QBZ-03

DavidP · Post by **DavidP** » 2007-05-11 22:52

Would the Qbz-03 be a better rifle the grenadier kit? http://world.guns.ru/assault/as80-e.htm

I also had a picture of it with a ubgl but i cant find it. Please tell me if you like my suggestion.

Post by **bosco_** » 2007-05-11 22:53

The Devs already made a scoped QBZ-95 with UGL.

DavidP · Post by **DavidP** » 2007-05-11 22:59

bosco wrote:The Devs already made a scoped QBZ-95 with UGL.

Ya but i really wanna see the Qbz-03 in the game and it's more realistic then the type 56.(Its been retired for awhile now)

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-05-11 23:04

True, but the old grenadier kits are being held onto until all the sides can be armed with GL/opitics combinations.

The QBZ-95 with optics and GL has already been modeled and is on its way, but wont be in until the G3A3TGSZ, M16A4/M203 with ACOG and L85A2/UGL with SUSAT are in.

It'll be there eventually, but I wouldnt expect it before v0.7 at the soonest.

And I'll miss the good old Type-56 when its gone. Let me hold on to my AK that shoots straight for a little longer, eh?

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-05-11 23:23

the type03 is used by the army , and the type 95 is used by the navy , or im wrong ?

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-05-12 00:25

Why do bullpup weapons get such a bad rep? The concept seems fine to me, though I'm no arms master.

Rambo Hunter · Post by **Rambo Hunter** » 2007-05-12 00:47

isn't the FN 2000 given a good rep?

Xaritix · Post by **Xaritix** » 2007-05-12 00:56

You mean the one that the chinese spec-ops has in vanilla?

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-05-12 00:56

Expendable Grunt wrote:Why do bullpup weapons get such a bad rep? The concept seems fine to me, though I'm no arms master.

The only reason (that I'm aware of) that the QBZ-03 was developed was that PLA soldiers who were used to the Type-81 grounded the mags and didnt like the sights on the QBZ-95.

From what I hear (and let me make this clear, this is only what I've heard, so it might not be accurate) younger soldiers who have spent more time with '95 and less with the '81 dont have these problems.

From what I understand most of the complaints about the '95 seem to be teething troubles that one expects with the introduction of any new weapon, especially when it is so different to the previous one.

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-05-12 04:40

Ah I understand. Guess it makes sense the old guard doesn't like them. Personally I've always thought the design was great--you get barrel length without extra bulk!

arthuro12 · Post by **arthuro12** » 2007-05-12 07:41

indeed, + extra power and accuracy!

bobfish · Post by **bobfish** » 2007-05-12 14:52

Bullpups tend to have reliability problems, which is what gives them a bad reputation, but that is probably more to do with being a fairly modern design than anything else. Considering they've had a couple of decades to get the bullpup design perfected compared to the normal assault rifle design which as been around since the 1930s.

Three of the top six small arms manufacturers produce bullpup assault rifles now as their standard model and many other small arms manufacturers produce bullpup designs as alternative options.

Expendable Grunt · Post by **Expendable Grunt** » 2007-05-12 17:22

Does the FN P90 count as a bull pup weapon? I love that little thing -- so neat looking and it sounds cool when firing. (I'm a Stargate SG-1 fan)

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-05-12 18:38

bobfish wrote:Bullpups tend to have reliability problems, which is what gives them a bad reputation, but that is probably more to do with being a fairly modern design than anything else. Considering they've had a couple of decades to get the bullpup design perfected compared to the normal assault rifle design which as been around since the 1930s.

Three of the top six small arms manufacturers produce bullpup assault rifles now as their standard model and many other small arms manufacturers produce bullpup designs as alternative options.

Well, actually, the Bullpup was first invented in 1902, but no matter.

The only bullpup rifle I've heard about having reliablity problems is the L85A1, weapons like the FA-MAS, AUG, F2000, TAR-21 and so on I've never heard about them being unreliable.

@Expendible: Yes, the P90 is a bullpup, as the firing mechanism is behind the trigger.

AnRK · Post by **AnRK** » 2007-05-14 00:29

God wasteland was right about your hideous amount of weapon knowledge!

Why are the developers putting sights on the grenadier kit anyway? will this not deter people from being riflemen? The only thing that has working in its favour is having a couple of bags of ammo handy...

[T]Terranova7 · Post by **[T]Terranova7** » 2007-05-14 02:55

The Grenaider kit will become limited in future releases, so you don't have to worry about excessive grenaiders running all over the map.

Post by **PRC_Heavy_Z** » 2007-05-14 03:53

The PLA-Army is going to get the QBZ-03 (A.K.A. QBZ95A)
QBZ-95 will go to the marines, special forces, and PAP.

BTW, I've never seen the QBZ97 (aka QBZ95B) used by anybody other than the crewmens, it'd be cool to see the special forces with QBZ95

Post by **Bob_Marley** » 2007-05-14 10:33

AnRK wrote:God wasteland was right about your hideous amount of weapon knowledge!

Why are the developers putting sights on the grenadier kit anyway? will this not deter people from being riflemen? The only thing that has working in its favour is having a couple of bags of ammo handy...

Because the L85A2 with UGL phyisically has to be fitted with a SUSAT as the UGL heat shield prevents using the iron sights. So, everything else is going to be balanced with that, so everyone gets a scoped AR/GL combo.

BTW, I've never seen the QBZ97 (aka QBZ95B) used by anybody other than the crewmens, it'd be cool to see the special forces with QBZ95

The QBZ-97 is the export model of the QBZ-95, chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO and designed to take M16 type magazines.

But yeah, if the PLA SF dont use the QBZ-95B in RL they shouldnt use it in PR. Perhaps they should have a QBZ-95 with an aimpoint like sight?

The PLA-Army is going to get the QBZ-03 (A.K.A. QBZ95A)
QBZ-95 will go to the marines, special forces, and PAP.

Having both would be great, so it can be differentiated between fighting the PLAA and PLAM (Or are they PLAN Marines? Best acronym ever, there. What are you talking about? The PLAN cannot fail! The PLAN is fool proof!) like the US is going to be split into the USMC and the US army

Post by **PRC_Heavy_Z** » 2007-05-16 01:10

LOL, Yes PLAN has a nice ring to it doesn't it? Anyways, the marines are subordinate of Navy. (PLAN marine)

"The QBZ-97 is the export model of the QBZ-95, chambered for 5.56x45mm NATO and designed to take M16 type magazines."

Yes that is true, I was saying (or typing whatever) qbz97 because it is commonly mistaken for the carbine in the game/forum

Also, there are no aimpoint type scopes for QBZ95 (other than nightvision scope) but there are fluorescence sights.

http://www.putfile.com/pic.php?img=5464140

BTW. The Army's primary rifle will be QBZ03, but if it is an urban environment the PLA will use QBZ95

For those who are curious, the differences between QBZ95/QBZ03 are:

• Different bolts
• Different muzzles
• QBZ03 has more accuracy/power/recoil
• QBZ03 is heavier/bulkier

Post by **77SiCaRiO77** » 2007-05-16 02:20

well, the skins of the current soldiers in PR are from the army , so..... type-03 FTW !!!!!