The Firearms at The Chinese Naval show

011551t_2g_2w_6t_3zwd_2ti_21-tm-tfb

A reader of the blog emailed use some great photos he took at a Chinese Navel “open day” in Hong Kong. I would give just about anything to be able to shoot the 35mm QLZ-87 automatic grenade launcher (top photo) form the hip!

[ Many thanks to Xiao for emailing us the link. ]

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

  • Reverend Clint

    3rd from the bottom looks like an AI AS50

  • Raoul O’Shaugnessy

    A bullpup with a drum magazine…thats an interesting combo. (Fourth pic from top.) More iterestingly, it looks like the majority of the drum is hanging out the left side of the gun making right-handed shooting a challenge.

    • DW

      The drum is on the left side to allow (relatively) comfortable aiming from the right hand; you will have a hard time aiming that thing with a drum to the right. Also, the rifle shouldn’t be fired from the left shoulder.

    • Sian

      The QJB95 seems to have an offset magwell, much like the AN94. for a bullpup mag-fed LMG, doing an offset drum like that seems to be the only way to go. Though you won’t be able to use it left-handed at all, that’s probably not much of a concern.

      • SamIAm

        Its probably a concern for left handed shooters…

      • Boomslang

        SamIam- the fact that it ejects out the left side of the rifle, right where your face would be if you were shooting it left handed, is FAR more of a concern for a lefty than the drum magazine being offset. China probably just forces lefthanders to shoot right-handed with any of the bullpup weapons shown.

  • Le Merc

    which pistol is tat,one with d suppressor?

    • Xiao

      The one with the suppressor is the QSZ-92 chambered in 5.8mm

      The one without the suppressor is the same chambered in 9x19mm
      The 9mm versions have a five pointed star on the grip.

      • ragnarok220

        Actually it’s the new QSW-06 pistol. Rotating barrel lock and suppressor just can’t go together.

  • omologato

    Forbidden fruit doesn’t get much more forbidden than this.

  • Brett

    “Chinese Navel ‘open day’ in Hong Kong.”

    What do belly buttons have to do with all of these great pictures?

    /grammar-nerd

    Neat stuff, thanks for posting.

  • Rangefinder

    Seams like a short sight radius in the third picture. Maybe not an issue when boarding a vessel. I assume quietly.

    • fgt

      That’s a QCW-05/Type 05 suppressed submachine gun. It is suppossed to be used in close quarters.
      It’s chambered for a subsonic version of the 5.8x21mm AP pistol round, and has a four-row 50 rounds box mag. Externally, it resembles the QBZ95 assault rifle, but internally it is very different, being blowback operated and not short-stroke gas piston operated like the QBZ95…

      http://world.guns.ru/smg/ch/type-05-e.html

  • Duray

    Fifth pic looks a LOT like a Kel-tec RFB. Can’t tell whether it’s forward eject, though. If it is, then it’s clearly a copy. (just an observation, not saying it’s good or bad.)

    • Mike Knox

      That’s a QBU-88, it’s been around since the 80s. Decades before the RFB.
      It’s a DMR version of the QBZ-95, which is a chinese rip-off on the FAMAS..

      • TxDog

        The QBZ-95 is not a “rip off” of the FAMAS. Both rifles are bullpups, but that’s about the extent of their similarities. If you want to see a true rip off of the FAMAS, check out Croatia’s VHS assault rifle.

      • Kosme

        well … VHS is not a “rip-off” of the FAMAS. It is as similar to famas as the QBZ-95 … they are botuh bullpups …
        They have diferent internal mechanisms, the famas has a lever-delayed blowback action wile the VHS hasta direct impingement action …

      • Kosme

        *has :P

      • Mike Knox

        @TxDog
        Take apart both a FAMAS and a QBZ-95 side by side they’re almost the same other than a Type 81′s operating mechanism squeezed into where a FAMAS’ is. The QBZ’s initial design was a Gas operated FAMAS chambered in the 5.8x42mm..

