Type 97 at Wolverine Supplies

fenceline said:
Looking at the gun, it should be doable. There may be potential for a side charging handle too.
Click to expand...
Well from what I'm seeing, the carry-handle would be removable, and the charging handle looks like it could be modified to lie flatter. The only problem I see is that the iron sights look like they may be held on by barrel clamps. However, I didn't find any pictures of a full disassembly of the rifle on here or Google, except for airsoft versions, which may or may not be built similarly.
None-the-less, I'd love to modify my Type-97 with a flat-top. I expect it'll end up looking like the Famas Felin, link related.
http://www.firearmsworld.net/france/famas/f_es200402.jpg
 
Wouldn't be much of a video. Remove large cross pin in back. Pull everything straight out the back. Remove middle push pin, pull lower cover down, slide upper cover back...done. These really are Glock simple to take down.
 
Grumpy Wolverine said:
you are referring to the selector at the bottom of the sight base right above the barrel that is the gas setting selector.
Click to expand...

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?
 
harbl_the_cat said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
t_102 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
BigDerp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Grumpy Wolverine said:
It serves the exact same purpose as the one on the C9.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom