Type 95 Assault Rifle II

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

sumdud said:

That picture is contrary to the saying that a longer barrel is better for the .223....
And I don't get why it's against the Geneva Convention to use hollow points, but I would really not want to be hit by a frag-er....
Frag isn't counted as explode?

What's FMJ?

And M14? That uses the 7.62x51, how's that weak?

As for gas, comne to think of it, hot gases rise, so if your nose is on the left side of the rifle and the ejection port is on the right, how will it come through? Only gun I can think of with this from a visual stand point is the FAMAS.

What I don't get in the pictures is why the Russian and Nazi(? WW2German) would have a double bulge.

If you are wearing armour, you are in a way wearing an extra inch or two of blubber (Well, it's about the stuff that the bullet needs to go through.) then I would see how an M16 bullet would have more killing power when attacking an armoured target than an unarmoured one.

Click to expand...

Well the problem with the M14 wasant its power... the problem was its weight and the the rifle was good in single shoot but get pretty unacurate when firing in fully automatic besides its magazine only take 20rds, well the M16 is pretty good in all aspects ecept for reliability (not the A2 desing, u clean it once or twice at day and thats it) and penetration power... thats my
bigest complay as a soldier, but the majority of target we engage with the m16 have no body armour what so ever... in youtube.com u can see hou bad the m16 fails to penetrate two 4 by 4s, the AK47 success... but I dont think at all the single fact of penetration and off course... reliability counter the M16s high precision and faster (but less powerfull round) besides the AK is too heavy and the recoil is to bad... in the case of the QBZ-95s have better penetration than both riffles, is as reliable as the AK and sightly less acurate than the M16... Thats means to me that the QBZ-95 surpass even the M16 in terms of overrall performance, about the Geneva Convention not allow hollow points... im as clueless as you (or maybe more jeje)

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Well, I'd rather get hit by hollow points than frags....At least the bullet is in one piece outside me.

Anyways, Type 95 has what you said and may well be a better rifle overall than M-16. But I wonder how the troops will handle it in long range shooting. The lack of balance allows easy manuvering in close combat, but long range battles, this could bite in the shooter's accuracy. (Which unlike other countries, this gun comes with no sight standard.)

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

my impression of JHP was that it lacks range and accuracy and lack of penetration ability. many of the drilled bullets were normally used point blank for assassination, but upon reading wikipedia, i am not so sure. if anyone has experence shooting both FMJ & JHP, please let me know how it performs for long range and accuracy.

"Where target shooting accuracy is the prime consideration, some bullets such as the Sierra "Matchking" incorporate a cavity in the nose section. This has the effect of lightening the bullet's forward section and shifting the center of gravity towards the tail of the bullet, so as to give an improved ballistic coefficient, greater down-range velocity retention, and greater resistance to deflection by crosswinds. Match or target hollow-point bullets are designed for precision target use, and no consideration is given to their expansion or other terminal ballistic performance. The United States military, for example, uses hollow-point bullets in some sniper rifles for their exceptional accuracy at long ranges, and believes that the hollow point does not result in significantly different wounds than full metal jacket ammunition in practice"

as for Geneva Convention, its not a set of laws unless ratified. and even then, a country can ratify only parts of the document, and many countries are still violating the geneva convention. i personally dont like the sensationlism of media reporting violations of geneva convention like its a huge deal outside of PR.

edit: majority of fire fights takes place within 300metres, which is what the assault rifle was designed for. if there are problems with it going beyond that, i think the chinese would employ type 88 / type 95 LMG / type 03 / long range rockets like javalin / air strikes / art strikes / mortars are just a small list of options one can use, and it dosnt have to be so inflexible. or even mechanized forces with IFVs and tanks for ranged fighting. imho, light infantry shouldnt be in open terrain in most cases, and are worse off if they do not have initiative, agression and mobilty. open fields are the playground for metal toys like tanks and gunships.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

sumdud said:

Well, I'd rather get hit by hollow points than frags....At least the bullet is in one piece outside me.

Anyways, Type 95 has what you said and may well be a better rifle overall than M-16. But I wonder how the troops will handle it in long range shooting. The lack of balance allows easy manuvering in close combat, but long range battles, this could bite in the shooter's accuracy. (Which unlike other countries, this gun comes with no sight standard.)

Click to expand...

Well hollow points expand inside the victim's body... thats gotta hurt a lot so buddy Im not agree with die with a hollow point instead of a frag, Im more afraid of the pain more than the death jejeje... Maybe the geneva conventions dont allow hollow points cause hollow point cause unnesesary pain to the enemy... that's pretty evil if you ask my opinion, the term of enemy is relative so I don't see the point to make them suffer more than necesary.

