ejection port faces downwards, or have added a brass deflector (simple modification). I would have furthermore designed the controls to be fully ambidextrous.

Having a weapon that can be used from both shoulders immediately is extremely useful in combat conditions. It allows shooters to better take advantage of cover so that they don't expose themselves more than necessary.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

What I know about shooting from corners (if there are no armored vehicles or air support, just you and fellow "foot soldiers"):

1. Use a mirror or camera to look around the corner. Locate the sniper and get your teammates to sneak up on the sniper. This sniper can be an enemy sniper or some enemy trying to snipe your team with an assault rifle.

2. If in a closed area, toss grenades around the corner. After the explosions, your team rushes in and everyone should know how to cooperatively "clear" the room.

3. Stick your gun around the corner and fire like a blind madman.

4. Slightly reveal yourself from the corner and try to out-snipe the sniper.


From the videos, articles, and books I have read:

Options 1 and 2 are good. Options 3 and 4 have a very low rate of success. Conclusion: Do NOT move your rifle from shoulder to shoulder as you move from corner to corner, trying to out-shoot sniping enemies. It is VERY RISKY.

Thus, bull-pup assault rifles do not have a critical flaw in how they usually cannot be fired from the left shoulder. It would be interesting to design a bull-pup that expels bullets downward or that can be switched to expel bullets either left or right. However, it would increase the cost of the rifle. This increased cost better be worth it for armies on a tight budget (like the PLA). As far as I am concerned, it doesn't seem to be worth it. Again I ask, how many lefties are in the military and how many of them are unable to learn how to shoot from the right shoulder?

Keep in mind that bull-pup rifles fit around corners, crowded areas, and tight areas much better than conventional rifles.

Can someone EXPLAIN to me why it is a GOOD idea to stand at corners, switch your rifle from shoulder to shoulder depending the corner you're at, and try to out-duel your enemies? Why pull off such a risky technique?

Even if you want to shoot around corners, you could easily switch your legs to shoot from either corner without having to reposition your rifle as you move it from shoulder to shoulder.