Talk:QBZ-95/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sniper variant

I have seen in many other places the Type 88 sniper rifle listed as the QBU-88, not he KBU-88. Also, it appears that it isn't in the same family as the Type 95 series of rifles, since it looks much more like the QJY-88 5.8mm GPMG. It would appear that it was a separately developed rifle system that also uses the 5.8mm round and have a different purpose from the QBZ-95 family.

Author's Response: The "sniper" system (the barrel is not free-floated, so it's more a designated marksman rifle like the Dragunov) is referenced in the Fortier article as the "KBU-88." Perhaps it's an irregularity in transliteration. Not being literate in Chinese, I am not certain as to which version is the correct one. Given that the "QB" part of the prefix would probably be common to all light rifle designations, it's more likely called the QBU-88. Sinodefence.com uses this designation also. The article has been changed to reflect this. The Fortier article also identifies the K/QBU-88 as part of the 5.8mm "weapons complex."

Though there is little known about these weapons, I did note that the QJY-88 machine gun is not a bullpup design like the QBU-88 "sniper" rifle. This site has a picture, and the belt is fed forward of the trigger assembly. The QBU-88 is a bullpup design like the QBZ-95 is. It's my guess that they're both descended from the general design of the previous Type 81/Type 87 rifle series, though the QBU-88 is a distinct system from the QBZ-95.

I'd have added the maximum effective range but I can't seem to find it when editing. It's 400m and my source is http://www.sinodefence.com/army/individual/rifle_95.asp. You might want to sign your name next time :)--Hellogoodsir 08:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Popular culture

I have removed the section on 'popular culture' as it is a completely unrelated topic that does not add anything to knowledge of the firearms itself. If we are talking about the Walther PPK being used by James Bond of the .44 magnum S&W Model 29 as made famous in Dirty Harry then yes it is significant, but lists of appearance in video games and films are not relevant and has been removed from most firearms pages. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for more information. As an alternative, please feel free to add these appearances to the pages List of firearms in films or List of firearms in video games. Deon Steyn 06:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable comparison

I have questions about this: "The 5.8 mm round is designed to approximate the wounding effects of the Russian and NATO cartridges. However, Chinese tests using rifles firing the 5.8 x 42 mm shells outperformed existing 7.62 x 39 mm rifles." It's not clear to me just which Russian and NATO cartridges are being compared here, as there have been several standards. If this is a comparison of 5.56 NATO and 5.45 Russian, we should say. If -that's- the case, then, "However ... outperformed 7.62" is a non-sequitur, because it makes it sound as a rejoinder but is comparing a different class of cartridges.--Thatnewguy 16:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know any more information about this? This sentence lacks source, it would be difficult to expand it. If we can not find any backup to the claim it might be wise to simply delete it. Yongke 18:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Operators

Recently Cambodian soldiers have been seen with QBZ-97's during the rescue/recovery operation after the PMTair Flight 241 crash making Cambodia the second confirmed country after the People's Republic of China to operate the QBZ-95 (and variants) and it's first foriegn operator. Here are two photos from the 'China Defence Blog'. This article is from June 26, 2007. I'm still sort of new to this but it probably should be mentioned like in other assault rifle articles with multiple users so if anybody could add something anout this, I t would really help flesh out this article. http://www.anyboard.net/gov/mil/anyboard/uploads/Cambodian_NQZ-03A_.jpg http://www.anyboard.net/gov/mil/anyboard/uploads/Cambodian_NQZ-03A.jpg url: http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2007/06/1st-foreign-user-of-qbz-95-rifle.html Semi-Lobster 17:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Name of this weapon

In Chinese it is referred to "95式自動步槍" which means Type 95 rifle. While the name in the article is correct, it is only a litetal translation, in China soldiers just refer it to 95式. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.193.160 (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


In addition, I think it would be good to add something similar to the naming convention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBB-95
(Chinese: 轻武器, 步枪, 班用, 1995; pinyin: Qīngwuqi, Bùqiāng—Bānyòng, 1995; literally: "Light weapon, Rifle, Squad based, 1995")
For the QBZ-95 it would be 轻武器—步枪—自动, which is Qīngwǔqì—bùqiāng—zìdòng - literally: "light weapon, rifle, automatic" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.89.128.69 (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Photos of QBZ-95 family on Xinhua

Some photos of the QBZ-95 family please check them out. http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2006-08/01/xinsrc_33208030108202503107893.jpg http://space.swode.com/photoimgs/MTMwNDc4LDExNTgwMjQ0MA==_medium.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.193.160 (talk) 13:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fact error, Burma?

Burma never used these rifles. It was told that Burma bought some samples to study, but there were never licensed to produced the QBZ-95, it was not even equipped in their armed forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.17.166.229 (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Basis for "popularity" of the qbz-95?

Under section 6.8 (Civilian variants), there's a statement that said that the civilian variant of the QBZ-95 was popular. I'm curious about what publication has ever mentioned this (if any). (Psychoneko (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

None. The PRC does not recognize civilian gun ownership and the government does not allow for any arms exports in this caliber, therefore, the statement is pure fiction. Koalorka (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Not exactly. They do sell weapons in the US legally (they also dump cheap AKs on the streets of gang infested areas too, but that's their illegal businesses). And I suppose it could be a reference to it being popular in the US market. As to why it's popular? I have no idea other than it's Chinese and "exotic" and not because it's a good weapon. Because most likely, it's not. 68.157.60.203 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This page is flooded with propaganda and lies. Must be the chinese government who wrote this. Ask away if you can't see why for yourslelf, I will be happy to explain.

I haven't had one (they are due here sometime this month) but a couple of demo units have been floating around the country and the new version isn't all that different from the confiscated version, so various user accounts give us some pros and cons. The pros are that it handles nicely, it's durable, has a pretty good trigger for a bullpup and is very accurate. Also, since it's classified as "non-restricted", one could take it in the bush and bag some coyotes or just practice outside of a range (can't be done with AR's due to legal classification in Canada). It takes STANAG mags and shoots 5.56x45/.223REM, so the ammo's cheap and easily available. It's also the cheapest bullpup on our market. The cons are the mag release/safety (both have been redesigned but the design changes have not been approved for export), not really usable by southpaws and the fact that it can't be taken across the border for training/competition due to harsh import regulations in the US (justified, but provisions should have been made for temporary import by hunters/sport shooters and for transit to other destinations). FiReSTaRT (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I bought one on Tuesday and got to shoot it last night. Very accurate for a semi-auto carbine, at 2MOA flat off a sandbag, poor optics, bulk ammo. The trigger is mushy and the travel is long but it's only 4lbs (beats the $3000 Tavor). Mounting optics is a bit of a drag due to the high carry handle. Handles very nicely and very little recoil. Flings and chews up the brass, but it's still salvageable, though. The peep is nice enough for this type of rifle. If you wanna scope it, you either need a shorty or an offset mount plus a cheek riser.FiReSTaRT (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Questionable choice of photos

The photos in use on this page are of a rather questionable choice...they seem more orientated towards fostering an image of peace between China and the U.S. then they do to demonstrating the rifle. You can hardly see the damn gun. I'm probably just being a tin-foil hat wearing loon, but it almost seems as if someone chose these pictures intentionally to make some sort of political point, which doesn't sit well with me.

To get to my ultimate point - could we please have the pictures replaced with some better pictures? Pictures that clearly show the gun, show it being used in action, field stripped or diagrams of the components would all be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.175.29 (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The photos posted have nothing to do with politics, unless you consider copyright laws politics. These photos are a work of the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. These photos have been posted because they are fair use which means wikipedia can use them. The issue is FAIR USE, QBZ-95 is NOT commercially available in the US and is no longer commercially available in Canada. Chinese state copyright laws also have different fair use laws. Usable photos are hard to come by. Semi-Lobster (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Source doesn't support the allegation that the QBZ-95 is used by the NPA

The source doesn't confirm whatsoever that the QBZ-95 was used by the NPA rebels. The only section that even mentions Chinese involvement in weapons dealing is a sentence about a shipment of weapons from the PRC back in 1974... Unless proved otherwise, I'll remove the Philippines/NPA from the user section. Xaveq 22:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Xaveq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaveq (talk • contribs)

97 might become available in Canada [again] soon

Just wanted to give the heads up that a modified version of QBZ-97 has already been assigned an FRT number and that it is expected for the FRT number to be released to the public sometime in January. The rifle could hit the market this spring. If a significant number makes it over the border, it will become more difficult to reconfiscate as the regime currently in power eliminated the Long Gun Registry, so they may let this one slide. Finding independent sources to verify that might be difficult until someone publishes a review. It is already being offered as a pre-order item by Wanstalls, SFRC and CanadaAmmo (might be some others but those 3 have been the loudest about its release)FiReSTaRT (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The rifle has been approved as EMEI T97NSR (classified as non-restricted) and according to the importer (North Sylva) expected to arrive on the Canadian market in mid-August FiReSTaRT (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflicts(?)

When I click conflicts on the page, I don't see anything. Looking in the Table of Contents, I don't see a Conflicts tab. Evidently this hasn't been used in combat yet, nor has it been sighted on the field. If I'm wrong though, please tell me, and please edit this!

2601:40D:4400:A4DC:2D19:7042:BD79:B03 (talk) 16:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Where did you click "conflicts"? ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 19:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on QBZ-95. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on QBZ-95. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on QBZ-95. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on QBZ-95. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on QBZ-95. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on QBZ-95. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No evidence of rail mount on 95/95-1 rifles

The section picatinny rail talks about a modification being distributed amongst PLA troops. This is false. There is NO evidence of any standard issue rail mount for the 95/95-1, except for the video game Battlefield 4 (whose 95-1 is a complete fabrication, the rails are for maintaining consistency in gameplay since all assault rifles are to be capable of modification.) However, each 95/95-1 do have a attachment system built into the carrying handle- this can be spotted in pictures. These have been seen mounting optical sights. The citation for the section talks about a new variant, which does sport a picatinny rail, in testing, though these are NOT standard issue. Yet. Again, on the 95-1 section- there is no railing on the gun, except in Battlefield 4.

I have no experience in editing, so I have not made changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8300:7073:F43E:E10B:1B15:9630 (talk) 05:43, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

A new section for improved QBZ variant should be added.

cancel merge with QBB-95

don't merge QBB-95 with QBZ-95, do not do it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalininos (talk • contribs) 19:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

You're not saying why Ominae (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

rename article to Type 95

QBZ-95 is only one such member of the family consisting of a rifle, carbine, and squad automatic weapon. The name of this family is Type 95. For example, the article of the L85 assault rifle and its brethren is titled SA80 consisting of L85 Rifle, the L86 Light Support Weapon, the L22 Carbine. This is an identical situation with the Type 95, consisting of the QBZ95 Rifle, QBB95 Light Support Weapon, and the QBZ95B Carbine. Chokoladesu (talk) 12:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Name and acronym?

Where did the Latin-alphabet "exonym acronym" come from? Is it from the Wade-Giles form of 九十五式 (jiǔshíwǔ shì; 'type ninety five')? Jimw338 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

no longer produced?

did the qbz 95 production ended in 2019? but why? can someone explain me or there is some source? Kalininos (talk) 01:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:QBZ-95/Archive_1&oldid=1170114531"