China’s new service rifle: QBZ-95G

11brlas-tm-tfb

These are the first photos I have seen of the updated QBZ-95 rifle, which is speculated to enter front-line service later this year.

The changes are (From Wikipedia) ….

QBZ-95 variant titled “G” fires the heavier 5.8x42mm round, with a heavier longer barrel and a redesigned muzzle break. The “G” variant has an altered butt stock, trigger guard, and a repositioned thumb fire selector switch above the pistol grip. The carrying handle has retained the Chinese quick release mount rail, but also has added the Picatinny rail as a supplement. It has been seen in service in small numbers for testing and evaluation in first quarter of 2010. It has been speculated that this variant will enter full service in late 2010, replacing the original QBZ-95 assault rifle introduced into service in 1995. The original QBZ-95 rifles will be handed down to second line and reserve troops, while front line troops receive this variant.

Overall a decent upgrade, although I like the trigger guard/foregrip concept of the original. It looks like China’s Type 56 (AK-47 variant) may be phased out.

[ Many thanks to Sven for emailing me the link. ]

[Hat Tip: China Defense Blog]

Related

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • http://www.msn.com Ermac

    I’ve heard that the QBZ-95 had quite a few problems. Looks like they got around to fixing it. The Type 56 has been long phased out since the adoption of the Type 81.

  • Vak

    What is really surprisingly (well, at least for us decadent occidentals) is the complete lack of M1913 rails.

  • http://leisureguy.wordpress.com Leisureguy

    Shouldn’t “muzzle break” be “muzzle brake”?

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      Leisureguy, you are correct

  • Sian

    Looks like a plastic Groza. Especially the grenade launcher which really looks to be similar to the muzzleloading GP-30 type.

    How much do we know about the 5.8 round?

  • Redchrome

    pretty sexy. too bad it’s right-hand-eject-only. the better-positioned fire selector is a big improvement.

    I like the Chinese 5.8x42mm round. Looks reasonably well-designed with the 77gr/5g ‘heavy ball’.

  • http://chockblock.wordpress.com Chockblock

    What about the round? It’s solid steel with a copper wash. Some reports have the heavy round going through the 1st & 2nd gen SAPI plates like a hot knife through butter.

    Any word on it?

  • Burst

    Redchrome, it might be the best service round in use right now.
    I can’t speak for the rifle, but the 5.8mm seems devastating.

  • whodyzzz

    The guard/foregrip concept was great, soldiers loved it. But it’s kind of awkward when you have a grenade launcher attached to the rifle.

    http://lh3.ggpht.com/_kRzT8tbu39U/S0NhGWEWSvI/AAAAAAAAEOA/9vP5nN4sl4s/Escort%20Taskforce%20529-089.jpg

    I guess it’s the reason they get rid of it.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      whodyzzz, good point. Yep, I really liked the concept. It also looked a bit futuristic.

  • Lance

    @ERmac no the Type 56 AK and the Type 56 Carbine SKS are still in service with 2nd line and Militias who use them in remote areas of China. The QZB-95 has alot of problems and alot of Chinese Field commanders refused to replace there Type-81s with it. Most Chinese troops didn’t want to replace the Type 56 and Type 81 but Chinese politicians wanted to boast Chinese pride and have there own guns designs and ammo. This didn’t go too well %.8 has way too much over penetration like the 9mm NATO round has. Most Chinese personnel had no problems with 7.62x39mm. From things I heard about there a war inside of the Chinese Government has internal war over going with its tried and true Soviet/Russian copies or go with Chinese pride and have there own weapons. There still are alot of units i heard that use Type 81s and have refused to go with the Type 95

    I doubt this design improvements will solve problems with its reliability, that just a heavy barrel wont solve and a fatter muzzle brake wont solve either. The need to dump a poorly designed bullpup and and a lousy combat round may help them out. There was talk before this that China would have had a redesigned Type 95 that was a standardized rifle not a bullpup but I guess the Chinese Pride crowd won this round in china’s internal arguments.