      • Duray

        Ah. When I saw the word “show” in the title, I assumed these were supposed to be new models, not old ones. My bad.

      • ragnarok220

        @Mike Knox

        If it’s gas operated, it’s NOT FAMAS. They is no similarity other than both are bullpups.

        See the internal of FAMAS, it’s way more complex than QBZ 95.

        http://img.waffleimages.com/7c5bd93fb1a35612e9bd291d0159de8b216c92c8/FAMAS_DiagramInternalsR.jpg

        http://www.apl-chine.com/imagesv/terre/fa/qbz95/qbz95_7.jpg

        As for the operating mechanism, both QBZ 95 and type 81 are Short-stroke piston systems but the BCG are totally different (3 lugs vs 2 lugs).

      • Mike Knox

        @ragnarok220
        Apparently, you don’t know how to read those diagrams you posted. It shows the FAMAS central cross section only but not the components layout, and the stripped down QBZ is the 1995 version with alterations from the FAMAS copy. If you look closely you can see a Type 81′s gas rod fitted in where a FAMAS return spring goes and rotating bolt where a Blowback bolt face wound be. If you were around in 1989, the First QBZ was plainly a FAMAS with a Gas operating rod.

        It’s just the classic chinese industrial philosophy: When they finally admit they suck at making something on their own, rip-off someone else’s design. They’re just following suit after what soviet Russia did with their tanks, jets and weapons..

      • ragnarok220

        Speaking of QBU-88, it’s a bullpup version of the SVD. It has NOTHING to do with FAMAS.

      • TxDog

        @Mike Knox,

        Given the multiple differences, namely the fact that the QBZ-95 is striker fired (the FAMAS is not) and the differing actions, it’s safe to say that the OBZ-95 is not a “rip off.” Rip offs tend to have more similarities than differences and looks can’t be helped where bullpups are concerned. If the QBZ-95 is a rip off of the FAMAS, then logically the SIG 550 is a rip off of the AR-15/M16 because it fires 5.56 and takes STANAG mags. Yes, the Chinese rip off a lot of things (they ripped off the AR-15/M16 with the Norinco CQ rifle), but in this case they can claim to have made this rifle on their own – and given its multiple issues (ergonomics, poor placement of the safety, and reported QC problems) I’m not sure that’s something they can be proud of.

      • W

        given the evidence provided, the QBZ95 is not a rip off of the FAMAS. Besides being bullpups, the two have very little in common. Two completely firearms with different operating systems.

        http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/1289304119.jpg

        Just because it may look the same, it is not necessarily inspired by one design or another.

      • Mike Knox

        @ragnarok220
        The QBU-88 a Bullpup SVD? The latter would be a Dragunov SVU, The QBU-88 is a DMR QBZ-95. Get your “facts” right.

        @TxDog
        Like I’ve said before look at the 1989 prototype, as a matter of fact look at the second photo ragnarok220 and what W linked. It’s as I said, a FAMAS with the Type-81′s operating mechanics squeezed in.

        @W
        A firearm’s design doesn’t depend on it’s operating system but it’s manual and philosophy of operation. and don’t tell me you’ll get back at your AR-18 issue again..

      • ragnarok220

        @Mike Knox

        It’s kind of odd that fact is that SVU entered service in 1994 and QBU-88 entered service in 1988. I didn’t know that Chinese had a time machine.

      • W

        here we go again.

        You are focusing on outward appearances, which is puzzling since the FAMAS and QBZ really look different. I am going by the operating system, which is critical for the damned thing to fire. Yes, apparently this is like the AR18 argument again. The QBZ has more in common with the type 81 it replaced than the FAMAS. The QBZ has nothing to do with the FAMAS.

      • TxDog

        @Mike Knox – I think you’re letting your bias get the better of you. You’ve admitted there are internal differences and the external differences are obvious to see. To persist in calling it a rip off of the FAMAS is just you being stubborn rather than you being correct.

