Type 95 Assault Rifle II

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Pointblank said:

I would have designed the weapon so that the ejection port faces downwards, or have added a brass deflector (simple modification). I would have furthermore designed the controls to be fully ambidextrous.

Having a weapon that can be used from both shoulders immediately is extremely useful in combat conditions. It allows shooters to better take advantage of cover so that they don't expose themselves more than necessary.

Click to expand...

Is it possible to give it a rotatable cover for the two ejection ports (the chamber), connected to the charging handle which can be charged from the right, or rotated and charged from the left, or left in the middle, just like in a bolt action rifle?
------
The XM29 is not even in the same league as any rifle in service. It is technologically way more advanced, but prohibitively expensive, than almost all if not all rifle in the world. Sure it 'll beat the Type 95 but it's not like you can afford it-to break.

Even if you want to shoot around corners, you could easily switch your legs to shoot from either corner without having to reposition your rifle as you move it from shoulder to shoulder.

Click to expand...

Wah?

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Infra_Man99 said:

What I know about shooting from corners (if there are no armored vehicles or air support, just you and fellow "foot soldiers"):

1. Use a mirror or camera to look around the corner. Locate the sniper and get your teammates to sneak up on the sniper. This sniper can be an enemy sniper or some enemy trying to snipe your team with an assault rifle.

2. If in a closed area, toss grenades around the corner. After the explosions, your team rushes in and everyone should know how to cooperatively "clear" the room.

3. Stick your gun around the corner and fire like a blind madman.

4. Slightly reveal yourself from the corner and try to out-snipe the sniper.


From the videos, articles, and books I have read:

Options 1 and 2 are good. Options 3 and 4 have a very low rate of success. Conclusion: Do NOT move your rifle from shoulder to shoulder as you move from corner to corner, trying to out-shoot sniping enemies. It is VERY RISKY.

Thus, bull-pup assault rifles do not have a critical flaw in how they usually cannot be fired from the left shoulder. It would be interesting to design a bull-pup that expels bullets downward or that can be switched to expel bullets either left or right. However, it would increase the cost of the rifle. This increased cost better be worth it for armies on a tight budget (like the PLA). As far as I am concerned, it doesn't seem to be worth it. Again I ask, how many lefties are in the military and how many of them are unable to learn how to shoot from the right shoulder?

Keep in mind that bull-pup rifles fit around corners, crowded areas, and tight areas much better than conventional rifles.

Can someone EXPLAIN to me why it is a GOOD idea to stand at corners, switch your rifle from shoulder to shoulder depending the corner you're at, and try to out-duel your enemies? Why pull off such a risky technique?

Even if you want to shoot around corners, you could easily switch your legs to shoot from either corner without having to reposition your rifle as you move it from shoulder to shoulder.

Click to expand...

Pointblank's making good sense. If an infantryman armed with a Bullpup is using a tree to avoid the enemy's sight, he can fire to his right while remaining under cover; but using the same Bullpup, he has to completely expose himself when firing to the left of the tree, thus losing the cover provided by the tree entirely. Cover is necessary to minimize being seen by the enemy. This is not a problem with many conventional rifles that have modifications to the ejection port in order to prevent the brass from striking the firer when firing left-handed. And on patrol, every second man must carry his weapon in his left shoulder, ready to react to contact or an ambush to the left, just as every second man has his weapon in his right shoulder to deal with such threats to the right.

Bullpups, with their ejection ports so far back on the weapon, make this quite impractical; when shooting from the left, the firer ends up eating his own hot brass casings. The Bullpup is a flawed concept in practice; whatever advantages it may offer in theory are mostly outweighed by their disadvantages in the field.

Some Bullpups have tool kits that allow the ejection port to be changed in the field from right to left: but this takes several minutes, so is not a practical option during operations.

I think 6 months of a basic infantry syllabus followed by a few years in the infantry would be rather more instructive than myriad books, manuals, videos, etc. A lot of civilian publications are trash, and some military publications are either dated or based on civilian SWAT-Team stacks that are not a good way to go about CQB in a low-intensity war; they are death trains in high-intensity war. There is still a lot of "peacetime doctrine" out there, stuff that's been developed without the benefit of major high-intensity war experience, or it is stuff that is oriented to the very specific, and very different, demands of policing or counter-terrorism; avoid it.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

When firing behind a tree or corner of a building:

Situation #1. If the tree/corner is on your left side, put the rifle on your right shoulder, walk with your left foot leading, go up to the tree/corner, and aim. If you lean forward a little bit and if your enemy is lined up with you, the enemy should only be able to see your head, right shoulder, arms, and rifle. If you do not lean forward a little, you reveal more of yourself.