    If you need to check out Wikipedia and other sites the Type 56 rifle and carbine are still in Chinese service in Militias, 2nd line troops and as a ceremony rifle.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      Lance, yea, I guess they probably do have plenty of 2nd/3rd/4th line troops.

  • Lance

    Steve the Type 56 was officially phased out in 1981. But still is in service like I said earlier with Chinese Militias and 2nd line troops. I doubt the Type 95 will fully replace them since Militias needed a poor mans rifle with easy maintenance and the Type 95 isn’t really that simple like a AK-47.

    The Chinese still use PPSH-43s. China when it adopts a new weapon usually only rearms front-line troops with them and or make new units to field them many older units are stuck with older weapons.

  • Redchrome

    @Burst,
    5.8×42 is probably nothing special WRT how ‘devastating’ it is. Fundamentally, you can’t cheat Newton.

    This is an interesting page. I can’t read Chinese, but the pictures are informative.
    http://www.gun-world.net/ammo/58×42/58mm.htm

    TacticalGunFan has a good article on the ammo and rifle, albeit slightly aged now.
    http://www.tacticalgunfan.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=514&Itemid=1

    I like 5.8×42 because the long, tapered case gives good extraction and feed reliability even when made of steel (cheaper than brass); yet has adequate volume to throw a long, sharp bullet at comparatively high speed.

    It’s a comparatively modern design; intended for slightly longer ranges than 5.56×45; but not so overpowerful as 7.62×51 (which are fundamentally based on – at best – 1950s doctrine) — and it’s not built to be constrained by an existing rifle design like the AR15 (in the way 6.8SPC is).

    I do find it noteworthy that 5.8×42 is actually a true 6mm round, with a .236″ bullet. Seems silly that we’re still naming calibers by bore diameter rather than groove diameter, when that hasn’t been the meaningful measure since the days of muzzleloaders 150 years ago.

  • whodyzzz

    Dear Lance,

    Why would a soldier not want a rifle that is lighter, more compact, more accurate, and less recoil ???

    Which Chinese field commander refused to accept the new rifle?? Since all members of PLA are required to study “Three Rules of Discipline”, and the first rule is Obey orders in all your actions.

    Who told you that “Most Chinese personnel has no problems with 7.62x39mm”???

    What reliability problem does QBZ 95 have ??? Have you ever used one ??

    http://www.gun-world.net/china/rifle/qbz95/97042.jpg

    Where did you learn this “war inside of the Chinese Government” ??
    Last time I check the General Armaments Department is a direct sub-branch under the Central Military Commission.

  • jdun1911

    I have no experience with the 5.8 caliber but by the dimension it is .24 difference from 5.56 with a smaller case. That mean less or about equal powder for a very little increase in bullet size.

  • Paul

    What? ANOTHER 5.56/5.45/5.8mm 30 round rifle?

    Ho hum….

    Until someone comes out with a total game changer, like a 5mm caseless rifle that fires a 50 gr slug at 5000 fps I see nothing amazing here.

    Kind of like another 9mm 15/16/17 wonder Nine. Plenty of them out there and they all pretty much do the same thing.

    The Chinese didn’t even go to .243 cal. Nothing huge here. Same for the magazine system, same for the brass/steel cases, same for the ignition technique.

    They might as well just bought the French FAMAs and saved themselves the trouble (but with their tendency to plagerize/pirite who know where the internals of this rifle came from.)

  • Bill

    @Lance. Very informed comments. Much appreciated reading.

  • whodyzzzz

    Steve, I think the concept of trigger guard/foregrip works best with bullpup smg (like FN P90) or bullpup carbine (like QBZ 95B), as long as you don’t need a under barrel grenade launcher.

    China has designed another GP25/30 type grenade launcher which works better with the current QBZ 95, but it’s very awkward to use it on a conventional layout rifle like the type 81 or the type 03, because its trigger is up side down.
    http://www.military-today.com/firearms/qbz_95_l4.jpg

    So the real question would be which is more cost saving/ effective, having 2 different grenade launchers or getting rid of the guard/foregrip ???

