Has China developed a PDW based on the QBZ-95?
UPDATE: I was wrong. This is the QBZ-95B (The sailors white gloves are covering the barrel).
Earlier this month there was a huge military parade celebrating the 60th anniversary of People's Republic of China. I was astounded to see a photo from the event of what appears to be a sub-carbine version of the QBZ-95 being carried by Chinese sailors.
To the best of my knowledge the existence of this weapon has never been reported. The barrel is definetly shorter than the 14.5" of the QBZ-95B (Carbine) that was developed for use in the Navy. I suspect the sub-carbine / PDW has a 10" or 11" barrel.
QBZ-95B Carbine. Photo from Wikipedia.
Has anyone here heard of a QBZ-95 PDW?
Thanks to Caleb for sending me the link to the Chinese parade photos.
I believe those are the same gun, at least that’s what I figured when watch the parade.
It could be the QCW-05:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCW-05
(there’s a picture towards the bottom of the page)
I wonder how well the chinese 5.8mm performs in short barrels, one of the weakest points of the western 5.56mm.
Pretty impressive, they are gearing up across the board. Especially their new Jin-Class SSBN program on Hainan Island.
Oh, and I love the ladies uniforms – knee high boots and short skirts.
Same thing -but since they are holding the bbl protrusion with their white gloves, it looks shorter.
More and more Chicom JUNK. The chinese are make a carnine of there QBZ-97 rifle.
just looks like a short type 97….
Grumpy, good call. It is really hard to see the size of the magazines due to the angle of the photo. It does seem to me that the mags look bigger than the QCW pistol magazines.
What do you guys think?
I’m pretty sure that’s the existing short-barreled QBZ model. The type 05 SMG lacks the foregrip and the magazine is very wide and short because it’s quad stack design. I think Kyle has it right, it looks shorter than it is because their gloves are covering the barrel and blending in with their shirts.
I’m not an expert on Chinese weapons but someone did mention on AR15.com that the QBZ-95 was a disappointment. They went back to a conventional design instead of bullpup with the Type 03.
They found out really fast why bullpup are bad design. Good for them.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=2&t=293193
Oh someone posted a link to your site for the Type 03. Didn’t know you have a article on the rifle or maybe I just forgot about it.
Actually those guns were published in Milipol 2006. Photos of them are visible in Rekyyli-magazine (finnish only) at page 75 on this online-sample issue:
http://www.rekyyli.fi/naytenumero/
It looks like those Chinese sailors came off the same assembly line as the carbines. Those guys are clones!
Kyle is right. You can see some muzzle extending beyond the white gloves.
Jarkko, are you able to post a link to a screenshot of page 75. I can’t figure out how to get the example issue.
Yep, you guys are right. The gloves are covering the barrel. I have updated the blog post.
I am a chinese boy ,firearm fans,95B was made in 1997,it is not a PDW,but shot carbine,used by the solders on naval fleet and special police force.ballistic was not good.
So why is bullpup a bad design? The ar15.com thread didn’t explain why this would be the case.
Jdun1911, dont generalize all bullpups. The Tavor has been very well received by israeli and colombian troops, the Kel-Tec RFB is getting great reviews.
those guns which are designed by PLA usually keep the similar looking
just like the Russia cousin for short training time for new gen. fire arms
but those china made guns may have difference design and mechanism
so don’t be so serious about shape and size to conjecture their relation
the same thing happen on Taiwan T-65 series AR too
in the early stage T65 look alike a her USA parent AR 18
but at the mess produced T-65K2
it look like a AR15 type than AR 18 ’s one
but it’s still keeping the ar 18 refined mechanism
[some said it work much alike the HK416's]
the drawbacks of bullup rifles.
1. case ejection port is close to user’s chest. this design is not for lefties.
2. trigger pull is too heavy due to the connection rod.
3. can’t use belted ammo or drum magazine.
4. if any kaboom, the user will be injured severely since the bolt is right under his cheek.
Ejection and trigger pull has allegedly been solved by Kel-Tec’s RFB.
Belted ammo and drums seems like a non-issue for a service rifle.
Supposedly the RFB has several hardened steel sheets protecting the shooters face. I’d like to see this tested though.