I think China should just skip projectile firearms in favor of handheld ray guns, because domestic terrorists could become better armed than USSOCOM soldiers. While they are at it, tag on exoskeletons lined with SiC plates, powered by a micro fusion reactor. Why not? Or, the PAP could plan realistically, seeing that China is long ways away from the American gun-nut culture, where everybody who can pass a simple background check can get his hands on assault weapons and body armor. We are talking about China here, where gun ownership is ultra, ultra, ultra low, and where aspiring terrorists are more often armed with machetes and flintlocks than with AK-47s and RPG-7s. So why the overkill? What kind of return will that new assault rifle complex give the PAP? Why swat a fly with a bundle of dynamite?
Your entire premise in this is just stupid. Procuring new rifles for some that allow for the use of optics without an absolutely retarded height over bore that drastically over complicates landing accurate shots on target is really that overkill to you? This is less trading a flyswatter for dynamite, but rather trading a crooked flyswatter for a straight one.
You have twisted my position to something that it's not so I'm going to restate it right here: The QBZ95 configurations seen being used by the PAP special police in your original post are impractical and unergonomic due to limitations inherent to the rifle's base design. As a result, they would be better off using the new rifle in place of it.
The fact the PAP added some aftermarket accessories to improve ergonomics doesn't prove or imply the entire QBZ-95 complex is obsolete or unsuitable for CQB situations. Quite the contrary, it only implies that the said accessories solve the ergonomic problems to extend the service life and usefulness of the platform. After all, AK-47s have gone through many aftermarket modifications, but that doesn't mean end users are doing so because they desperately want to replace their AKs but are unable to for whatever reasons. Do you not find it absurd to spend gobs of money to replace a compact bullpup ideal for CQB in favor of a platform that decreases a shooter's maneuverability while not offering much tangible benefit in terms of firepower, seeing that both platforms fire the 5.8mm? Again, money doesn't grow on trees.
Are you blind? Look closely at the pictures. With the configuration that they have, that's a whole lot of unnecessary weight and bulk just to mount a 3x and red dot. Nowhere have I argued or implied it was obsolete, but when a rifle reaches that level of diminishing return
to mount just a 3x and red dot, then by current standards (2020 if you need a reminder,) it's obsolescent. In fact, I'd argue they'd be better off retaining the "shooters maneuverability" as you call it, and just run it without the optics and point shoot at close range. Which is precisely my point- if they're going to run the optics shown, they're better off with the new rifle.
And no, it wouldn't cost "globs of money" to replace for the small numbers of elite units.
First let me get something out of the way.
I never said the PAP is above putting out 'cool' promo videos to make themselves look 'cool', whatever 'cool' means or should mean.
That's precisely what you said, and you brought the whole thing up. You're backtracking now.
The PAP and the PLA are not cosplay or airsoft leagues tasked with looking cool to please fanboys.
My point was that PAP isn't just about 'cool'. Put it another way, it has a real job to do, has a real budget to work with, and real threats to counter. PAP has no obligation to look cool beyond the promo video, because it's not a cosplay fanboy organization.
So we agree that in specific situations (namely the PR images and videos, which consists of the majority of what we see of them) they do try to "look cool." Let me clarify. My concern with them is not about them not "looking cool." It's that the way their rifles are set up is impractical
and they do look like a "cosplay fanboy organization" in the pictures. At this point, whatever budget they've spent on the optics, they've wasted some of it by not being able to take full advantage of them.
That is not a fact. It's merely your opinion, and almost certainly incorrect. QBZ191, with all her accessories (optics, PTT, etc.) likely costs far more than simply putting a new upper and an optic on an already-paid-for-and-amortized QBZ95. I'm certain of that.
I'll concede the point of cost, given that we do not currently know the price per unit for the QBZ191 and its accessories. However, it
is a fact that the QBZ191 competed against an offered conversion kit from ACP for the QBZ95-1, and won.
If China, with a GDP per capita of around $10,000 and many pressing areas in need of investment, were to spend vast sums to look 'cool' to fanboys, then China would deserve to be called out.
You sure are quick to call me a fanboy. Ironic, given that a fanboy would likely behave as you have. Quickly lashing out at any perceived insult to the PAP/PLA, rather than seeing faults for what they are.
Overall now, I do agree that aftermarket parts can help to extend the service life of the QBZ95. For an example, there doesnt seem to be too much issue, say, with a micro red dot mounted on something like Defender Longbow or ACP95. It's still a bit high, but the cheek weld is still alright.
However, there's a limit to the usefulness, and the examples in your original post go right past it.
I'll be happy to respond if you want to continue this discussion in a reasonable manner. Otherwise, I'll end it here.