    M203 doesn’t work well with bullpups.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Australian_RAR_soldier_and_his_'bullpup'_rifle.jpg

    AG36 only works with long bullpups such as L85.

    http://www.rm45.com/library/ag36.jpg

    ps. I hope they bring back the trigger guard/foregrip just for the carbine.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      whodyzzzz, good points

  • Lance

    @WhoodyZZZZ

    Most of what i know is from articles from reporter who talked to CHinese Military staff and from those who been to CHina and talked to people or read the same artiles. Shotgun news even had a huge artcle on the QZB-95 and the 5.8mm round it shoot. The 5.8 in a test vs the US M-855 NATO round and the 5.45mm 7N1 round found that 5.8 CHinese over penatrated alot worse than US 5.56mm M855 and didnt tumble making little tissue damage. It didnt have a hollow cavity like Soviet/Russian 5.45mm ammo and also lacked in the bullet stopping in flesh. Major down side in modern combat especcally in Urban and Jungle conditions. the Type 95 has jamming issues and like most bullpups has ergo issuses as well. In interviews many Chinese solders liked the both the older Type 56 and Type 81 over the bullpup.

    The same reason attempts by the CHinese Military to replace the Type 54 {TT-33} pistol failed to the most part the two pistols China chose where basicly SiG copies and one in 9mm and the other in 5.8mm pistol round. The 9mm lack power to the 7.62×25 and the 5.8 had over penatration issues worse than 7.62×25. Why bother is the TT-33 dose th job. Just make a high cap modle.

  • whodyzzz

    Lance,

    Few factual errors:

    1. Reporters (Chinese or foreign) can NOT go to a Chinese military camp ask around about weapons performance or whether soldier like their rifles or not. A Chinese Military staff is not allowed to give out such information to any reporters.

    2. Timothy Yan’s article was just a translation from the Chinese Small Arms magazine (from qing bing qi 9th issue, 2003), and it’s originally published in Cartridges of the World (11th Edition), plus Chinese didn’t test 5.8mm against M855, it was the 5.56mm P112 steel-cored AP. Author himself didn’t say anything about “over penetrated alot worse”. The new DBP-95 cartridge offers even more penetration than DBP-87.

    3. Penetration is a good thing in Urban and Jungle conditions, because it gives you ability to hit some one behind the tree or wall. Chinese riot police in Haiti tested QBZ 95/DBP87 proved it.

    4. I have fired QBZ 95 in Norinco shooting range outside of Beijing, the rifle worked flawlessly. There are videos on youtube showing Chinese testing their rifles under extreme condition and the rifle worked. QBZ 95 is a reliable rifle, and for your information all rifles will jam at some point.

    5. The type 92 is not a SIG copy. There are 2 versions of it. The 9 mm one is for police use and export; the 5.8mm version is for army only.

  • http://suburbansdomain.blogspot.com/ Suburban

    At first glance, I thought the Bushmaster bullpup was coming back.

  • Mountainbear

    Or get some STG77s. The nice thing on the Steyr AUG is that the foregrip isn’t fixed, you can simply flap it forward (though the A3 seems to copy the AR15 foregrip ideas.) You can also mount a grenade launcher, even an M203, you just won’t see it often.

    http://spartanat.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/fw_03.jpg
    Jagdkommando down in the Chad. Front guy has the STG77 A2 commando with an AG36 grenade launcher.

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v101/He219/mpnet/soldatderzukunft_01.jpg
    Again Jagdkommando.

    Personally the only guys I’ve ever seen running around with the launcher on the STG77 were from the Jagdkommando.

  • Alvar

    Who is this reporter you always mention? I would like to know more about that guy before trusting him.

  • 54Bravo

    That Chinese page is (at least partially) faked! L-O-L About 2/3 of the way down, there are three pictures of clay? in boxes to measure bullet expansion. (http://www.gun-world.net/ammo/58×42/lhx1.jpg)

    Look VERY closely at the 2nd and 3rd box pictures (of the 5.56 and 5.45 results) and you will see obvious photoshop cloning and manipulation. The shock wave cones themselves are suspiciously similar and there are small areas that are identical in both box cones (especially in the lower right and just outside left areas of the cone).

    Not sure what that means other than I would be VERY hesitant to trust any other of that page’s results or conclusions, given that they are clearly manipulating data! (the images, at least)

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      54Bravo, good point. Also notice the grass (look at the tall blade of grass in front of 2nd and 3rd box). Some of it has been cloned.

  • Lance

    @Woodyzzzz

    Your wrong too much penatration is a bad thing since in Iraq normal AP bullets the Army uses gose right threw an Terrorist and dosnt stop him same with this lousy chinese round. You need good fragmentation or tumbaling to cause the wounds you want to stop an opponet.

    You may have on vacationshot a Type 95 but feild test shown the design to jam easily especcally in dusty conditions. And the ergonomics on it are horrible. And there was a test Shotgun news did compaireing US Russian and Chinese ammo together and China came last.

    And the Chinese wernt deployed to Hati it was Mostly US and west European forces deployed there.

    Most interviews I read where relased in CHina or apporoved via when a general was outside of CHina.

    If you like the Type 95 fine Woody but im saying its not perfect nor surpior to the older Type 81 or Type 56.

  • Lance

    Good point 54Brovo the Commies seem to emblesih and lie alot dont trust every thing you hear from one of the most tyrantical regimes in the world.

  • jack

    “…the two pistols China chose where basicly SiG copies…”

    This cant be any further from the truth. Actually externally, I see more FN hi-power in the forward slide, Beretta 92 in trigger guard, and only a similar tapering angle similarity at the rear of the slide with SIG 22x.

    But internally, from 60% of the way down http://www.gun-world.net/china/handgun/qsz92/qsz92.htm you can see the internal mechanism of the Qsz92, and it is like no other major manufacturer’s design from Europe nor the US. It is a rotating locking barrel design, not a tilting block cam design like all the SIGs and 1911s, and neither is it a wedging lock cam like the Walther P38 and Beretta 92. Other than rather sophisticated gas retarding or roller locking designs from HK, tilting block and wedging cams are probably about 95% of all the designs for autoloading pistol in the world.

    Loud shouting unsubstantiated opinions dont convince anyone of anything…

  • Redchrome

    Indeed it does look like that clay test image on gun-world.net is photoshopped. I never paid any attention to it before since I’m fairly convinced that clay ‘tests’ of terminal ballistics are largely meaningless and good only for marketing purposes.

  • whodyzzz

    @Lance
    Are you kidding me??? Since when did a general or any general in China have right to approve such interview ???

    Where is this none existing “feild test”??? What part of the QBZ 95 is design to jam easily ???

    How did Shotgun news gain access to the Chinese 5.8 mm round??/ Did it approve by the same none existing general you were talking about ???

    As for the penetration, just look at the Iraq/Afghanistan war videos, do terrorists wear body armor ?? Are there any PLAs in Iraq or Afghanistan ???

    For your info Here is a picture of Chinese police with a US soldier in Haiti

    http://eimg.mod.gov.cn/IntlMilitary/attachement/jpg/site22/20100129/1267925c7e241218122188.jpg

  • Lance

    @Jack

    I know the Type 92 isnt a exact SIG compy BUT it mimicks kaey things about it you even said it yourself. I wasnt really talking about the Type 92 I was makeing the point that it hasnt replaced the venerable Type 54 pistol and fails to be surpierior toit in caliber for several reason.

  • Lance

    @WoodyZZZZ

    Im NOT kidding you there are generals in the PLA apposed to the type 95. Going to the rifle was contraverial in the PLA high command. Most unfavorable reports came not in combat but in feild exsercises with units who use the Type 95 have reported. The Generals opposed to this weapon probaly leaked this info out because they want to retain the Type 81 in the regular PLA army.

