Is the T97 a 90s gun?

TV-PressPass

TV-PressPass

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 99.1%
115   1   0
Location
Mountains, Alberta
I recently did an article for the Americans on The Firearm Blog about the T97 and why its exciting for us(yay!)

In it, I said the following:

The design of the Type 97 fits into a 90s idea of small arms. Any kind of “modularity” is built around proprietary parts. There is a scope rail, but it’s specific to Chinese military optics. There is a flash hider, but not only is it pinned and welded, it uses a non-standard metric thread. As the product of a communist country: user experience comes second to the requirements of manufacture. Concepts like ambidexterity, customization, and standardization with other small arms are not prioritized.
Click to expand...

Am I off base with that? Some TFB readers seem to think so.

They make good points that the 5.8x42mm original cartridge was trialled on the Type 87 rifle back in 1989. And that bullpups in a military context are more of an 80s thing (SA80 etc)

I wanted to make this a poll, but apparently that's not a thing anymore? So here's a photo of the T97 exploded instead:

 
I had a glance at your article, thought it looked fine and sounded informative. Some guys just have nothing better to do.

I thought the part about everything being proprietary hit the nail on the head. It just doesn't feel modern in the same sense that the Tavor does when it comes to personalizing or accessorizing for a specific task.

I would like to see you attempt a T97NSR night vision build similar to how you had your Tavor set up without the M14.ca flat top upper. Lol
 
Last edited:
Does that make 5.56mm a fifties era thing based on when the round was designed?

I have seen prototypes of Lee-Enfields that were bullpups from the time they originally came out.
Bullpups are as contemporary as anything. I suppose it has more to do with use, function, utility and fit in the grand scheme of how you need it and use it.
Need you remind them that the US Army is sacrificing six inches of barrel and perhaps two or three hundred meters of range, in getting a lighter, shorter and a more convenient general service firearm.
(While the Peoples Liquidation Army still has a twenty inch barrel and a new round designed to improve upon both the 5.56 and the 5.45.)
 
The trend with the States Arms factory is the rifle's designation typically denotes the year the rifle was first issued or enter the service, while the QBZ 95 was first introduced back in the 90's design might have been started in the 80's.0
 
I think it's important to look at who built the T95 - the Chinese aren't bound by Stanag, and don't have a civilian market to sell to at home. It's a bit like Britain between the wars, their allies weren't really allies in the classic sense, they were ex- or current colonies, who by and large did what they were told and used what they were told. The non-standard hardware, rails and even round are all indicative of this. Basically they're big enough to go it alone, and don't have a lot of clients that demand inter-operability. It's very reminiscent of Enfield screws that don't work with anything else, positive ground cars, and Whitworth threads. In some ways it's a case of "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". From a development standpoint I'd say that in western eyes the QBZ 95 IS a '90's gun - pre-picatinny, and pre-optics, it's just that as far as small arms go the Chinese are in a different place than we are, for the same reasons the Russians were in a different place from us in the 1970's. They had different experiences, and different resources and equipment that seemed somewhat behind the times - that changed for Russia in the '80's with Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:
T2JDMuzzleliteMZ14-1.jpg

It was state of the art in 1991, then it was upgraded to fire electro/plasma energy based munitions in the future.
 
Last edited:
I would actually be tempted to call the design more late 70's early 80's compared to Western nations. FAMAS, AUG and SA80 seem to be closer in design. But for China yes 90's. They seem to be about 15-20 years behind design wise.

Now I actually like the T97 for what it is. But I can say the same for my CZ858 which is essentially a 1950's rifle.

They've done a few things to modernize it and make it attractive for sale but ultimately it's dated by Westrn standards. I still had to have one though and I'm not disapointed. I like it for a bullpup plinker. Kind of cool and different.
 
It's true it may be behind by our point of view but it fits the bill as far as china goes they don't need it to be ambidextrous and have fancy gizmo rails and what not because they don't think like us better equipment = better results they go by more soldier = better results
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom