Type 97 at Wolverine Supplies

[harbl_the_cat]

The gun couldve been designed to be so much nicer.

What does "nicer" mean?

[Grumpy Wolverine]

Thank you - is that like the gas selector on a C9 LMG and meant for the same purpose?

Also any dealer know if it comes with a cleaning kit? and/or if there's a cleaning kit/storage receptacle in the buttstock?

It serves the exact same purpose as the one on the C9. There is no storage in the butt stock in this firearm.
I am not sure if it comes with a cleaning kit or not.
Yes the upper carry handle etc is polymer.

[seadog1022]

Cleaning kit should be in the pistol grip, slide panel off bottom.

thanks seadog

[t_102]

What does "nicer" mean?

I don't think I'm the only one who finds this gun unbelievably ugly.

Nicer

Means improving the looks of it.

[daniel_250r]

I think its the modern look.

[t_102]

I think its the modern look.

Tavor has a modern look as well, same with the FS2000. Am I the only one who thinks those two are badass, and the T97 looks really ugly?

[BigDerp]

Tavor has a modern look as well, same with the FS2000. Am I the only one who thinks those two are badass, and the T97 looks really ugly?

You're not the only one, it's just that the price is right with the T97. Also, IMO aesthetics should play a very small role when deciding a firearm.

[t_102]

You're not the only one, it's just that the price is right with the T97. Also, IMO aesthetics should play a very small role when deciding a firearm.

That point is agreed. Nothing to argue there, I've got two on order. It's just that looking at the disassembled parts, it seems to me that it shouldn't have been that hard to make the housing look at least a bit nicer. I guess they never hired an industrial designer for the job. Plastic parts are very easy to design and does not add additional cost to improve aesthetics.

I'm not exactly well funded, but if it was up to me to do the industrial designing part, I'd definitely do at least twice as good. YMMV.

[harbl_the_cat]

You're not the only one, it's just that the price is right with the T97. Also, IMO aesthetics should play a very small role when deciding a firearm.

Yep

[harbl_the_cat]

It serves the exact same purpose as the one on the C9.

I wonder what adverse firing conditions the designers would think justified having such a feature...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBZ-95

NM... looks like 75 round drum mags were likely a consideration instead of an aftermarket creation.

Also interesting that the entire QBZ-95 line of carbines, rifles, and LMG's share the same bloodline.

From a tactics, training and logistics perspective, that's a pretty good idea having the forethought to make all your weapons have mostly the same operation, parts and feed systems.

Unlike in a Canadian/American infantry section with 1-2 dedicated gunners, ANY soldier in the unit could conceivably be a gunner - or at the very least, use the same magazine the gunner uses in his rifle and vice versa (reliably).

Whereas a C9 gunner and conceivably every rifleman in the section would be carrying 200 round belted drum that could ONLY be used in the C9s in a Canadian (or SAW/American), EVERY soldier could carry a drum mag that could be used in the section's support weapon AND their own.

Also, instead of needing a few extra training days to train your soldiers on 2 completely different weapons AND incurring the repeated cost associated with maintaining those skills (annual training and qualifiers), once you've trained them on 1, they in theory should mostly be proficient with the other. With a military with about 5 million soldiers, sailors and airmen - that's a VERY efficient way to contain and streamline training costs.

If the Chinese were to ever mobilize their military for a conventional war, requiring the rapid drafting and training of large number of conscripts, that strategic advantage is massive!

I did a post somewhere about a torture test someone did with an AR. 1000 rounds semi-auto, non-stop - the rifle was barely functional towards the end, and completely inoperable after.

I wonder how well the T97's would similarly hold up.

IIRC the M16 through and through was designed to for a rifleman NOW a squad/section weapon. It looks as if the QBZ 95/T97 was designed to be a squad/section weapon.

Man, the more I know about these guns, the more excited I get about them.