Situation #2. If the tree/corner is on your right side, put the rifle on your right shoulder, you can walk with your left foot leading OR walk with your right leg leading to help (but not completely) cover up your body's left side. Watch some military videos, you'll see what I mean. Not over-stylish Hollywood movies, but documentaries and educational videos.

Even with with rifle on your right shoulder, you could still aim from that corner on your right side, without COMPLETELY exposing yourself. You will be more exposed than Situation #1, but you will not be completely exposed. You view will be be less than Situation #1.

I really doubt bull-pups would make it BAD to shoot from corners on your right side when compared to conventional rifles. It would be less capable, but you could still do it. However, with a bull-pup rifle, your gun is smaller and fits around tight spaces or crowded areas MUCH better than conventional rifles, without a decrease in its accuracy. Many armies around the world are using bull-pup rifles.

Military videos of soldiers practicing and training shows soldiers firing from their right shoulder when a corner is on either side when they go from room to room or move around a forest.

If you REALLY want to snipe:

1. US military snipers are only taught to fire from the right shoulder (from what I have read and seen). Some rifles can be modified to shoot from the left shoulder (like having a semi-automatic loader or customizing a left-side bolt action rifle), but as far as I know, most lefties are instructed to get use to shooting from the right shoulder. Train, train, train, train, train a lot. That's what snipers do.

2. You snipe laying down. Sometimes you snipe sitting down, and lastly, standing up. Most of the time, you lay down, stabilize yourself (super important), and wait minutes/hours/days for a good shot. You lay as still as possible and keep any motion, even arm motions, to a minimum.

You actually want to avoid sniping next to a tree. It blocks your view. If you stand up and use the tree as cover and support, you are still more exposed than if you lie down, and you have worst aim standing up than if you aim lying down. It is also much more tiring to snipe standing up than lying down. If you are tired, your aim is screwed.

Now, what happens if someone is right-handed, but left-eye dominant? Or left-handed, but right-eye dominant? You just tough it out, and train, train, train to shoot from the right side or you customize your rifle (but this seems rare).

Are there any real snipers out there to prove that I am an idiot or well-read civilian? If I am an idiot, I am willing to learn. This is what this forum is for.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

The point to shooting from the left shoulder rather than moving out a bit in order to shoot from the right shoulder is to remain behind cover, thus remaining unseen, to the enemy. By firing from the left shoulder, little of your profile is revealed to the enemy; by firing from the right shoulder, your entire torso is exposed to enemy view, even if momentarily. A single snap-shot/double-tap by an enemy rifleman will finish you off. Any Bullpup design, including the Type 95, places its user in this situation.



This little tactical tidbit from the Bush War gives a quick idea of the opportunity that shooting form the wrong shoulder can offer to your enemy:

Quote:

14) The indigenous people of southern Africa are forced by culture to be right handed. They will be "viewed" on the left hand side of trees and other solid objects if they are shooting around them.

-Unquote

Snipers are not used for Close Quarter Battle; that is the job of Riflemen. Sniper rifles are unnecessary for dealing with enemy gunmen at relatively close ranges; assault rifles and carbines are much more efficient and easier to handle.

Forget the military videos; as I said in a previous post, most of them are based on untested "Peacetime Doctrine" and civilian police SWAT-type tactics and the like. Ignore them.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Conventional rifles do shoot better around corners on your right side than bullpup rifles. The question is, are bullpup rifles inadequate for shooting on corners on soldiers' right side?

I read that report on South African soldiers. They had poor technique in almost everything they did. They were also poor in training, equipment, and most other things. I don't think this is a fair comparison. These soldiers probably did not know how to properly shoot in a kneeling or lying down position.

There are lots of conflicting reports and arguments for and against bullpup rifles. These are the nations that use bullpup rifles or are switching to bullpup rifles over conventional rifles. See the below list.

Many other nations have shown interest in bullpup rifles or buy bullpup rifles for their special forces units.

-----------------------Bullpup Rifles by Nations-------------------
Nation: Rifle
Rifle length/barrel length (mm)
Weight, empty (kg)
Notes

Austria: Steyr AUG
805/508
3.8
Bullpup can be customized for lefties. Once customized, it cannot be switched and cannot be fired from the right shoulder.