        Aesthetically it bears little resemblance to the FAMAS other than being a bullpup.

        Internally it bears little resemblance to the FAMAS.

        In terms of action, it is completely different from the FAMAS.

        So what we have is not a FAMAS rip off, but you trying to shoehorn it in as a rip off to justify your stated opinion. I could understand it if we were talking about the CETME and H&K G3 or the H&K G36 and the Mexican Xiuhcoatl or the AK-47 and the Chinese Type 56, but we’re not.

      • fgt

        I wish to see that ’1989 prototype’ of the QBZ95, Mike Knox claims to have seen… Must be pretty strong drugs.

      • Mike Knox

        @ fgt
        Start with Jane’s Guns Recognition Guide Firearms 1991 1st edition..

      • Mike Knox

        @ragnarok220
        As if date of issue determines which development came first.

        @W
        Wow, you’re really still sore about it aren’t you. Is should put salt on the stick before I poke you next time. I wanna’ see you pop an artery. Besides, the operating mechanism isn’t the important part of a Firearm.

        @TxDog
        It’s not about bias but observed history. The criteria was their own bullpup operated like the type-81 chambered in 5.8x42mm. But since the FAMAS was the best one around and being communist chinese, they copied the platform and adjusted it to avoid flak from the French.

      • ragnarok220

        @Mike Knoxre

        How are you going to copy something that you don’t have access ????

      • W

        “Wow, you’re really still sore about it aren’t you. Is should put salt on the stick before I poke you next time. I wanna’ see you pop an artery. Besides, the operating mechanism isn’t the important part of a Firearm.”

        LOL you are cute and funny, ill give you that, but not to bright im afraid. no need for salt, im bitter enough.

        Oh really now? the operating mechanism is not the important part of a firearm? Im glad everybody can see this. No…not critical at all, its only the amalgamation of parts that allow the fucking thing to fire and cycle LOL! you talk about manual and philosophy of operation, well, the operating system is the epitome of philosophy of operation. In the case of the QBZ95, it has nothing in common with the FAMAS’ philosophy of operation. They are two different beasts.

        “But since the FAMAS was the best one around and being communist chinese, they copied the platform and adjusted it to avoid flak from the French.”

        Riddle me this, but how in the fuck would the Chinese have access to a French assault rifle that is only produced in France and not at all popular around the world? Why would they reinvent the wheel by copying the FAMAS, when they could just integrate the tried and true operating system of the Type 81 into a newer, bullpup design if they so desire…oh wait…they did. That is what the QBZ95 is, a combination of tried concepts of the type 81 (its operating system) and the 87 (new cartridge) into a proprietary weapon system. But of course, there is the QBZ-03, which is a conventional layout rifle with a similar operating system; why would this rifle exist if the QBZ85 was so revolutionary and “cool” with its bullpup system???

      • Mike Knox

        @ragnarok220
        I can copy but I might have to be sued. Try reading the book yourself, Amazon doesn’t have every book. There are things libraries have that the internet can’t show you.

        @W
        HAH! Do you even know the most important parts of a Firearm at all? I’m sure you can’t get it right.

        It’s just the same as China getting their MiGs or their own 5th Gen Strike Craft, which are motley attempts at MiG-21 and F-22. They’ve been better at ripping off designs more than Russia did, just look at their auto industry as an example.

        Besides, if the QBZ-03 was good enough, then why did they build a bullpup rifle in the same cartidge, eh? Simple enough, they’re communist chinese, they’d rather rip off western designs than struggle with their own raggedy conjugations. They’re just imitating what the rest of the free world does just for good show..

      • W

        “HAH! Do you even know the most important parts of a Firearm at all? I’m sure you can’t get it right.”

        Yeah the parts that facilitate the eight cycles of firing: feeding, chambering, locking, firing, obturation, unlocking, extraction, ejection, cocking. Those are important; appearances are not. Of course, how the QBZ95 and FAMAS complete these eight steps is vastly different. You just wont admit it.

