Type 95 Assault Rifle II

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

ABC78 said:

You can not use the beta C mag for a bullpup because the case would make it akward for the user to fire properly. A regular 30 and 75 round mags are already in an uncomfortable. Start rolling out the 03's and ditch the 95's.

Click to expand...

Regular 30 round magazine is the standard Type 95 while the drum 75 round magazine is the LSW of the Type 95. How do you now that a regular 30 round magazine fitted on a Type 95 rifle isn't comfortable? The type 03 assault rifle still resembles the soviet union AK-47 rifle design. The chinese should go with something that is more modern looking, with a foldable stock. Such as the G36. But the Type 95 is still ok. You shouldn't ditch the Type 95 just because the soilders aren't use to it.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

The type 03 assault rifle still resembles the soviet union AK-47 rifle design. The chinese should go with something that is more modern looking, with a foldable stock. Such as the G36. But the Type 95 is still ok. You shouldn't ditch the Type 95 just because the soilders aren't use to it.

Click to expand...

So you put good looks atop practicality, reability and comfortability????...ever been in the army?

I agree with ABC78 in to some extent. Bulpups have their own weaknesses and the benefits of it are only minimal and really doesen't make so much difference in operational use. The biggest change of the type 95 is the wider scale introduction of the new calibre, but if you can combinate it to already prooven concept then you should definatly go for it. If the new chinese 5.8 mm calibre is as good as it's being marketed, then fitting that to already improvised version of the best assault rifle mechanism that there is you get a gun which could be one of the best...

...To me, more the rifle looks like good ol' Kalashnikovik, the more credit I give to those troops using it...at least their weapons work when they need to use them

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Chengdu J-10 said:

The type 03 assault rifle still resembles the soviet union AK-47 rifle design. The chinese should go with something that is more modern looking, with a foldable stock. Such as the G36. But the Type 95 is still ok. You shouldn't ditch the Type 95 just because the soilders aren't use to it.

Click to expand...

Actually many modern rifles resemble/are based on older designs... For example G-36s use modified operating system from the early 1960s AR-18 rifle. That doesn’t mean that G-36 isn't modern rifle but rather that H&K designers were smart enough to use proven and reliable system... Same goes for type03 design team...
And IIRC type03 has folding stock...

As for type95 I think that since rifle is in service for some time now soldiers should be used to it by now. I didn't here to much complaints about it lately... On other hand if type95 performance is still unsatisfying then IMHO problem aren't soldiers but gun...

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Didn't see much more out of the Chinese publications about criticisms of the Type-95 after the initial few descriptions of it. And you certainly won't find this info in English. Talking to recently demobilized military men might be a good source.

One flaw that's observable from photos is that when fitted with optics on the handle, the shooter's head is pretty high with respect to the gun muzzle, leaving the shooter more exposed than if the optics were mounted lower. Also, the shooter can't get a cheek-weld. But, if you compare this to the other extreme of the Type-03, with it's low-mounted ironsights, the stock is necessarily below the axis of the barrel, so the shooter can avoid turning his head to look through the sights. But this in turn means more muzzle jump.

The Type-95 is considerably shorter than the Type-03, while having a longer barrel. This meant less complete burning of propellant in the Type-03, causing larger flash and noise. The designers put in a small hollow chamber near the muzzle to mitigate this, at the cost of accuracy.

(the above comes from a QBQ article on the type03)

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Gollevainen said:

So you put good looks atop practicality, reability and comfortability????...ever been in the army?

I agree with ABC78 in to some extent. Bulpups have their own weaknesses and the benefits of it are only minimal and really doesen't make so much difference in operational use. The biggest change of the type 95 is the wider scale introduction of the new calibre, but if you can combinate it to already prooven concept then you should definatly go for it. If the new chinese 5.8 mm calibre is as good as it's being marketed, then fitting that to already improvised version of the best assault rifle mechanism that there is you get a gun which could be one of the best...

...To me, more the rifle looks like good ol' Kalashnikovik, the more credit I give to those troops using it...at least their weapons work when they need to use them

Click to expand...

I didn't say that i would put looks over practicality, reability and comfortability. Besides the Type 95 is lighter then the AK-47 giving better comfort for the soilder to weld the rifle. Also the internal design basically resembles the AK-74 Assault Rifle redesigned in bullpup scheme, this means it is reliable rifle based on the fact it is from a proven reliable rifle design. Now in many sites the Type 03 is basically a modified Type 87, in which the PLA rejected. The PLA rejected the Type 87 (basically the same as the Type 03) due to its obsolete external design. So this also backs my statement of the more modern looking rifle. More modern looking doesn't neccessarly mean sacraficing the practicality, reability and comfortability. It just means that it looks more modern instead of well ancient design. If you see a special force with AK-47 you wouldn't say that they are very highly equipped and professionalised in appearance. But if you see a special force with Type 95 you would think opposite. An army still being equipped with AK-47 gives the impression that the country isn't growing in technology and professionalism
still using the AK-47 which is heavey, while you can have all the crucial aspects of a rifle and still being better looking and also lighter with more advance materials.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

outwards looks counts for nothing in the operational use of weapons. No army selects weapons just for the looks. The fact that some rifles are "modern looking" comes from the fact that they are modern designed with todays tools and way of thinkings. Perhaps in some computer game the criter for the choise of rifle may be the looks, but not real armed forces, not even in china.

Type 87 was a testing rifle for the new calibre and thus had quite rude appearence. Perhaps it's cancellation was effected the estetical factors, but it was more down to the unwise love-affare to bulbup designs which has now somehow got grip of china...

If you see a special force with AK-47 you wouldn't say that they are very highly equipped and professionalised in appearance. But if you see a special force with Type 95 you would think opposite.

Click to expand...

Perhaps to civils and kids playing with videogames, but to us who have actually used the kalashnikoviks it just gives me confident that those troops have a weapons that will work in any given situation. Type 03 with the new calibre makes that appearence even more deadlier...

An army still being equipped with AK-47 gives the impression that the country isn't growing in technology and professionalism
still using the AK-47 which is heavey, while you can have all the crucial aspects of a rifle and still being better looking and also lighter with more advance materials.

Click to expand...

Yeas...Type 03, it has all the new fancy plastic-look-alike modern features, but is still pretty much the same realible and robust design. And as it kept the basic form and method of the gun, it makes it even more appealing against inpractical and complex Bulbub rifles...

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

It's not a fassion show. I would be afraid of any Special Forces solider with an AK-47, because ten to one says he knows how to use it, as opposed to some Somali Militiaman Spraying and Praying.

And I was just starting to like the Type-95.

Asside from issues with the sights, what are the other errors encountered in the Type-95's system?

And since this was mentioned earlier...

The FAMAS rifle is a French Rifle, produced by the MAS company. It first saw service in the Gulf War and has been reported back as a reliable weapon. French Troops voiced no serious complaints from what I have come to understand. One intresting feature, however is that the FAMAS has a high ROF compared to to other rifles in other Armories: 900-1000 RPM compared to
800 for the M16A2 and 600 for the AK-47.

Fun Fact: The Name of the gun in Counter Strike, Clairon 5.56, comes from the nickname the French Troops gave this weapon. "Le Clairon", which means "The Bugle".

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Gollevainen said:

outwards looks counts for nothing in the operational use of weapons. No army selects weapons just for the looks. The fact that some rifles are "modern looking" comes from the fact that they are modern designed with todays tools and way of thinkings. Perhaps in some computer game the criter for the choise of rifle may be the looks, but not real armed forces, not even in china.

Type 87 was a testing rifle for the new calibre and thus had quite rude appearence. Perhaps it's cancellation was effected the estetical factors, but it was more down to the unwise love-affare to bulbup designs which has now somehow got grip of china...



Perhaps to civils and kids playing with videogames, but to us who have actually used the kalashnikoviks it just gives me confident that those troops have a weapons that will work in any given situation. Type 03 with the new calibre makes that appearence even more deadlier...



Yeas...Type 03, it has all the new fancy plastic-look-alike modern features, but is still pretty much the same realible and robust design. And as it kept the basic form and method of the gun, it makes it even more appealing against inpractical and complex Bulbub rifles...

Click to expand...

Well obviously you don't select a gun that just looks good it has to be reliable. There is no use if the gun looks good but is bad in combat scenarios. (Mentioned earlier looks wasn't ontop of the various aspects of a good rifle) The AK is indeed reliable but so is the Type 95 you just have to remember. The Type 95 isn't a bad rifle just because some critics are in favour with the conventional rifle layout. Appearance has to do in some degree the appearance or design determines the rifles comfortability when welding the rifle in combat. (All done in the designing stage) Any equipment equipped with special forces would be deadly , heck he wouldn't even need an equipment to be deadly. (martial arts) Replying to Kampfwagen special forces soldiers are trained with many different guns from either domestic or foreign. They are trained to know how to use most guns especially the AK as it is one of the most used guns in the world.

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

No worries mate, I think it's all down to the like or dislike of bulbub design. I personally belong to the later cathergory, tough I must admitt that I've never used any bulbub type rifle...perhaps my bad blood against it is just the fear of unknown. But still my dislike is not totally irrational. Bulbub is good weapon in paper, it solves many desirable things, but being goo in paper doesen't mean it's good in practical use and many rumours and reports of different bulbub type rifles including the Type 95 speaks of them having some proplems exspecially when it comes to comfortable use...

Re: Type 95 assault rifle

Kampfwagen said:

And I was just starting to like the Type-95.

Asside from issues with the sights, what are the other errors encountered in the Type-95's system?

Click to expand...

The awkward positioning of the safety and the spent cases ejecting right next to the shooter's face. Though, of the articles I've read where the author actually shot the gun, none of them complained of this. They praised its accuracy and light recoil. When using ironsights, the rifle is probably a pleasure to fire.

A side note on the type-03: much of it is aluminum, not steel, to save weight. Result is that it is not as sturdy. Heavier, sturdier guns do have their advantages.