    Shotgun news acutally had found the gun and tested it in Canada I believe where semiauto models are for sale of the type 95 desgn. 6.8 is also used by Cambodian and Burmese Special Forces and the round may have been testes there.

    The fact is too much punh with out tubal in a small caliber like 6.8 is that it make too small of a hole to work There are Taliban troops who bought body armor and YES its mostly from CHina and CHinese armor is inferior and even a M-193 round may penatrate it. There has been hot spot in China like the Muslim areas in Western China and Teibet where the weapon saw servious as well.

    Woodyzzzz Why are you defending the PLA soooo Much? Its a better thing anyway there weapons are inferior to ours. I remeber a PLA general who got in hot water in05 when he wanted to attack the US whith nukes to invade Taiwan. I hope China falls flat on its face in any of its offinsive aims.

  • whodyzzzz

    @ Lance

    “Your wrong too much penatration is a bad thing since in Iraq normal AP bullets the Army uses gose right threw an Terrorist and dosnt stop him same with this lousy chinese round. You need good fragmentation or tumbaling to cause the wounds you want to stop an opponet.”

    Just want to let you know the current 7N10/7N22/M885 offer MORE penetration and less fragmentation/tumbling than 7N6/M193.

    BTW, which pistol are you talking about ??? Did you learn it from your reporter friend who talked to that Chinese general who fought that “internal war” inside of Chinese government ???

    PS. The Chinese DAP92 (5.8 x21) round is based on the same concept as 5.7×28 FN SS190, and 4.6×30 HK.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      Lets keep this friendly.

  • Lance

    Yes but the M-855 has problems which the USMC adopted a Hollow Point rounf the the M-855 had to be reworked IE M-855A1 round. You need a bullet to stop in a person to stop them with a small caliber.

    The new articles where from SHotgun news, AP, and some other new reports I read over the last few years.

    By the way 5.7 like 5.8 pistol have poor stopping power compaired to 7.62×25, 9mmx18, 9mmx19, .40 and 45 auto
    Why Law Enforcement didnt adopt it. neither did the military.

  • whodyzzzz

    Lance,

    Please read Jack’s comment carefully.

    “Loud shouting unsubstantiated opinions dont convince anyone of anything…”

    1. Going to the rifle was contraverial in the PLA high command. Most unfavorable reports came not in combat but in feild exsercises with units who use the Type 95 have reported. The Generals opposed to this weapon probaly leaked this info out because they want to retain the Type 81 in the regular PLA army.

    =====
    I am sure going to new equipment is always controversial, just like when US army decided to switch to M-16, but where is this report ??? Did your reporter friend got it from those Generals??? You have never used a QBZ 95 and making stuff up doesn’t convince anyone of anything. Why would a soldier not want a rifle that is lighter, more compact, more accurate, and less recoil ??? I have shot both QBZ 95 and the type 81 in Norinco shooting range, and I can tell you from my own experience QBZ 95 is better rifle, because it’s lighter, more compact, more accurate, and less recoil, the peep sight works better than the AK style open sight.

    2. Shotgun news acutally had found the gun and tested it in Canada I believe where semiauto models are for sale of the type 95 desgn. 6.8 is also used by Cambodian and Burmese Special Forces and the round may have been testes there.

