TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
the type of conflict being faught also dictated nva arms. insergents cannot depend on long logisics lines, As US forces are very adapt at cutting them.
QBZ-03 Assault Rifle
- Thread starter Maphisto86
- Start date
Red___Sword
Junior Member
It shows you know nothing about PLA doctrine, that's one of the two the main reasons why PLA move to 5.8 .. I won't tell you the first one which is extremely important... the second reason is the performance of 5.8 is better than the Russian and the NATO ones
Hahaha, man, not this topic again!
To those till now don't have an idea:
PLA's design of 5.8mm gun chamber - is having the ability, at the most inconvenient times, fire 5.56mm rounds. - yet the enemy can not using 5.8mm rounds they found.
Type 95, 03... they can safely fire 5.56 rounds with a don't-bother-mention accuracy.... but hey, you are still firing.
Another thing is: Type 81 has NOT been replaced, QBZ-03 is just an ADD to the inventory. In the hands of old dog PLA soldiers, Type 81 shoot more accurate than AK, and have a bigger punch than M-16 - it just can't afford to be "REPLACED".
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Good luck Firing a 7.62x39 down a 5.56mm barrel It will fail too chamber at best at worst self destruct.
converting the clambering of a assault rifle is not so easy as loading a a new round. In the case of Some revolvers you would be correct they make clips that allow .45acp too fire from .45 long colt cylinders and .357 mags too fire 9mm, that's true but in the case of a semi or Automatic the Changes are larger requiring a new barrel, bolt or at least bolt face, in some cases reworking of the gas system too function with the new pressures, at least modification too the magazine too feed the new rounds in some cases a whole new magazine and well too chamber longer rounds.
As for bigger punch then M16... the type 81 Has a muzzle Velocity of 720 meters per second from a 445 mm barrel A M16 produces 948 meters per second from a 508 mm.
Yeah Watch your comparisons.
converting the clambering of a assault rifle is not so easy as loading a a new round. In the case of Some revolvers you would be correct they make clips that allow .45acp too fire from .45 long colt cylinders and .357 mags too fire 9mm, that's true but in the case of a semi or Automatic the Changes are larger requiring a new barrel, bolt or at least bolt face, in some cases reworking of the gas system too function with the new pressures, at least modification too the magazine too feed the new rounds in some cases a whole new magazine and well too chamber longer rounds.
As for bigger punch then M16... the type 81 Has a muzzle Velocity of 720 meters per second from a 445 mm barrel A M16 produces 948 meters per second from a 508 mm.
Yeah Watch your comparisons.
Geographer
Junior Member
TerraN_EmpirE, Red_Sword is saying rifles chambered for 5.8mm might be able to shoot 5.56mm NATO ammunition at reduced accuracy and power, not 7.62. It's like how Chinese mortars are a few millimeters wider than NATO mortars so that the Chinese can used captured NATO mortar rounds but not the other way around.
That was a clever idea back in the 1950s but China's industrial base is so far advanced that it is never going to run out of ammunition in even the largest scale conflict. Nor is it going to be fighting a defense, guerrilla style war. Weaponry decisions today should be based on the ideal round size and nothing more.
That was a clever idea back in the 1950s but China's industrial base is so far advanced that it is never going to run out of ammunition in even the largest scale conflict. Nor is it going to be fighting a defense, guerrilla style war. Weaponry decisions today should be based on the ideal round size and nothing more.
MwRYum
Major
Back when Type 81 was made it's slated as an intermediate solution - to replace the old Type 56 / AK-47 - while wait for the slated 5.8mm to be perfected and rifles that're designed for it...why it waited so long were because of Chinese own economic and technological restrictions at that time.
Red___Sword
Junior Member
Mind I emphasis that 03 uses 5.8mm rounds while 81 uses 7.62mm rounds?
Introducing of 03, it is not a replacement to 81, it is add to inventory (for whatever reason).
No offence, more punch means more stopping power? - one more footnote why 81 is not "replaced".
Introducing of 03, it is not a replacement to 81, it is add to inventory (for whatever reason).
No offence, more punch means more stopping power? - one more footnote why 81 is not "replaced".
MwRYum
Major
What aided the comeback of 7.62mm NATO is more due to the already available designs such as M14, but for M43 they don't - AK-47 and all its derivatives never designed for that level of accuracy, but firepower and acceptable accuracy up to 300M.
Type 81 suffers the same fate but that's the fault of the gene so to speak.
As for QBZ03, it is a backup solution should the PLA finds the QBZ95 too radical-there's still elements consider bullpup design too radical, but then again such argument exists everywhere else, even in those countries that has been using bullpup rifles for years.
Type 81 suffers the same fate but that's the fault of the gene so to speak.
As for QBZ03, it is a backup solution should the PLA finds the QBZ95 too radical-there's still elements consider bullpup design too radical, but then again such argument exists everywhere else, even in those countries that has been using bullpup rifles for years.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
oops my bad I was thinking the Type 87 Variant which uses the 5.8mm Your Right I am wrong.
sidewinder01
Junior Member
I found type-03 easier to aim than 95 the only time I shoot 2 months ago. However, I think my colt m4 is more accurate? Maybe its because of the difference in the quality of ammo. I got a 3.0moaish iron sight compare to my 2.5moa with colt.