T97 NSR - Promotion vs Final, why was it changed?

Jarvy

Jarvy

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
121   0   0
Location
Mississauga, ON
I liked my T97. I liked it a lot. It was light, ultra-compact, rugged and simple. It broke down easily into large, simple components. It was effortless to clean.

But I hated shooting it because the sights were just awful. I sold it because of this.

Nearly everyone who's shot the Type 97 NSR has noted that the sights are pretty bad. Most complain about eye strain, but I didn't find the rear apertures too horrid. What I hated was the nonsensical front sight, which was basically just taken off of an SKS.

0oH4mI9.jpg


The problem is that to zero the rifle, the front sight posts drifts left and right inside the front sight hood. This works fine for the SKS notch sight, but when using the T97's rear aperture your eye has trouble figuring out if it wants to center the front hood, or the front post.

hMDhP6n.jpg


It's not intuitive, both possible sight pictures look wrong.

The design is so poor I was ready to write it off as "Oh, typical of commie country, they didn't bother with soldier feedback to fix an obvious flaw"

...Until I saw the promotional photos of the Type 97.

5BccfIj.jpg


On the original design of the QBZ-95 and all variations, including at least one T97NSR that made it to Canada for promotion purposes, the front sight is a completely different design.

The entire front sight base is drifts, keeping the post centered in the hood. This solves the problem. I would say it would boost the sights from "useless" to "pretty good, actually."

So my questions are:

Why was it changed?

Will we ever see a proper T97 in Canada?


I want a T97 again. But I want one with usable sights.




The original design can be seen here, on North Sylva's thread
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/912054-**OFFICAL***-The-Type-97NSR-is-Non-restricted!!!?highlight=nsr

and in Calibre's review, here:
http://calibremag.ca/home/2013/05/the-sub-1k-bullpup-non-restricted-bullpup/
 
Last edited:
aiwa said:
Good info. I was wondering why the sights on this thing seemed a little wonky.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and it's too bad! I liked the way it looks with stock sights. The safety, I can work with. The Mag release, I can work with. Even the trigger is alright when you get used to it. But I couldn't live with the buggered sights. It was the only reason I sold it.
 
EMEI contracted guns... are not the same as the ones used by their Military or Police. North Sylva contracted these out to their own specs obviously, with cost cutting in mind. Even the Cambodian Military export models are made at a much better quality.

cpgprc.jpg
 
This is something I want clarified, because the T97As that were made prohib seem to have the proper sights, then the sample models of the T97NSR that North Sylva passed around seem to have the proper sights, so what happened to the production version? