Chinese Small Arms: Pictures, Videos, and Descriptions

[cnleio]

New testing 5.8mm rifile for future PLA soldier, Just one photo ~!

 

[cnleio]

China NORINCO CQ-A 5.56mm rifle

 

[cirr]

 

[Akasa]

New testing 5.8mm rifile for future PLA soldier, Just one photo ~!

View attachment 335342

Are these two competing designs or variants of the same family?

 

[IblinI]

Are these two competing designs or variants of the same family?

The CGI was made by some one who has now being recruited by the PLA,the first picture is one of the four(or two)competing designs.

 

[cnleio]

new 5.8mm rifle CG

 

[Beast]

new 5.8mm rifle CG

View attachment 336176 View attachment 336177 View attachment 336178 View attachment 336179 View attachment 336180

Are they abandoning bullpup design? One big drawback of bull up design is lack adequate space for accessories add on the forearm area.

But bullpup design is overall still a good design to reduce size w/o reducing barrel length. Good for airborne, armour infantry.

 

[rcrmj]

Are they abandoning bullpup design? One big drawback of bull up design is lack adequate space for accessories add on the forearm area.

But bullpup design is overall still a good design to reduce size w/o reducing barrel length. Good for airborne, armour infantry.

bullpup is gone, their so-called advantage has reduced to null in modern warfare```M4 is actually as the same size as QBZ95, and it is more accurate than the latter``

 

[Beast]

bullpup is gone, their so-called advantage has reduced to null in modern warfare```M4 is actually as the same size as QBZ95, and it is more accurate than the latter``

But how can it achieved longer firing distance w/o sacrificing the barrel length? Precisely that is the point of using Bullpup design in the first place.

 

[gambit]

The bullpup design is a solution for an imaginary problem. And yes, I have shot a Kel Tec bullpup rifle.

There are many problems that the bullpup design supposed to solve, but none of them mattered under real world conditions.

The first problem that the bullpup design claimed to solve is physical length that are supposedly useful in enclosed environments such as urban combat. The counter argument is that the world's foremost urban warfare expert -- the US military -- have found no such need. In close quarters, accuracy and precision are less important than rate of fire, the M4 carbine use by the US Army and US Marines simply -- worked.

Here is the physical length difference...

The claimed tactical advantages are simply not there.

In contrast, the M4 have superior accessory variables, from sights to lights, that suit the user's many changing needs away from close quarters combat. Plus, the bullpup is a more mechanically complex design. US Special Operations units have latitudes in weaponry regular units do not have, and none of them gone on a mission with a bullpup.

 

[rcrmj]

But how can it achieved longer firing distance w/o sacrificing the barrel length? Precisely that is the point of using Bullpup design in the first place.

well M4 has much shorter barrel than QBZ95, but way more accurate than the latter, isnt it ironic ?````QBZ95 is a trash
do you now PLA uses heavy barreled and modified type95-1 for rifle shooting competition overseas?

btw, rifle's effectiveness and accuracy is determined by many factors, the barrel length is just one of them

枪管厚度、刚度、线膛长度、扰度、加工精度、子弹单头形状，火药，枪械的活动部件等等都会影响到精度和射程···增加枪管长度是最笨的做法，最没有技术含量的

 

[Beast]

M4 carbine effective range is only 250m while QBZ is 400m. By the way, they switch to QBZ-97 which is the better one.

 

[cnleio]

5.8mm Type95-1 tactical version for PLA soldiers

 

[yusheng]

that reminds me ten years ago, Chinese fishmen net the guns on Tanwai strait:

chinese local government of course can not find the source of the guns, however, the code on the guns can show many information, especially for those can recognize the code.

