Looks like a piece of crap.... I've seen the legal imported one that are sold in Canada. They're nothing special.... Also the photo of the muzzle blast looks fake. I see no spent shell casings being ejected.

Also, in another photo. You have a Chi-Com soldier diving into the dirt muzzle first. Sorry, but I think that even the PRC Army would teach it's troops not to allow dirt and debris clog the muzzle. That would cause one major KB! But hey, they're my enemy anyways. So I will continue to allow them to take themselves out of action.

Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm

You have a Chi-Com soldier diving into the dirt muzzle first. Sorry, but I think that even the PRC Army would teach it's troops not to allow dirt and debris clog the muzzle. That would cause one major KB!

It explains why M-16 is paper tiger compare with AK-47.



QBZ-95 is using some AK-47's technologies.

Hey Regisvo, you fill up the barrel of an AK-47 rifle with dirt and it's going to cause problems too. The problems that I'm talking about are barrels and receivers blowing up. That has nothing to do with an AK versus M16 thing. That has something to do with proper weapon handling and safety.

As I said, I've handled them. Nothing special... just another Chi-Com bull-pup rifle. Of course that was the QBZ-97, which is cahmbered in the 5.56x45mm and uses a different magazine well and magazines. It uses the NATO STANAG AR-15 series of magazines.

I have a little bit of background experience in this field. I'm a former Gun Smith and Firearms Dealer. I'm currently a police officer and I go to just about every single firearms event in the USA. The SHOT Show is the major event. Everyone there hawks their gear and guns. Your little rifle was there. It was not the best thing that I've seen. Infact, I seen better polished turds made in the Gun Bazaars Of Pakistan (home made guns).

Once again... another showing of the photo that everyone loves....

Western weapons are made to higher tolerances (the parts fit more exactly due to higher quality machining and maufacturing) but any dirt or sand between these parts could cause problems. However; the western weapons tend to be a little more accurate. If your character is doing any long range or sniper type shooting.....an AK would not necessarily be the best weapon.

http://kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwboard/...ages/2203.html

While I was in the army, (cavalry), I shot many M16A1's and A2's. The A1's were absolute crap and jammed frequently. The A2's were much, much better, but the design of the M16 is inherently less reliable than the AK. It vents gasses directly into the action of the rifle which causes it to get real dirty real fast. The bolt is much lighter than on the AK. The heavy bolt on the AK develops a lot of momentum and basically forces it's way through dirt and debris that would cause other rifles to jam. The ammunition AK's were designed to shoot has very deep grooves around the rim. This means it's easier for the extractors to operate. AK's have very loose tolerances. Dirt gets pushed out of the way and doesn't interfere with the action. AK's also have about half the parts of an M16. Less parts means less things can go wrong.

http://www.kalashnikov.guns.ru/wwwbo...ages/1984.html

The reliability of the QBZ-95 approximates to the AK-47. It's better than the M16. The accurate of the QBZ-95 is better than the AK-47 and lower than the M16. Therefore the PLA equips the QBZ-95 5.8 mm rifle and the QBU-88 5.8 mm sniper rifle simultaneously.

QBU-88 5.8 mm Sniper Rifle


Now are you aware of the QBZ-95?

Look, I'm not going to get into an argument with you over something that you have no knowledge on. For all I know you're some 15 year Chi-Com sitting around spewing communist propaganda. It sounds like you have never served nor fired a weapon of any type anytime let alone have any knowledge in this field of debate.

You live in a nation that does not let you own firearms. You quote Wikipedia, a source of information that's known not to be 100% accurate.

I on the other hand am a prior service member of the US Army, former Gun Smith (repaired and made firearms for a living), former Firearm Dealer, and current Municipal Law Enforcement Officer. Firearms are my life. So as the internet says. Getting into an argument is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.

The AK47 nor the Chinese copycat of the SA-80 is better than the M-16. It would do you good Reggie to educate yourself and to that end here is a link. Happy reading... be sure to read ALL the links ALL the way through.

Origins of Myth: M-16 VS AK

I don't know why everyone who loves AR-15s has to hate on AKs. They're both great weapons for different situations and skill levels.

