FirstFreedom
Moderator
Ahhhhh. Duh.
Chinese Entertainment (5.8x42mm)
- Thread starter oldbillthundercheif
- Start date
Ahhhhh. Duh.
hksigwalther
New member
Oh they'll export them all right. We just can't import them.
This is what I found per http://www.strategypage.com "Some users prefer the old 7.62 x 39 mm, which is still being offered in new weapons. The latest Russian rifle, the 5.45 x 39 mm AN-94, utilises a complex mechanism to provide an extremely fast two-round burst, apparently to ensure that at normal ranges two bullets will strike the target rather than one. The Chinese recently adopted a 5.8 x 42 mm round in the QBZ-95 issued to elite troops, which is claimed to have a long-range performance superior to both the 5.45 x 39 mm and the 5.56 x 45 mm, although the differences are marginal as the 5.8 mm cartridge, despite having more case capacity, is loaded to a lower pressure." I wonder why they optioned for the lower pressures, I'm sure Chinese engineers know to keep pace or surpass the new/heavy 5.56 NATO ballistics they will have to do the same thing with the pressures. Was it done from conception of the cartridge or after the new rifle prototype. Depending on when the decision was made to keep pressures down may lead to the bad "QC" the new rifle has. May just be poor engineering and can't take the abuse of higher pressures. The concept seems practical but it looks as if something impeded it's progress. josh
freedash22
New member
The Export 5.56 versions
If you are in the US, I don't think you will be able to obtain one without great effort due to the restrictions in place for imported Chinese Assault-type weapons. Also, I do not think you will find the 5.8mm versions being sold anywhere outside China. However, only recently, the 5.56mm export versions have appeared with increasing frequency in the Philippine firearms market.
Sold at around 1800+ USD, the T97A and T97C (5.56 versions of the QBZ-95 standard and carbine) select-fire rifles are now available in the civilian arms market (almost 2x the price of a select-fire Type-56 AK). Unfortunately, these rifles along with the Chinese native 5.8mm versions have also been found in the hands of defeated communist rebels in the south. The very very limited reports we have heard about this rifle from the south are that they are reliable and feed any 5.56 ammo without any problems. Not much else is known.
If you are in the US, I don't think you will be able to obtain one without great effort due to the restrictions in place for imported Chinese Assault-type weapons. Also, I do not think you will find the 5.8mm versions being sold anywhere outside China. However, only recently, the 5.56mm export versions have appeared with increasing frequency in the Philippine firearms market.
Sold at around 1800+ USD, the T97A and T97C (5.56 versions of the QBZ-95 standard and carbine) select-fire rifles are now available in the civilian arms market (almost 2x the price of a select-fire Type-56 AK). Unfortunately, these rifles along with the Chinese native 5.8mm versions have also been found in the hands of defeated communist rebels in the south. The very very limited reports we have heard about this rifle from the south are that they are reliable and feed any 5.56 ammo without any problems. Not much else is known.
If I could speak to the question of the cheapness of the weapon for a moment, I'd like to raise a couple of points.
First, why is it assumed that a "plastic" stock is cheaper than a wooden stock? I realize it probably is, if only a little, but if you look around, you can easily find some very cheap (meaning they don't cost a lot and nothing more) wood stocks. Some Marlin models come with "hardwood" stocks and some Rugers have rather plain stocks. Good wood doesn't grow on trees, you know, especially in China. Besides, wood stocks bring their own problems.
The other point is that it is probably going to be problematic to have wood furniture on a bullpup action, although it has certainly been done. Not a bullpup, but I believe I've seen photos of (original) AR-10s with wood forearms and butts.
First, why is it assumed that a "plastic" stock is cheaper than a wooden stock? I realize it probably is, if only a little, but if you look around, you can easily find some very cheap (meaning they don't cost a lot and nothing more) wood stocks. Some Marlin models come with "hardwood" stocks and some Rugers have rather plain stocks. Good wood doesn't grow on trees, you know, especially in China. Besides, wood stocks bring their own problems.
The other point is that it is probably going to be problematic to have wood furniture on a bullpup action, although it has certainly been done. Not a bullpup, but I believe I've seen photos of (original) AR-10s with wood forearms and butts.
freedash22
New member
Quality Materials, Parts. Poor exterior finish.
I have not yet fired a QBZ-95 or Type 97 but have held and fired a Norinco CQ-A select-fire M4. An acquaintance of mine has one. He says they are built well and are reliable. The only issue he has is that the finish on the barrel and bolt carrier group is not very good and being in a tropical country, if left without lube, the barrel exterior starts to show brown spots faster than Bushmaster AR barrels. Also, the polymer handguard has those miniscule excess "plastic lines" which were left unpolished from the plastic-injection manufacturing process. T97s appear to have these mild issues as well.
I see Norinco as a company run by shrewd leadership who use cheap labor to their advantage. For example, even with the escalating tensions here in the Philippines over those islands they claim, they still happily export their guns here (is that a good idea?).
In conclusion I'd say QBZs or T97s are good weapons built with good materials and parts. And because of the low-cost labor in China, they are low-cost when compared to other rifles as management passes the savings on to their consumers (to be competitive). However, the less-than-great exterior polish and finish makes them look cheap and poorly-built. I would call them low-cost (built with economy in mind) but "Cheap" (as in poorly built using poor-quality materials) is not how I see these guns. 1911 "Norincolt" owners can attest to this.
I have not yet fired a QBZ-95 or Type 97 but have held and fired a Norinco CQ-A select-fire M4. An acquaintance of mine has one. He says they are built well and are reliable. The only issue he has is that the finish on the barrel and bolt carrier group is not very good and being in a tropical country, if left without lube, the barrel exterior starts to show brown spots faster than Bushmaster AR barrels. Also, the polymer handguard has those miniscule excess "plastic lines" which were left unpolished from the plastic-injection manufacturing process. T97s appear to have these mild issues as well.
I see Norinco as a company run by shrewd leadership who use cheap labor to their advantage. For example, even with the escalating tensions here in the Philippines over those islands they claim, they still happily export their guns here (is that a good idea?).
In conclusion I'd say QBZs or T97s are good weapons built with good materials and parts. And because of the low-cost labor in China, they are low-cost when compared to other rifles as management passes the savings on to their consumers (to be competitive). However, the less-than-great exterior polish and finish makes them look cheap and poorly-built. I would call them low-cost (built with economy in mind) but "Cheap" (as in poorly built using poor-quality materials) is not how I see these guns. 1911 "Norincolt" owners can attest to this.
Last edited:
cannonfire
New member
you do realize this thread is 6 years old....
but I wish we imported other countries' guns. I'm all for buying American but foreign designs just look so interesting.
but I wish we imported other countries' guns. I'm all for buying American but foreign designs just look so interesting.
Last edited: