Is QBZ-95/97 standard for PAP?Some high-resolution image of PAP...
QBZ-95 is pretty much standard for every branch of Chinese military. Some uses QBZ-03 like earlier paratroopers, but even them have switched to QBZ-95.From another thread
Is QBZ-95/97 standard for PAP?
Reason I ask is because I've read that PAP was the main user of QBZ-03, but I rarely see it.
These dealings are nominally under the table, they are never official. But IMO, pretty much open secret. As of "arms export control", I don't recall China has signed up to any treaty that limit small arms trade. So legally speaking, non of these trades are illegal and punishable.Honestly, I've seen just as many pictures of Myanmar militias with QBZ-03. I imagine that dealings with the militias would need to be under the table, so seeing such an esoteric weapon is even more curious, unlike smuggling something like Type-81 which was widely deployed and currently surplus. Makes you wonder about arms export control...
That's right, I meant QBZ-95-1 not 97 (I forgot the designation of the revised model)QBZ-95 is pretty much standard for every branch of Chinese military. Some uses QBZ-03 like earlier paratroopers, but even them have switched to QBZ-95.
QBZ-97 is chambered 5.56 NATO round, it is not used by Chinese military.
I didn't really mean control by treaty, but just general export control. As a relatively rare rifle with no other production sources, it's totally obvious where they are coming from. Furthermore, assuming this is new production rather than surplus, what is the MOQ? I remember reading some gun dealer's importation of Type-81 semi-automatic version for Canada, and he said it was difficult to secure the order because it wasn't large and the factory was busy, but because they recently got an order for Type-81 at that time, they would accommodate him.These dealings are nominally under the table, they are never official. But IMO, pretty much open secret. As of "arms export control", I don't recall China has signed up to any treaty that limit small arms trade. So legally speaking, non of these trades are illegal and punishable.
I think too much discussion would throw this off-topic, but it's interesting to see the complexity of the Myanmar/China/Rebel group relationship. The lack of central government control of the rebel areas has lead to areas looking like "Chinese cities" in one article I read. The local government had enacted policies for signs to be in Burmese, Wa, and Chinese.But I don't think China is willing to fully and totally cut the tie with certain factions in Burma. 1. it is about moral, abandoning allies is bad for credibility for the long run, nobody would ally with you if you did once. 2. Burmese government's historical hostility to China (during the cold war) and today's "democracy", neither of these two are trustworthy in Chinese mind. There is no guarantee that the "democratic" leader would not invite US military base tomorrow if China give up every card today, compare Myanmar with Ukraine, you get the picture. China's non-intervention policy has a condition that the other party does not gang up with someone else to threat China. The good examples were Korean war and Vietnam war.
Important to note, these dealings are in gray zone where Chinese government may close one eye but may shut them off if need to be.