PLA Small arms

by78 said:

Accessory rails on QBZ-95G.

Click to expand...

I found another image of accessory rails on QBZ-95G. I can't be sure, but the rails appear to be installed differenty. The one on the left appears integrated into the lower receiver, whereas the one on the right appears tacked on. Or it could just be an optical illusion.



Aftermarket foregrip and upper.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

The weapons they have have to be either stowed on their person in their gear or inside a survival kit located under the seat. Now I don’t know the size of the Russian or Chinese seats. I imagine that there seats are the same size and that they wouldn’t be much bigger than the 16”x14”x3.5” of the US models. And that is a problem.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

None of the current Chinese SMG’s would fit that package.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

TerraN_EmpirE said:

HK MP7A1 might just fit.

Click to expand...

I have to make a partial retraction. I was using a reference to look up and compare the sizes of a number of Chinese SMGs however the source I was using missed something. The Chen Fang 05 series SMG listed by the source I was using gave the extended stock length but didn’t give one for the retracted length. In retracted form it’s just a little shorter than the MP7A1. Thought both are about a third of an inch to long to fit the 16” If the stocks were removed they would likely fit but would be difficult to control when firing.

A bit of history. QBZ-95 was developed from the winner of a competition to determine PLA's new service rifle. These are the entrants.

Still looks a lot like the Brazilian LAPA 03.

Another image of the now familiar aftermarket upper, except this one is the carbine version.

(1440 × 1080)

by78 said:

Another image of the now familiar aftermarket upper, except this one is the carbine version.

(1440 × 1080)

Click to expand...

No hard feelings, but that upper looks plasticky and absolutely horrendous. The scope is way too far off the barrel axis (whats the point of the massive carrying handle anyways?).

My 2 cents, we should have just stuck with the old Type 56 AK, with updated furniture and a side rail for optics. The AK looks way more badass and the good old 7.62x39 is a heavy hitter compared to the small bore 5.56. AK's have a good reputation for reliability as well.

Small arms in general aren't super decisive weapons in modern warfare, we could have spent the money on jet engines, missiles, etc. instead of making newer rifles that don't really improve capabilities all that much.

by78 said:

Another image of the now familiar aftermarket upper, except this one is the carbine version.

(1440 × 1080)

Click to expand...

The Upper looks like 3D printed.

free_6ix9ine said:

No hard feelings, but that upper looks plasticky and absolutely horrendous.

Click to expand...

I agree with that to an extent. The Defender Longbow carrying handle replacement has always seemed pretty fragile to me, and the one in that particular image seems to have a poor finish. Keep in mind though that it was designed from the beginning to be a very lightweight, easily mass produced "plug and play" mounting solution for the QBZ95/-1.

free_6ix9ine said:

The scope is way too far off the barrel axis (whats the point of the massive carrying handle anyways?).

Click to expand...

Height over bore for attached optics was a design oversight complicated by the fact that the rear sight post is directly attached to the barrel. The carrying handle is there for the same reason as many other rifles of its era. Maybe try researching a bit before giving your 2 cents?

free_6ix9ine said:

My 2 cents, we should have just stuck with the old Type 56 AK, with updated furniture and a side rail for optics. The AK looks way more badass and the good old 7.62x39 is a heavy hitter compared to the small bore 5.56.

Click to expand...

PLA could have saved some trouble in the long run by choosing a conventional rifle instead of a bullpup, but there's a reason why they, along with most other militaries, phased out "good old heavy hitters" for SCHV cartridges like 5.56/5.45/5.8
In comparison to 7.62x39 the 5.8:
-is lighter in weight
-has significantly superior external ballistics (muzzle velocity, wind/drop, maximum point blank range etc.)
-has less recoil
-when comparing the general purpose cartridges, offers little to no decrease in wounding capability and better effectiveness against personal armor

The main mistake the PLA made with 5.8 was the "9 weapons 1 round" concept that led to them trying to use it to replace 7.62x54R, though they might also be fixing that soon, if rumors are to be believed.

free_6ix9ine said:

AK's have a good reputation for reliability as well.

Click to expand...

And that's mainly just reputation. It excels in a lot conditions, but will notably fail in mud as a result of its loose tolerances being unable to provide a proper seal.

free_6ix9ine said:

Small arms in general aren't super decisive weapons in modern warfare, we could have spent the money on jet engines, missiles, etc.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what the PLA has been doing. You obviously haven't been paying much attention.

free_6ix9ine said:

instead of making newer rifles that don't really improve capabilities all that much.