Belgium: FN F2000
694/400
3.6
Bullpup is fully ambidextrous; ejection port is located on the front, right side of the rifle. Expensive and complex rifle.

China: QBZ-95
760/520
3.4
Bullpup can only be fired from right shoulder.

China: Type 56
874/414
3.8
This is a conventional and old rifle, but I listed it for comparison.

France: FAMAS
720/460
2.8
Bullpup can be switched for lefties and righties, but switching requires partial disassembly.

Israel: Tavor TAR-24
720/460
2.8
Israel has been slow to adopt this rifle for various reasons (too expensive, unreliable, uncomfortable, etc.)

Singapore: SAR-21
805/508
3.82
Singapore claims this bullpup has an expulsion port with a guard so that lefties can use this rifle. Singapore still only trains its users to shoot from the right shoulder.

Britain: SA80
780/518
4.13
Different types, later variants can be customized for lefties or partially disassembled for lefties, though this is rare.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Conventional Rifles:

USA: M16A1..........M16 Carbine.....................M4 Carbine
986/508...............680 to 762/292.................757 to 838/370
2.89....................2.44................................2.52
Both carbines have adjustable butts.


USA: XM8 (Experimental Rifle)
838/318
2.59

USA: XM29 (Experimental Rifle)
This rifle has been canceled, because it is too expensive, too complex/unreliable in rugged environments, too heavy, and too big. However, the US military is learning from the failures of this advanced rifle to design a better one for the future.

Russia: AK-47.......AK-74
870/415...............943/415
4.3.....................3.3

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Why would these nations use bullpups if they are critically flawed around right corners? How does it matter if you shoot from corners in a kneeling or lying down position as oppose to shoot standing up? Do the benefits of bullpup rifles outweigh the drawbacks?

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

I must to mention that the two countries with most combat experience are the USA and USSR/Russia.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

How does Russia have the most combat experience? Even then, Russian infantry did not do well in Afghanistan. Their infantry did not do well in Chechnya (sp?). This is true despite the fact that Russia had a lot more tanks, artillery, aircraft, and other equipment.

In my opinion, US infantry performs poorly without having a very large advantage in equipment and technology (tanks, artillery, aircraft, ships, and so forth). US infantry has been critically dependent on this large advantage to fight in the Korean War, Vietnam War, skirmishes in Latin America and Africa, and in today's Iraqi/Aghan War.

In the first Iraqi War (the early 1990s under Bush Senior), US infantry played tertiary role after air power (by far the biggest factor in the first Iraqi War) and armored vehicles.

Yes, US military data shows that the US military has a high rate of killing enemy combatants and a low rate of losing its own soldiers, but in all these battles, the US military had a VERY large advantage in tanks, artillery, aircraft, and so forth. When the US infantry did not have this large advantage, the US infantry performed poorly or had to completely retreat until they got this large advantage.

Israel brags that its infantry is the best in the world, but military reports constantly shows how Israeli infantry runs for cover whenever they face any type of enemy ground fire. Then the infantry depends on superior armored vehicles and aircraft to defeat the enemy ground fire.

There is nothing wrong with this large advantage, but it doesn't say a lot about infantry ability, and since this message board is about the QBZ-95 bullpup assault rifle, let us focus on infantry small arms and leave out armored support, air support, and other type of support as much as possible.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

I sustain my statement regarding the two countries with most combat experience. Secondly if I should choose between QBZ95 and QBZ03 I will choose the last one.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Infra_Man99 said:

Conventional rifles do shoot better around corners on your right side than bullpup rifles. The question is, are bullpup rifles inadequate for shooting on corners on soldiers' right side?

I read that report on South African soldiers. They had poor technique in almost everything they did. They were also poor in training, equipment, and most other things. I don't think this is a fair comparison. These soldiers probably did not know how to properly shoot in a kneeling or lying down position.

There are lots of conflicting reports and arguments for and against bullpup rifles. These are the nations that use bullpup rifles or are switching to bullpup rifles over conventional rifles. See the below list.

Many other nations have shown interest in bullpup rifles or buy bullpup rifles for their special forces units.