        “It’s just the same as China getting their MiGs or their own 5th Gen Strike Craft, which are motley attempts at MiG-21 and F-22. They’ve been better at ripping off designs more than Russia did, just look at their auto industry as an example.”

        yup, why wouldnt they? with western companies outsourcing production to there, one should not be surprised that they leech proprietary technologies or concepts from the original designers. The Chinese dont even need to rely on espionage as they do the west’s greed to obtain more profits for shareholders.

        “Besides, if the QBZ-03 was good enough, then why did they build a bullpup rifle in the same cartidge, eh? Simple enough, they’re communist chinese, they’d rather rip off western designs than struggle with their own raggedy conjugations. They’re just imitating what the rest of the free world does just for good show”

        Youre trying to move the goalpost. the QBZ03 came AFTER the QBZ95. Ill admit that it is merely a updated type 81, but thats not the point. My original point is why would they go through the trouble in producing and adopting such a rifle if the 95 was so revolutionary and groundbreaking? the truth is that its not.

        Without veering off course, the QBZ95 is not a ripoff of the FAMAS. in fact, it has much more in common with the L85 than it does the FAMAS. I mean that tongue in cheek of course with a hint of seriousness since they both are short-stroke gas piston operated, though that opens up a entirely new can of worms. Out of all these posts, you have provided no compelling reasons why it is “a ripoff”…Im still waiting (I was hoping you would be more proactive and present your hypothesis without somebody asking you).

      • DW

        I think your “1989 type 95 prototype” which looked like a Famas rip off… is in fact a type 86S
        http://world.guns.ru/assault/ch/type-6s-e.html

        FYI: even the type 86S is NOT a Famas ripoff. It’s an AK. Sure you can say it’s a FAMAS lookalike but it is NOT a ripoff. BTW it has NOTHING to do with the later developed type 95.

      • Mike Knox

        Oh Man, I had so much fun at work I actually forgot this was going on.

        One plug I can catch up on, the QBZ-95 would look like the type-86s if the chinese came up with their own design.

        @W
        You really don’t know the important components of a Firearm don’t you? I’m sure of it..

      • W

        LOL, knox, like i told you over a month before, it is obvious I have unintentionally forgot more than youll ever know about firearms. Ragnorak did a awesome job in refuting your incorrect FAMAS bullshit.

        your comment makes zero sense. if they came up with their own design, the obvious AK/Type 56 derived 86S would not be involved. The FAMAS was not the “best one around”, nor would it have been available to the Chinese during the QBZ95′s development time. If they wanted to copy a successful bullpup design, which they didn’t, they would have used the AUG.

        The only thing the QBZ95 has in common with the FAMAS is the top-mounted charging handle in the carrying handle. Oh shit…the original AR10 also had a similarly located charging handle.

        The QBZ is not a rip-off. get over it.

      • Mike Knox

        You’re still the same inbred retard aren’t you? I’m sure as before your only firearms experience is from video games and wikipedia. Just as sure as that I’m guessing you don’t know anything about weapons proliferation either, or about Foreign Legion deserters. Chinese members of the Legion who deserted were known to take their gear along as a bargaining chip for asylum back in china.

        China has a lot of trade issues regarding reverse-engineered, imitated, and counterfeit products, Including firearms. You’ve really got to be daft as salted driftwood to miss something like that.

        “more than I can ever know”? HAH! This coming from someone who doesn’t know what makes a firearm what it is. Firearms were working long before operating mechanisms came around, and you still think that’s the only part of it that matters. Just ask Hiram Maxim, Samuel Colt, or Richard Gattling. Wait, you can’t, just the same way as you can explain which is the important part of the firearm..

      • W

        mike, mike, nobody cares about your rant. foreign legion deserters? LOL holy fuck dude, can i fit you for a tin foil hat? Weapons in any respectible army are stored away, especially in armies with only small contingents deployed on NATO missions.