Click to expand...

Yes of course! Why even bother with the current bare minimum? PLA should just take their Type-56 SKS out of storage and just run around with those

free_6ix9ine said:

No hard feelings, but that upper looks plasticky and absolutely horrendous. The scope is way too far off the barrel axis (whats the point of the massive carrying handle anyways?).

My 2 cents, we should have just stuck with the old Type 56 AK, with updated furniture and a side rail for optics. The AK looks way more badass and the good old 7.62x39 is a heavy hitter compared to the small bore 5.56. AK's have a good reputation for reliability as well.

Small arms in general aren't super decisive weapons in modern warfare, we could have spent the money on jet engines, missiles, etc. instead of making newer rifles that don't really improve capabilities all that much.

Click to expand...

First, “Plastic” reduces weight and cost of materials. Most Bullpup rifles are made with some form of Polymer shell. And don’t confuse that polymer which is a higher grade more heat resistant with the cheap plastic used for making bags and bottles.
The scope is high off the bore but that’s is because the design was done before Optics became the norm. The raised carry Handle style was common in the 60s-70s-80s design period. The QBZ95 series on some ways is a hold over from that time. But not unique in that issue.

on your 2 cents. First the Type 56 had already been in phase out as early as the 1980s with the type 81. That rifle combined the AK and SKS operations. The problem with the AK is it’s a product of its time. It was designed with a over gassed long stroke piston that means increased recoil. It’s receiver assembly is full of gaps meaning debris can easily enter and Gun up the works. it was designed more for close quarters as a heavy SMG this can be seen in the rear sight, fact that when switched from fire to safe the selectors first position is full auto. the whole rifle It’s heavier than it needs to be 8.6 pounds of AK vs 7.7 pounds of QBZ03.
It’s 7.62x39mm is theoretically heavier hitting but was optimized more to closer combat ranges. It’s fine for barrier penetration like trees and wood but poor for armor. That round is part of the weight issue to. Where the 5.56x45, 5.45x39mm and 5.8x42mm were designed to offer increased infantry soldier capacity of ammo, softer recoil for more control and frankly although poorer vs trees are more than enough vs people. It also offers improved range.

1. 
   Ah yes this point and it is a valid point to a degree. Artillery, Tanks and such are more effective in battle but here is what you are missing, difference in cost of small arms is nil.Type 56 modernization cost vs QBZ95 or QBZ191 would likely be 1-1 at worst. At best you might even see cost savings vs the Type 56. As the older weapon requires more steel and heavier materials that can be off set to other uses. Modern rifles post AR15 shifted to use less steel and cheaper albeit higher end Aluminum and polymers. QBZ95 was noted for like G36 being heavy polymer construction. That means a price reduction. *
2. Although in the grand scheme of things the difference is almost negligible. For the infantry there is a difference. The smaller caliber higher velocity round offers increased range and ammunition carry. The weapon is lighter in weight these change the infantrymen’s endurance. They can operate longer with less issues. Be more effective when engaging enemy infantry by having longer ranges and are more likely to hit the targets fired at
3. Although the small arms themselves haven’t changed that much, they have increasingly been used as host for other mission enabling technologies. In particular Night vision systems for infantry. This shifted infantry combat from a primarily day attack with limited night attack to a Day and night arm. Optimizing for this requires first adding the NV system to the infantry then allowing the soldier to use the NOD and weapon together. The Type 56 pro generator the SKS and AK47 were designed in the last days of the Second World War when you needed an active IR projector and receiver system for Night vision and the NVG was about the size of a coffee maker and weight of 5 pounds. It was Built onto the rifles that used it. Later The Russian AK series got something of this capability in the AKN series the N adding a Dragonov style rail to the rifle’s side This was combined with reduced weight NV systems but it was far from perfect. The PLA was at that point frozen out of Soviet systems. So PLA infantry used head mounted NVGS rather bulky with one major problem. Fine for navigation it’s almost impossible to use iron sights with. That’s part of the reason the US and Europe moved to optics and rifle mounted NV systems But optics mean a rail system. The Dragonov rail system is fine for NVG or a day sight but not both. As it’s one or the other. And fighting in day and night now requires different training regimes. As the rifle operates totally differently in day with irons vs night with a NVS and in day the NVS taking up weight in your gear. The M1913 rail allows you to have a reflex optic and night vision sight cowitness. This means using one to augment the other. You still have to stow the NV system in day. but day or night the rifle has its sight and training between the two is identical.