    =====

    China has sold QBZ 97 (semi chambered for the .223 Remington ) to Canada, Cambodia, Burma, and Srilanka, but QBZ 97 fires 5.56 NATO. China has NEVER sold its 5.8mm round to any country, so how did Shotgun news get its hand on the 5.8mm round ??? Again, making stuff up doesn’t convince anyone of anything…

    3. “There are Taliban troops who bought body armor and YES its mostly from CHina and CHinese armor is inferior and even a M-193 round may penatrate it. ”

    =====

    There is NO EVIDENCE suggesting Taliban are buying body from China. There are pictures showing Talibans wearing body armors, but those body armors were captured
    from French soldiers. Please see the attached pictures.

    http://www.michaelyon-online.com/images/stories/theroadtohell/padsfsf-7a730.jpg

    http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/Afghanistan_629054a.jpg

    China has sold over 20,000 body armors to the Iraqi government back to 2005 (see link below),

    http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2005/05/picture-of-new-chinese-body-armor-vest.html

    and some of them may find the way to the hands of insurgents, but according to current.com (current TV), they “are superior to what U.S. forces have”

    http://current.com/news-and-politics/89033166_china-supplying-iraq-insurgents.htm

    In the end I am not defending the PLA, I am just trying to make a point as Jack said

    “Loud shouting unsubstantiated opinions dont convince anyone of anything…”

  • whodyzzz

    “Loud shouting unsubstantiated opinions dont convince anyone of anything…”

    Let’s see what army official say about this “M855A1″, “The M855A1 resulted in a number of significant enhancements not found in the current round, officials said. They explained these include improved hard-target capability, more dependable, consistent performance at all distances, improved accuracy, reduced muzzle flash and a higher velocity.”

    http://www.defensereview.com/u-s-army-begins-shipping-m855a1-enhanced-performance-round-a-k-a-green-ammo-improved-5-56mm-nato-round-to-warfighters-m855-ball-ammo-gets-an-upgrade/

    Improving hard-target capability and “You need a bullet to stop in a person to stop them with a small caliber.” don’t seem to go together.

    ===
    By the way 5.7 like 5.8 pistol have poor stopping power compaired to 7.62×25, 9mmx18, 9mmx19, .40 and 45 auto
    Why Law Enforcement didnt adopt it. neither did the military.

    Law Enforcement/military didn’t adopt 5.7 round ????
    Did you learn this from your reporter friend ??? Did he tell you that By 2003, the P90 (5.7 x 28) was in use with military and police forces in over 25 countries worldwide.[6] In the United States, the P90 was in use with over 200 law enforcement agencies by 2009.[11] The PS90 sporting model has also become popular with civilian shooters in the United States.[12]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_P90

    5.7 has poor stopping power ?? The Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people with his FN Five-seven (5.7 x 28)…

  • Lance

    @ WooodyZZZZ

    you getting mad and illrational.

    My comment stands 5.7 isnt in use with US, British, and Candian armies. Anthe the merder at fort hood ambused and shot point blank into the group of solders where even a .22 LR would have worked. Fact is some Police in no gun Europe did buy a few but never challenged the MP-5 in any way. Mabie some minor Poice use them here but no major police untis use P-90s or F7N pistols.

    Sorry you are so mad but just clam down.

    The M-855A1 round dosnt just improve penatration it also fragments alot better and hlps in its killing power.

  • whodyzzzz

    Lance,

    Here is your comment on 5.7 “By the way 5.7 like 5.8 pistol have poor stopping power compaired to 7.62×25, 9mmx18, 9mmx19, .40 and 45 auto Why Law Enforcement didnt adopt it. neither did the military.”

    You didn’t say any thing about “5.7 isnt in use with US, British, and Candian armies.”

    The fact is both American Navy SEALs and Canadian Joint Task Force 2 have adopted FN P90 (5.7×28); the British decided to go with MP7 (4.6 x 30) and MP7 is going to replace their MP5 in Ministry of Defence Police. You can check P90′s wiki page to see how many major police units have adopted P90.

    You can’t just keep making stuff up without any fact to back it up. Loud shouting unsubstantiated opinions dont convince anyone of anything…

    I am not mad, I am just using FACTs to prove you are wrong.

    • Dubbs

      Each major nation has various firearms in their inventory. I am quite sure US SF units( NSWG, SOCOM teams like Delta, Green Berets, MSOT,etc) have,access to P90s, even AKs and any other,modern firearm, which they can use at anytime.

