Well, actually the difference on the open sights between bullpup and standard configuration wouldn't have much effective within it effective combat range. As they a both limited to the person visual range any thing longer would require a sight. In most cases the bullpup would provide better performance over the standard configuration when using open sights due to it better handling at close range.
chinese small arms thread
- Thread starter MIGleader
- Start date
Dear Guys,
Thanks for the compliments. Much appreciated. I wish to clarify my "accuracy" over open sights statement. This is what I mean. Generally the accuracy of a weapon is greater if the distance between the front and rear sight is larger.
Why?
Rifles are direct-fire weapons. You see the target, point-and-shoot. The image size of the front sight is larger if it is closer to the rear sight. This is because it takes up more of your field-of-view. Thus it will appear both wider/thicker if up-close than farther away. The consequence of this is it appears thicker when placed on the target, so you have more room for lateral (side-to-side) error.
It the heat of combat (which fortunately I've never really experienced - I'm from the artillery and a bad shot to boot!) accurate sight placement is thus less than if the front sight were a little farther away (where it would appear to be finer/thinner). So therefore, the closer together your sights, the less the inherent accuracy. See the point?
Of course there are two possible fixes.
The first is to make the front sight finer/thinner, the limitation being strength and ruggedness, too fine or thin and it might break.
The second is to make the rear aperture smaller, reducing the alignment error. The problem with that, is the resultant smaller sight picture, you can't see much of anything around the target, making quick placement on target (registration) more difficult.
Generally its all about compromise. No one solution is perfect. The conventional layout just allows you to keep the sights farther apart than the bullpup design. But the bullpup design has advantages of it's own. The designer has to decide for himself which of these is most important.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
Thanks for the compliments. Much appreciated. I wish to clarify my "accuracy" over open sights statement. This is what I mean. Generally the accuracy of a weapon is greater if the distance between the front and rear sight is larger.
Why?
Rifles are direct-fire weapons. You see the target, point-and-shoot. The image size of the front sight is larger if it is closer to the rear sight. This is because it takes up more of your field-of-view. Thus it will appear both wider/thicker if up-close than farther away. The consequence of this is it appears thicker when placed on the target, so you have more room for lateral (side-to-side) error.
It the heat of combat (which fortunately I've never really experienced - I'm from the artillery and a bad shot to boot!) accurate sight placement is thus less than if the front sight were a little farther away (where it would appear to be finer/thinner). So therefore, the closer together your sights, the less the inherent accuracy. See the point?
Of course there are two possible fixes.
The first is to make the front sight finer/thinner, the limitation being strength and ruggedness, too fine or thin and it might break.
The second is to make the rear aperture smaller, reducing the alignment error. The problem with that, is the resultant smaller sight picture, you can't see much of anything around the target, making quick placement on target (registration) more difficult.
Generally its all about compromise. No one solution is perfect. The conventional layout just allows you to keep the sights farther apart than the bullpup design. But the bullpup design has advantages of it's own. The designer has to decide for himself which of these is most important.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
Mate. I am from the infantry. It doesn't make much different when ya using the open sight, it just take getting use too. There not really much of an arguement here cos I know people who I served with would perfer standard configuration. Nevertheless, as I said again the different in the open sight shouldn't make much differnet to a trained infantry within it effective range, and it almost a stardand prastise dat sights are attached on rifle nowaday anyway.
Don't know if this is already old news.....new sniper for the PLA being tested:
M99 12.7mm semi automatic sniper
Bore diameter :12.7mm
velocity :800m/s
efective range :1300m
weight:12.5kg
lenght:1480mm
armor penitration:10mm
bullet for M99:
It says:this can do quite a lot of damage
M99 12.7mm semi automatic sniper
Bore diameter :12.7mm
velocity :800m/s
efective range :1300m
weight:12.5kg
lenght:1480mm
armor penitration:10mm
bullet for M99:
It says:this can do quite a lot of damage
I would not be surprised if it was the NATO round, since (if I am correct) this gun is copied or derived from a Western gun, and the Russian round is a purely MG round, and has very poor accuracy. (If you check out most of Russia's .50 sniper rifle, their range is only 300m. The VSSK Exhaust, which is silenced, has a 600m range but it has a newly designed bullet.) I don't think this will become a logistical problem for China either since it has so many resources and NORICO has made many copies of Western firearms, M-16, M-4 and P-226.