attach the analysis from "PERRY家族"
9月19日，新民网连线该边防***，边防所工作人员首先肯定了渔民
捞上来的是真枪，并猜测这支枪“有可能是台湾的驻军部队掉到海里面去的”
。有网友称，该枪的型号为美式M4步枪，边防所工作人员予以肯定。但对于网
友猜测该枪是“走私分子躲避海警时抛下海的”，该工作人员未置可否。
新民网获悉，关于这支枪的到底是哪里来的，有关部门正在进一步调查
之中。但边防所工作人员对调查的结果并不乐观，因为这支枪的来源基本上“
无证可查”。
据新民网了解，17日上午，东海街道浔埔社区的渔民黄某报警称，其在
台湾海峡大陆与台湾的中间线附近捕鱼时，撒下渔网，竟从海中捕捞到自动步
枪一支。黄某在船舶即将靠岸时，主动将枪支交至后渚边防***。经初步鉴
定，该枪支长71厘米，3.15公斤，口径5.56毫米，枪号为L508120，上面刻有“
USA”英文等标识，枪支结构为不锈钢质材，枪虽浸在海中，却没有生锈。边防
官兵介绍，枪中没有子弹。”
我想大家从新闻报道的用词应该是可以看出些什么的，在报了枪号后，这支
枪的来源基本上“无证可查”。也许对我们来讲无法查，可能查到来源的人就
真是胆战心惊，至少可以结案对相关人员家属有个交代了，而不是以“失踪”
了事了，这才是震慑的地方……我们在从技术上来看这支枪，其实透露它最多
信息的是它改装的防火帽，类似于LR300的phonton flash hider；这种火帽是
可以接消音器的，显然战斗状态时它还在防水袋里还没来得及装上，这也说明
了，对方是在尚未真正接近目标地时的仓促应战，枪上遗留的背带环腋说明了
这一点；不装瞄准镜也说明了这一点，从水路潜水接近一般不装的，接近陆地
才安装附件；对于是不是SEAL，我只能说可能性比较大，不是SEAL也是和它有
很大关系的组织，这个MK18，从改装角度看，不大可能是WW人员使用的，这个
枪流出很少，基本是对方人员对特战文化自我领悟的产物；要证实对方的身份
要看和它联系的是否还存在一把刀，如果说是有枪没刀那是不可能的，这是一
名特战人员的基本配备，即使没有枪也必须要有刀，其实刀有时就是识别对方
身份的最重要的工具，以前我叫大家学习点军事细节，这时候酒可以派上用出
处的，不管是对方还是我军，刀都是和那种要的标识，不同军队用刀的习惯是
不一样的……这把刀如果是SOG的，那酒能证明很多东西……这酒引出了另一个
组织，他们是ＣＩＡ的秘密部队————特种运作小组（ＳＯＧ），也被称为
中央情报局战地特工(CIA SOG FIELD OPERATOR)，SOG也是在西部和我们多有接
触的单位，对于它的组成很复杂，其很多人员都是特种部队挖脚过来的，他们
和军方有种“复杂”的关系前身最早可以追述到越南战争时期，在拉木司飞而
的时期，军方曾对SOG非常不满，曾自己组件类似的部队，但我们都知道后来的
事了，因为在阿的表现不佳，现在可是情报头子当家了，大家可以去了解一下
811时期我们的分析，所以在这一背景下，结合目前的形势，如果我是他当然用
自己的SOG抢头功啦，好办事啊，但由于前面所分析的，SOG和SEAL关系很复杂
，可能这个SOG就是SEAL出生呢，有兴趣的伙伴自己去研究，至于到底是那个这
已经不太重要了……SOG的特点是着当地便装，任务主要是渗透，暗杀，收集情
报，最主要没有军方的很多纪律约束...............................
我个人认为公布枪号就是一种特殊的“对话”，一般事件根本无须这样做……对方是
善于寻找对话的机会的,因为这是他们现在最迫切需要的,但最头疼是我们无声的对话,呵呵

 

[S10]

The bullpup design is a solution for an imaginary problem. And yes, I have shot a Kel Tec bullpup rifle.

There are many problems that the bullpup design supposed to solve, but none of them mattered under real world conditions.

The first problem that the bullpup design claimed to solve is physical length that are supposedly useful in enclosed environments such as urban combat. The counter argument is that the world's foremost urban warfare expert -- the US military -- have found no such need. In close quarters, accuracy and precision are less important than rate of fire, the M4 carbine use by the US Army and US Marines simply -- worked.

Here is the physical length difference...

The claimed tactical advantages are simply not there.

In contrast, the M4 have superior accessory variables, from sights to lights, that suit the user's many changing needs away from close quarters combat. Plus, the bullpup is a more mechanically complex design. US Special Operations units have latitudes in weaponry regular units do not have, and none of them gone on a mission with a bullpup.

I guarantee you that the barrel of the AUG above is at least 4 inches longer than the AR-15 below. That means better ballistic performance at range beyond 200 yards as well as more subdued muzzle flash. Just because they have roughly the same length overall does not mean they're equal. The latest variant can fit all the toys you described. It's simply a matter of mounting some rails.