      Back to rhe original post- I do not believe the Chinese QBZ 95 is,inherently superior to any other firearm on the world military stage, including the decades old M16 family of arms. Bull pup designs have their own unique operating issues, even flaws.

      The QBZ 95, unlike the famous Famas, the Steyr AUG, even the once,problematic L85A1/2 have all seen long term combat, and had the opportunity to be fine tuned fir deployment. Even the IDF , although reportedly a very gun, has NOT fully replaced the tried and true M4 in frontline and reserve IDF units hands( “funny” that,the IDF work in a dusty, desert environment, but you don’t hear them incessantly complaining about M4s jamming and failing-MAYBE they know HOW to maintain the weapon!)

      Considering the history of the PLA, I doubt that if the QBZ 95 turns out to be a turkey, the PLA will keep using it until they can,COPY a better western or russian designed rifle.( they’ve been making AKMs and AK74s for decades- companies like norinco and polytech even make M4 clones that are used by some military and police units!)

  • Lance

    Sorry WoodyZZZZ your wrong the Navy SEALs adopted the Mk-18 M-4 and retained the MP-5 the P-90 is NOT in US service and Ive seen NO cnandian troops use it the Brits may have bought some MP-7 but there little facts that there in use.

    Dont trust Wikipedia too maby people can write anything on the page.

    The is nothing to do anyway about the red evil chinese army.
    Im not going to duscuse this anymore since you are going to argue with anything I say.

    Steve take me off the email recive for this new article im tried of stateing the same plain facts to him.—–

  • whodyzzzz

    Lance,

    You are right on this. It’s really hard to argue with some one who keeps making stuff up and switching subjects.

    At least wiki’s info is from Meyr, Eitan (January 06, 1999). “Special Weapons for Counter-terrorist Units”. Jane’s — Law Enforcement. Retrieved 2009-09-26.

    Better than some none existing reporter’s interview with none existing generals from China.

  • gareth

    Wow. Great debate. lots of info. And thanks whodyzzzz for always stating the source of your information. Lance, no offense, if you want to prove someone’s wrong, please the same. Otherwise you’re just being a bit of an ass.

  • Lance

    Here is a source and another

    On Type 56 still in service
    http://world.guns.ru/assault/as49-e.htm

    Future Type 95 replacement
    http://world.guns.ru/assault/as80-e.htm

    I do admit I was wrong on who uses P-90s I did some more research on this. And cops some do use it. So I say congrats on the P-90 deal.

    Pls let bygones be bygones

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com Steve

      I believe that the -03 was developed in case of problems with the bullpup. I have not seen any evidence that they will be replacing the -95. The -95G appears to be the replacement.

  • Alvar

    There is no evidence for claims that QBZ-03 replaces the QBZ-95.

  • Infidelis

    Ok I have to chime in here. Since it seems like this had been over ran by fanboys that probably had never used a weapon before.

    The QBZ-03 is a low cost supplemental rifle in additional the the Type 95 family. The cost saving is not on the rifle itself but in training.

    The Type 92 handgun family uses the Searle-Krnka rotating-barrel lock. It’s as old as the Browning lock. It’s neither rare nor new. There are a dozen of pistol designs feature that. Beretta and Grand Power come to mind.

    The 5.8x21mm is not a copy of the FN 5.7. It came out before the FN 5.7x28mm SS190.

    There are two countries uses the QBZ-95 outside of China. No, not the -97 version but -95 chambers for the 5.8mm caliber.

    The 5.8x42mm cartridge is also not rare outside of China. Whenever the PLA conducted joint trainings with foreign militaries oversea, the Chinese troops gave out a lot of the left over 5.8x42mm rounds as souvenirs to their counterparts. There are a lot of samples out there.

    Also, more than one QBZ-95, no not the -97, were lost/captured/battlefield pickup….

  • AXZ92

    @Infidelis

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think the Chinese would sell the QBZ-95, since they have the QBZ-97 models for exports. I’m pretty sure that the Chinese are not going to give away their DBP87 rounds technology to other countries just yet to avoid it from the US getting their hands on it.