About the QBZ-95 better than the M16... tha's what some websites say than the PLA soldiers say... Im a soldier too but from the U.S. Army... I can't talk about how good the QBZ-95 cause I never use it my self and im afraid I never will, probably if I do will be the QBZ-97 (scince is the export version with 5.56mm rds) I have to apologize when I was saying the QBZ-95 have better penetration than the AK-47... I should say the AK-74 scince they take russian 5.45mm rds instead of the AK-47 take 7.62mm rds. But well as far as I read PLA troops claim it's better in overrall performance (ecept acuracy and maybe range) and scince I don't find a source that say otherwise I have to believe what they sell to me . I never see the sights of the QBZ-95... I see some pics but never a pic that shows the sights. do you have any pics than shows a close up of the QBZ-95s sights? or you know where I can see them?

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

"Well, I'd rather get hit by hollow points than frags....At least the bullet is in one piece outside me."

sumdud was talking about the hollow point round being stoped before it penetrates into his body.

full metal jacket is for penetration purposes, and it mostly wounds the victim. hollow points expand and fragment multiplying the chances of it cutting a artery / vital organ, thus causing death.

as regarding the issue of pain, there is a microwave weapon designed for riot control, and most soldiers cant stand more than 2-3 seconds whilst being in it due to extreme pain. there are much worse things than little love bites from a rifles.

and also, you may be able to try the type 95 if you visit china, and try out the 5.8 rather than using 5.56 with the export model.

lastly, how do i turn off the function that sends me an email everytime someone replies in a thread i have participated in?

Re: Type 95 assault rifle


Here is the iron sights.This is for the LMG version but should be the same as the other versions (as well as all other current day Chinese assault rifles, as far as I can tell). Optics are not standard issue for general infantry.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

batskcab said:

"Well, I'd rather get hit by hollow points than frags....At least the bullet is in one piece outside me."

sumdud was talking about the hollow point round being stoped before it penetrates into his body.

full metal jacket is for penetration purposes, and it mostly wounds the victim. hollow points expand and fragment multiplying the chances of it cutting a artery / vital organ, thus causing death.

as regarding the issue of pain, there is a microwave weapon designed for riot control, and most soldiers cant stand more than 2-3 seconds whilst being in it due to extreme pain. there are much worse things than little love bites from a rifles.

and also, you may be able to try the type 95 if you visit china, and try out the 5.8 rather than using 5.56 with the export model.

lastly, how do i turn off the function that sends me an email everytime someone replies in a thread i have participated in?

Click to expand...

Yeah but the microwave weapon dont kill the victim... just, let say calm their riot desires. But I dont see the point of inflict pain to anybody who is going to die anyways..., besides I dont think is fun sacrifice penetration power just to watch an enemy soldier suffer for a little while until he dies "thats sound pretty evil" the microwave weapon should hurt worst than the Hollow Point (I don't want to know how much) but is not ment to kill. Well getting back to the Type 95 or (QBZ-95) topic I was taking a look to the QBZ-95s Iron Sight
(thanks to our friend Red Mercury) and looks like is not meant for long distance fireing, In my opininon, looks like more a machine gun sight rather than a riffle... seems like the sight is better in fully automatic mode, the rear sight lack of the little stick than the americans have used scince WWII, thats why I think is not meant for long distances engagements, besides PLA's TRADOC of infantry are diferents than U.S. Army's TRADOC if you folks take a look to this thread: http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/land-warfare-army/marksmanship-3459.html#post73700 , second post by Gollevainen you gonna see than the PLA's TRADOC is more oriented for short/medium range engagements scince they do their marksmanship with 150meters targets, so PLA have no use to the long range Iron Sight, Obviously PLA Sniper's should take care of longer distances than 150 meters. The QBZ-95 seems very likely to the British SA-80 due the bullpup desing; but I think should be in size like the USA's M4 carbine.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Hmm, I thought frag and hollow point are different bullets? I mean, if I am getting hit by 5.56s, than I am guessing FMJ wouldn't put me down (as troops complain about).....but moving on, I was watching the news last night, and Cambodia came on. Pol Pot's friends got arrested and I saw the guards holding a bullpup rifle. I couldn't find a picture of a guard holding his rifle on the Internet. Could anyone confirm what bullpup it is/ if it is a Type 95?

Type 95 is the same size of TAR-21 and CR-21 also. Personally, I would rather use a Type 97 than a M4.:coffee:

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Don't frags just break into pieces when entering the body while hollow points mushroom causing more damage and bounces around when it hits bone?

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Yesterday I was watching the Future Weapons show, and they said that US would gradually phase out all the current assault rifles using 5.56*45mm bullets because these shells didn't have stopping power. Instead, they will phase in Robinson Armanents XCR assault rifle using caliber 6.8*43mm. This type of rifle is the best that they have ever made because of its reliability. The internal design of this rifle is very similar to HK 416 assault rifle by directing all the gasses away from the internal components of the gun. My question is why China went from 7.62 down to 5.8mm while US will go from 5.56 to 6.8mm. Does 6.8 actually have more stopping power than 5.8mm because it has more kinetic energy? Any Ideas?