-----------------------Bullpup Rifles by Nations-------------------
Nation: Rifle
Rifle length/barrel length (mm)
Weight, empty (kg)
Notes

Austria: Steyr AUG
805/508
3.8
Bullpup can be customized for lefties. Once customized, it cannot be switched and cannot be fired from the right shoulder.

Belgium: FN F2000
694/400
3.6
Bullpup is fully ambidextrous; ejection port is located on the front, right side of the rifle. Expensive and complex rifle.

China: QBZ-95
760/520
3.4
Bullpup can only be fired from right shoulder.

China: Type 56
874/414
3.8
This is a conventional and old rifle, but I listed it for comparison.

France: FAMAS
720/460
2.8
Bullpup can be switched for lefties and righties, but switching requires partial disassembly.

Israel: Tavor TAR-24
720/460
2.8
Israel has been slow to adopt this rifle for various reasons (too expensive, unreliable, uncomfortable, etc.)

Singapore: SAR-21
805/508
3.82
Singapore claims this bullpup has an expulsion port with a guard so that lefties can use this rifle. Singapore still only trains its users to shoot from the right shoulder.

Britain: SA80
780/518
4.13
Different types, later variants can be customized for lefties or partially disassembled for lefties, though this is rare.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Conventional Rifles:

USA: M16A1..........M16 Carbine.....................M4 Carbine
986/508...............680 to 762/292.................757 to 838/370
2.89....................2.44................................2.52
Both carbines have adjustable butts.


USA: XM8 (Experimental Rifle)
838/318
2.59

USA: XM29 (Experimental Rifle)
This rifle has been canceled, because it is too expensive, too complex/unreliable in rugged environments, too heavy, and too big. However, the US military is learning from the failures of this advanced rifle to design a better one for the future.

Russia: AK-47.......AK-74
870/415...............943/415
4.3.....................3.3

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Why would these nations use bullpups if they are critically flawed around right corners? How does it matter if you shoot from corners in a kneeling or lying down position as oppose to shoot standing up? Do the benefits of bullpup rifles outweigh the drawbacks?

Click to expand...

First off, I'm not certain from the wording of your second paragraph whether you are referring to the poor technique of the guerrillas (which is true) or to the Rhodesian soldiers (these men were highly-trained professionals - and the piece on Drake Shooting is the subject of positive discussion amongst other highly trained professionals).

As to your first paragraph, yes, Bullpups are almost invariable inadequate for shooting behind cover to whatever side the ejection port is on (sually the right). Many Bullpup designs have been the subject of much disappointment and frustration, even loathing, amongst the armies that have recieved them. The British SA-80 (L-85) is the best example of this. The Type 95 has also met with no small amount of complaints from its users. The Bullpup is the result of fuzzy peacetime thinking, especially by desk-bound types; field types almost invariably would reject such designs as the SA-80 and Type 95 out of hand immediately. But it's the desk-drivers, not the field types, who have the most say when it comes to procurement.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

China's infantry after World War II:

1. Korean War
>> A minor skirmish against Indian infantry supported by Great Britain.
2. Two major infantry fights in Vietnam
3. Long-term infantry fights throughout the Himalayas and Western China (many of these rebels were aided by the US and Western Europe)
4. Arming and training the Afghan guerrilla fighters against Russia (China was secretly working with the US on this)

This is all before the 1990s. Chinese infantry has more experience than any other nation's infantry except America (and areas that are perpetually at war: mostly Africa and the Middle East).

Chinese infantry fought incredibly well in all these wars considering that they fought without many or major armored vehicles, aircraft, ships, and other equipment, and they were not familiar with the terrain.

I think China knows INFANTRY fighting.

The British SA80's common complaint wasn't that it could not be fired from the left shoulder, but that its handle, trigger, and butt was not ergonomic. Common complaints also said the gun's weight was poorly distributed, and the gun kicked back too uncontrollably.

The Steyr AUG has some common complaints, none of which involve the lack of left-shoulder shooting. A FEW infantry have complained that the gun's handle and trigger is not ergonomic and the gun overheats too easily.

The Singapore SAR was said to have iron sights that are easily scratched, but Singapore fixed this.

I will admit that the desk types can interfere with those with practical experience, because the desk types think statistics and logic can replace REAL LIFE experience, when the fact of the matter is that statistics and logic should only be used to supplement REAL LIFE experience, NOT replace it. Maybe China and the other bullpup nations have it very wrong. All these bulllpup nations have never fought a major battle with these bullpup rifles.