PLA Small arms
- Thread starter Vanguard1688
- Start date
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Right. Today we have outsourced and an internal Industry for both optics and accessories.
that emerged post 2010. It seems that by then the Brass of the PLA was starting to accept that optics weren’t just for asymmetrical conflict. That all seems to start about 2010. But it takes a while to move from thinking to action.
Father you have more success in the Soldier digitization realm. I mean pre 2007 they were all based on either laptop computers or trying to pack mount a PC tower.
The problem seems daunting and some had even tried to basically develop a work around by OICW types, rifles that if they could get the weight and other issues solved would be a drop in Digital soldier system.
Once the IPhone launched military digital got a huge shot in the arm as now you can pocket carry a computer. By 2010 you have indigenous Chinese tablets online and more and more sophisticated products. These probably lead the PLA brass in charge to ask if upgraded QBZ95 and a limited number of gold plated QST11 actually had the value.
By 2012 They seem to have answered no. Leads us to today. They seem to have concluded that the Rail system is an absolute need and that the M4’s pattern was the right solution. A monolithic rail at the 90* with provisions for additional mounts at the 180*,45* and -90* an adjustable Length of pull stock, a barrel length of less than 16 inches on a conventional rifle configuration.
The Russians to did the same with AK12 for their Ratnik system.
that emerged post 2010. It seems that by then the Brass of the PLA was starting to accept that optics weren’t just for asymmetrical conflict. That all seems to start about 2010. But it takes a while to move from thinking to action.
Father you have more success in the Soldier digitization realm. I mean pre 2007 they were all based on either laptop computers or trying to pack mount a PC tower.
The problem seems daunting and some had even tried to basically develop a work around by OICW types, rifles that if they could get the weight and other issues solved would be a drop in Digital soldier system.
Once the IPhone launched military digital got a huge shot in the arm as now you can pocket carry a computer. By 2010 you have indigenous Chinese tablets online and more and more sophisticated products. These probably lead the PLA brass in charge to ask if upgraded QBZ95 and a limited number of gold plated QST11 actually had the value.
By 2012 They seem to have answered no. Leads us to today. They seem to have concluded that the Rail system is an absolute need and that the M4’s pattern was the right solution. A monolithic rail at the 90* with provisions for additional mounts at the 180*,45* and -90* an adjustable Length of pull stock, a barrel length of less than 16 inches on a conventional rifle configuration.
The Russians to did the same with AK12 for their Ratnik system.
You got to remember that optics and other attachments aren’t the only things a military looks for. Things like ergonomics, reliability, and mechanical function are equally as important as attachments.
QBZ-95 is designed for reliability from the start. Ergonomics is better after the safety got moved.
Stuff like adjustable stock, reloading, prone shooting, ambidextrous, buffer tube or trigger position all have to do with bullpup vs conventional.
I should have also addressed the question at hand in my original post: I would say that the “bullpup vs conventional” argument was most likely taken into consideration by the brass. Those trade offs are extremely important and can determine one’s effectiveness in combat.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
All military firearms are designed for reliability.
To a degree yes it was.
VHS2 is a Bullpup that has an adjustable LOP, Reloads on Tavor are made faster by having a magazine release in a position closer to that on the AR15, Probe shooting is actually an issue more to do with the size of the magazine if that was an issue that was deemed a major problem then we should de seeing a lot of Top loaders, a number of Bullpup rifles have fairly good ergonomics even for sinisterly handed. F2000 for example.
The only buffer tube I can think of on a Bullpup was on an Iranian conversion of an AR15. Trigger position is the defining characteristic of a Bullpup system. Though truth be told it’s an extension of the trigger mechanism to in essence a duplicate. The Trigger pack on all Bullpup is located under the receiver behind the magazine just like on a conventional rifle, it’s jut that a set of arms then extend around the magazine connecting to the trigger your finger is in contact with. This can decrease reliability if not properly implemented as you have a bit of a mini Rub Goldberg device.
This private training company not only provided training classes to PAP or PLA, but also classes towards military enthusiasts and private security contractors working in abroad as well. So they don't even have to be actually working in the line of LEO or military to enrol classes. (The instructor stated on Weibo that they would use some improvised DIY equipments for military enthusiasts just to have fun, while getting to use the cutting-edge real deals to the SF guys in PAP and PLA)
Inspect closely to what units have swapped to 191. All of them are either airborne or SF units, units that are small enough to change their training manuals from get go without too much hassles. We are still going to see majority 95-equipped PLA, PAP for a long time, believe me.
That is true infact one of the swat units are instructing PAP the same kinda people who have been visiting ronin for advices on tactics.