  • Inst

    Old thread; but the PLA’s main complaint about the QBZ-95 is that it’s too short. They stuck to the spike bayonet for the same reason; they want to encourage aggressiveness in their troops and a lack of longitudinal endowment dampens aggression.

    Hence, QBZ-03 is popular among some units, despite having about the same internals as the QBZ-95, simply because it’s easier to thrust a spike bayonet into an opponent’s heart than with a QBZ-95 bullpup.

  • William C.

    Hi Inst, which units get the QBZ-03 as opposed to the QBZ-95?

  • Inst

    Sorry, I shouldn’t have posted, I’ve been talking out my ass.

    That is one complaint that’s being heard around the grapevine; the weapon is too lightweight and short for close-quarters with bayonets. Another is the fire selector; which could be more dangerous; the placement is (was) inconvenient and could be too easily toggled by accident.

    As far as usage goes, your Google skills are as good as mine; they’re being used by second-line forces such as border guards and paramilitaries, but horseback units and some marines and paratroopers use the QBZ-03.

    Infidelis concurs with most of my google sources; the QBZ-03 requires less training to use than the QBZ-95.

    ====

    As far as the 5.8mm round goes; it’s optimized, if I haven’t mentioned it before, for defeating body armor. It is not optimal for defeating unarmored infantry, unfortunately, but the QLB-06 and QLZ-87s semi-auto and automatic grenade launchers used as fire support should handle that task better.

  • jobjed

    the qbz-03 was developed for troops that operate far away from FOBs, as conserving ammo is crucial for those troops who cant get supplied very often. the qbz-03 helps conserve ammo because it has a longer distance between the rear and front sight thus making rapid aiming more accurate, albeit not as fast as the qbz-95. another reason was that the qbz-03′s stock can be folded, making it shorter than the qbz-95 and along with the reason above, the PLAAF airborne corps adopted this rifle.

  • Lance

    China has too many guns in government service Type 56 carbine Type 56 rifle Type 86 rifle and now Type 95 and Type 03 way too many calibers and rifles in various services.

  • Dave

    I tried the QBZ 95 in Beijing and it was good. The pics here are QBZ 95Gs which are the lastest upgraded 1s.

    The QBZ 95 before the QBZ-95G series as seen above had good accuracy and trigger pull. The trigger feels better than Steyr Aug. I’ve felt the differences and thats a good thing for the QBZ bullpup cuz its meant to be fired at semi-auto. The safety is unorthodox cuz its at the stock. The gun is definitely accurate. It is also small and light too. However there is no weight in the front of gun to hold down the recoil but i guess thats when the technique of gripping a rifle comes in. Defnitely a good gun and better than the FAMAS for sure. The new G series looks like they made the handle lower so that when some1 is using the scope his head wont be sticking out as much as before.

    Pros:
    -Light
    -Small
    -Accurate
    -Durable(I fired 400 drum mags on the QBZ machine gun full auto.)
    -Reliable(not sure yet but I believe so since its an AK bullpup based off of Chinese famous TYPE 81 AK.)
    -Light magazines
    -Fast easy reload

    Cons:
    -Chamber right at the shooter’s face
    -Using the scope means that your head will be exposed alittle bit more.
    -Can only be used by right handed ppl.
    -When you’re cleaning the gun you NEED TO DETACH THE SCOPE FIRST!
    -Cleaning and maintanence is longer than the AK.
    -Its too small so bayonets would most likely be redundant.
    -No front weight in the front of the gun to handle recoil

    I personally think this gun is a mix of a m16, an AK, and a FAMAS.

  • carl

    honestly, I think this rifle isnt that good. First, the sights are too high up which exposes the shooter. Bullpups are awkward to shoot and the trigger pull on a bullpup sucks. Go back to the type 81. There is no point wasting money and introducing a new rifle when the type 81 is very capable.