PS. Bad camouflage!
PS. Bad camouflage!
sumdud said:
I think you are right sumdud,Lately chinese system have been trying to adopt a lot of western ideas into our exsiting soviet systems to compensate the flaws of soviet systems.
By the way,a question for the military pros:
why the muzzle for snipers sometimes looks like this?Is it for accuracy or reducing sound?
Dear Sir:
That device you see on the end of the sniper rifle's barrel is a baffle-type (sorry my mistake - I previously wrote cage-type and that clearly is not the case) muzzle brake. Its purpose is to reduce the amount of recoil by deflecting a portion of the propellant gases backwards.
It was first used generally during the second world war on high velocity anti-tank or field pieces, like the German 75 mm anti-tank gun (Pak) or the Russian standard 76 mm field gun. One was also mounted on the PZKW VI (Tiger Tank's) 88 mm gun.
The post-war American 90 mm gun on the M-47/M-48 (Patton?) tanks features a unique and prominent T-piece type of muzzle brake. Strangely enough although rather beneficial, its use (except on field artillery weapons) has declined lately.
In the case of modern tanks (armour), the reason is due to the adoption of discarding-sabot ammunition, the close fitting muzzle brake tends to interfere with the separation of the sabot with disastrous consequences.
The brake allows the gun's recoil assembly to be reduced in size and weight. This is particularly critical for an individual weapon like a heavy caliber sniper rifle, which for mobility/portability/simplicity/reliability cannot have a heavy recoil assembly.
Unfortunately one of the consequences of its use is back-blast. This is because to be effective/efficient the propellant gases have to be deflected almost straight backwards (with unfortunate consequences for the gunners!).
As is usual in most engineering design, it's use involves some compromise.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
PS: Cute girl! Now why aren't the spotters in our army that good looking?
That device you see on the end of the sniper rifle's barrel is a baffle-type (sorry my mistake - I previously wrote cage-type and that clearly is not the case) muzzle brake. Its purpose is to reduce the amount of recoil by deflecting a portion of the propellant gases backwards.
It was first used generally during the second world war on high velocity anti-tank or field pieces, like the German 75 mm anti-tank gun (Pak) or the Russian standard 76 mm field gun. One was also mounted on the PZKW VI (Tiger Tank's) 88 mm gun.
The post-war American 90 mm gun on the M-47/M-48 (Patton?) tanks features a unique and prominent T-piece type of muzzle brake. Strangely enough although rather beneficial, its use (except on field artillery weapons) has declined lately.
In the case of modern tanks (armour), the reason is due to the adoption of discarding-sabot ammunition, the close fitting muzzle brake tends to interfere with the separation of the sabot with disastrous consequences.
The brake allows the gun's recoil assembly to be reduced in size and weight. This is particularly critical for an individual weapon like a heavy caliber sniper rifle, which for mobility/portability/simplicity/reliability cannot have a heavy recoil assembly.
Unfortunately one of the consequences of its use is back-blast. This is because to be effective/efficient the propellant gases have to be deflected almost straight backwards (with unfortunate consequences for the gunners!).
As is usual in most engineering design, it's use involves some compromise.
Best Regards,
Dusky Lim
PS: Cute girl! Now why aren't the spotters in our army that good looking?
Last edited:
RedMercury
Junior Member
That weapon was described in a magazine (QBQ?) a bit back. Uses latest technology and human interface ideas, however its accuracy is still somewhat less than the latest Barret .50 cal rifles. The article said that a dedicated anti-material sniper round with better accuracy was under development.
duskylim said:
Thank you duskylim for the info,I alway thought it was for reducing sound or something unimportant,I never realized it had such important use.
About the spotter,I don't think thats the spotter,It's a reporter interviewing about the new sniper.
RedMercury said:
I heard my friend(he got some inside knowledge in the PLA) talk about this anti-material sniper round too...he says the PLA is going to standardize the next genaration of small arms,including bullets etc in the following stages of the mordenization programs.This will takes many years,but it is the eventual goal.