        The fact still stands. the QBZ is not a rip-off of the FAMAS. Two different operating systems, two different designs that happen to be bullpups. Thats it.

        Ive already described how a firearm works and which parts are critical and the reasons behind it.

        Firearms were working before the operating mechanisms came around? that is the stupidest thing i have ever heard because it is physically impossible. The “operating mechanism”, or how a firearm works, has been the most critical component since gunpowder was first invented and the first black powder firearms appeared on the battlefield. Whether they use a barrel with black powder, brass cartridges, gas operated actions, the mechanics are the most essential part. Maxim, Colt, and JMB were all famous because of new mechanisms and operating systems that they invented. They didn’t become famous because of the appearances of a weapon. Its magic!

        anyways, ill say it again because you are a bit slow: the QBZ is not a FAMAS ripoff. bye, bye now cupcake.

      • ragnarok220

        @Mike Knox

        The French sold BILLIONS of weapons/technology to China back in the 80s.

        The fact is that China tested number of foreign designs (including AUG, FN FNC, AK 74, FAMAS, M-16,HK33) in the 80s, and they were not very impressed by FAMAS at all.

        If China want to reverse-engineering a western rifle, both FNC and AUG (Taiwan did in the late 70s) would be much better options than FAMAS.

        May I ask you what’s so damn great about FAMAS ??

        “Chinese Foreign Legion deserters take their gears along as a bargaining chip for asylum back in china”

        I turely respect your effort to come up this kind of BS.

    • ragnarok220

      @Mike Knox

      Here is your components layout. Tell me how you are going to copy a gas system into a Delayed blowback system ???

      http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/1289304119.jpg

      I want to see a picture of the first QBZ, show me how it’s a FAMAS with a Gas operating rod.

      Speaking of industrial philosophy: why would Chinese want to copy a “bad” French design??? At least QBZs do NOT require specially designed ammo casing.

      • Mike Knox

        That’s a dull “argument”. I already said about which operating system was substituted.

        Getting an online photo from china seeing how they censor the internet especially about their industrial works, tell me how that’s worth the effort when an internet dork asks for it.

        If it’s that “bad” then why did most of Europe follow the Bullpup trend from them? If it didn’t occur to you, it’s the QBZ that requires specialized casing. The SS109 is just by preference, the F1 and G1 just used it to tap down it’s cyclic rate, NATO rounds weren’t an issue otherwise..

      • W

        “That’s a dull “argument”. I already said about which operating system was substituted.”

        “Getting an online photo from china seeing how they censor the internet especially about their industrial works, tell me how that’s worth the effort when an internet dork asks for it.”

        In case you didnt pay attention, it is a picture of the QBZ disassembled. Thats it. It wasn’t like he posted a dissertation on geopolitical relations with Taiwan or anything.

        “If it’s that “bad” then why did most of Europe follow the Bullpup trend from them? If it didn’t occur to you, it’s the QBZ that requires specialized casing. The SS109 is just by preference, the F1 and G1 just used it to tap down it’s cyclic rate, NATO rounds weren’t an issue otherwise..”

        Why would it require its own specialized casing? if you mean its “special” caliber than you would be correct. Its short stroke gas operated action would typically allow wide varieties of ammunition of differing quality to be fired through it, thats assuming different brands of 5.8mm are manufactured.

        Europe followed the bullpup trend because the earliest of designs (like the British EM2) were bullpups; they flirted with the idea for a while in contrast to the US which was deadset against such weapons. The FAMAS wasn’t nearly as successful as the AUG, which was a far better weapon in my opinion. Europe is not dropping their conventional layout rifles for bullpups either; the HK 416, G36, SIG 550 (which is even issued to units in the French military LOL), FN FNC, and others are still going strong.

        BTW, different units in the french military and police tactical units dont use FAMAS rifles. This is similar among countries that have adopted bullpups as their standard rifle (britain, australia, NZ); their more highly trained units are using conventional layout rifles. puzzling, considering that many assume the bullpup is a “better” layout (it clearly is not).

      • ragnarok220

        @ Mike Knox

        FAMAS requires specialized steel casing because it’s a delayed blowback rifle, the
        ejection cycles are fairly violent and hard on the brass casing. There is really no much difference when it comes to the cyclic rate between the G1 and F1 .

        FAMAS is a bad design, but it doesn’t mean all bullpups are bad.

  • Lance

    Lets see Chinese fire arms in service you got Type 56C rifles and Carbines and Type 95 rifles shown. Type 54 and Type 94 pistols shown. SVDs and PKMs nothing really that new. But if your into ChiCom weapons its nice gunporn.

    • ragnarok220

      Where do you see Type 56C rifles (NOT shown in the picture), Type 94 pistol (which does NOT exist), Type 54 pistol (NOT shown in the picture), PKMs (NOT shown in the picture) ????

      • Lance

        They are in Chinese Navy use, they didn’t show all the guns at the event. All im saying if you like cheap commie crap go ahead.

      • David/Sharpie

        Lance, the stuff they make for their own military is very good quality. The modern export stuff (Like the CQ-556 available in Canada) is good quality with a shitty finish, keep it clean or get it refinished there isn’t much difference in quality

      • Mike Knox

        @David/Sharpie
        I hate to say this about chinese made stuff but you’re right on that. A lot of their guns are actually good. Like the norinco M4, cheaper than a SIG pistol but almost on par with Colt’s. The only thing that sucks is their finish, but wait for it and they’re better than Colt’s.

        What would you expect? They build everything apple sells these days and that’s what shallow, aesthetic people are hounding after, something made in china. God forbid, NASA even speculated china’ll beat the US to Mars setting foot there..

      • W

        lance,

        “Apple’s executives had estimated that about 8,700 industrial engineers were needed to oversee and guide the 200,000 assembly-line workers eventually involved in manufracturing iPhones. The company’s analysts had forecast it would take as long as nine months to find that many qualified engineers in the United States.

        In China, it took 15 days.”

        http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/why-the-united-states-will-never-ever-build-the-iphone/251837/

        This should paint a picture about the capabilities of the chinese. capacity and numbers are no different when it comes to military products.

    • Lance

      Ohh i meant to say Type 92 pistol not 94.

    • Lance

      There all cheap knock offs W. Strange so many of you like one of the sinister nations military.

      • DW

        We didn’t say we like them; personally I hate them. But we should give credit where it’s due, instead of pointless naysaying.

      • W

        dude, maybe if you read the link i posted, applied critical thinking, and started paying some fucking attention you would have caught on.

        Nowhere did i say i like the idea of the chinese being where they’re at. but people’s expectations that the US would remain the 1995-era lone world superpower is incredible naive and stupid. Digitalization and the information age will require the US to step up its game if it doesnt want to get left behind. I build you a window to look out and see some reality. If it is too much, then stay in your own jingonistic bubble.

  • Evan Jay

    Is the QLZ87 35mm GL fired with the pistol grip portruding from the right of the receiver? I can’t imagine it would, but look at the position of the muzzle brake, bipod, and stock. Maybe to offset the weight of the drum magazine? Still seems goofy to me.

  • jAred

    can we have the link that was emailed?

  • Lance

    #8 is a PKM

  • Alex-mac

    Except for the Dragunov clone, it’s cool how all their weapons are the same one color.

    • mosinman

      i see a QLZ and i want to paint it black……..

  • ragnarok220

    @Mike Knox

    “Getting an online photo from china seeing how they censor the internet especially about their industrial works, tell me how that’s worth the effort when an internet dork asks for it.”

    I can actually read Chinese, and I can tell you that those information is NOT really censored.
    On the other hand, you can’t find a picture that doesn’t exist.

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

    • Mike Knox

      You wanna’ try that again, that link’s dead. Just ask Google or time how much China filters the internet from them and vice versa. It’s not a question if you can read chinese or not.

      On the other hand, you can’t find an image published and copywritten from a book on the internet. Nice shot dweeb, but too weak..

      • ragnarok220

        This is odd, it works on my computer. I don’t think you understand how Internet filtering works.

  • Hikerguy

    They are typical of Chinese thought and philosopy on firearms: Rugged weapons that are easy to maintain and service, dependable in combat, and can be produced quickly and in large numbers by semi-skilled workers. Sure, they don’t have all the fancy do-dads like the an M4/M16 or an SIG, but they get the job done.

    • Kosme

      semi-skilled workers ???? They build half the things you buy … i say the are good skilled workers …

  • Darrel

    Mmm, that SVD doesn’t look too bad… I’m sure I could find a chinese one if i looked hard enough…

  • smith

    Those are some ugly guns..

  • Big Daddy

    Those weapons are pretty well thought out and take into consideration some of the limitations of Chinese industry. I don’t think they are on the level of western quality weapons but very close.

    They have a certain crude look to them which would be expected. I suspect they work well but are not as accurate as most western military weapons. I will also add they probably are not as reliable. I have read that they had a lot of trouble with the bullpups.

    I would not like to face a large contingent of Chinese armed units, I am sure the 5.8mm will kill you just as fast as a 5.56mm.

    I have tried to find some data on that round, it looks interesting. I think they were using steel casings for them, that might have been problematic.

  • ragnarok220

    @ Mike Knox
    “Start with Jane’s Guns Recognition Guide Firearms 1991 1st edition..”

    You know this is kind of odd. This book is available on Amazon, and according to Amazon,

    Since the publication of the first edition in 1996, Jane’s Guns Recognition has sold over 65,000 copies worldwide and this edition ensures it remains the international best-selling firearms handbook.

    For your information, China did develop a delayed-blowback action rifle, and it can be easily convertible to gas-operated action – the 66-136 rifle.
    It looks more like a SKS than FAMAS and it was developed in 1966.

    http://archives.gunsandammo.com/content/chinese-type-81?page=1

    http://www.ctrxjh.cn/uploads/allimg/100607/2204323616-0.JPG

    • Mike Knox

      1996? That’s just the earliest edition Amazon can get. I’m even sure you’re just toting off an online plug for that. It’s not the same as what you can order from Jane’s defence weekly in the 80s and early 90s. Try looking in libraries and older bookstores yourself.

      FAMAS roots beat your 66-136 from 1962 beginning from designs in the late 40s. But that’s irrelevant since china started in the QBZ-95 in the late 80s even when the QBZ-03 was around and good enough. That’s noticably well after getting wind of European Bullpups like the Steyr AUG, Enfield SA-80 (the first ones like the EM-2/L64), and obviously, Giat’s FAMAS. At the time, they were still lugging Soviet lend-offs from World War 2 and cheap knock-offs (like the one you just brought up)..

      • ragnarok220

        @ Mike Knox

        It’s kind of strange the publisher of the book “HarperCollins” also states the publication date of Jane’s Gun Recognition Guide (First Edition) is April 1996
        ISBN 13: 978-0004709796 (paperback).

        QBZ 95 was first seen in public in 1997, before that no one in the west knew its existence!!!! AND no one in the west had access to China’s small arms development program. This “The QBZ’s initial design was a Gas operated FAMAS chambered in the 5.8x42mm..” is pure BS.

        Jane’s defence weekly

        Here is from wiki

        “The FAMAS project began in 1967 under the direction of Paul Tellie and the first prototype was completed in 1971.”

        Here is a picture of the “root”. It looks kind of like FN FAL, but I am sure the French didn’t rip off FN FAL.

        http://www.securityarms.com/photos/1277223434.jpg

  • mosinman

    Mao once said…. your can have your weapon in any color….. as long as its black!

  • Paul

    That Type 85 is the most beautiful weapon there… I would love to own a Dragunov/Type 85/TIGR… stupid import regs.