M4 to face new rifles in dust-chamber test

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Jul 20, 2007 11:54:17 EDT

Yielding to congressional pressure, the Army will conduct a test in August to see if the M4 carbine soldiers take to war is the most reliable weapon available in sand-storm conditions.

The test will compare how the M4 performs against a select group of newer, more compact rifles when exposed to a “dust chamber” at the Army Test and Evaluation Center at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., said Col. Carl Lipsit, project manager for Soldier Weapons...

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/0..._rifle_070715/

Look Regisvo, I've spent time in the sand box with the M16 platform. It works. It never failed me when I needed it. You give me a gun and I can make it fail any damn test. Every firearm ever made needs to be cleaned and lubricated to work properly. Some firearms have a loser tolerance then other. There are trade offs.

The 1911 series of pistols are very accurate but they need to be cleaned and lubricated more often then a GLOCK series pistol.

The whole issue of tolerance means that your gun might work in some shitty environments but it won't be accurate.

Proper firearms training means that if you keep your weapon clean and lubricated that it will work. I have real hard earned experience in this subject. Don't get into an argument that you cannot win.

The Chi-Com QBZ-95 entered PLA service in 1997. It fires the 5.8x42mm Centerfire Cartridge. It has an overall length of 760mm, a total unloaded weight of 3.4kg, a barrel length of 520mm, a rate of fire of 650 rounds per minute, and a standard service load of 30rd per magazine.

The action is a gas operated, magazine fed, automatic weapon with a bullpup layout. It has a short stroke gas piston and a rotating bolt. The charging handle is located at the top of the receiver, under the carrying handle. The housing is made from polymer, with an integral carrying handle, which holds the rear sight base, and has mounting points for optical or night vision scopes. The ejection port is made only at the right side of the weapon, so it cannot be fired from the left shoulder. Standard sights are of the open type, graduated from 100 to 500 metres. The front part of the barrel in the standard version is left unobstructed, so the QBZ-95 rifle can be used to launch rifle grenades. It also can be fitted with an underbarrel grenade launcher or with a knife bayonet. Fire controls of QBZ-95 rifle consist of a trigger and a safety/selector switch, located (quite inconveniently) at the rear left of the receiver, behind the magazine housing. QBZ-95 can fire single shots or bursts. the magazine is rocked into place like the AK series or FN FAL Rifle.

Here is the main issue. THE RIFLE HAS NOT SEEN ANY MAJOR CONFLICT.

The M16 weapon system that you are bashing has had some rough times in it's past (has does most firearms when they're new). Most issues can be traced back at operator error, not design. But it has been in major service for the last 45 years. It is used by major military powers. It has fought battles in every world climate. Most nations that used former Soviet style weapons are switching over to the M16 weapon system.

Don't open up a can of firefight if you cannot back up your claims.

The US Military will continue to look for a replacement rifle because that is the nature of the beast. Sure, the M16 has been working like a champ but if someone can make a better rifle then guess what. We're going to go for the damn better weapon. It's why we went from the Spring Trapdoor rifle to the 1896 Krag and then from the 1896 Krag to the Springfield 1903. Then from the Springfield 1903 to the M1 Garand. Then from the M1 Garand to the M14. Then from the M14 to the M16. What will come after the M16, I don't know. Maybe a Phased Plasma Rifle in the 40Watt range? (Please tell me that some folks understand the joke.)

The Chinese QBZ-95 is nothing new. It's the same gas system as an AR-18. which guess what. It's an American Design. Designed by the same man that made the M16 rifle (AR-15). Eugene Stoner. It was designed to be a cheaper rifle to be produced for nations that cannot afford to produce the AR-15. The AR-18 is made of stamped metal instead of machine cut aluminum receivers. The AR-18 gas system and basic design have been copied into the British L-85/SA-80 Rifle and the now famous German Heckler and Koch G-36 series of rifles.

I say it once and I'll say it again. If you listen to the People's Republic of China long enough. They'll damn tell you that they invented water and oxygen.

EDIT: The whole issue of the QBZ-88 Sniper Rifle is battlefield tactics. It's called DM (Designated Marksman). The US Armed Forces does the same as does every other damn military power.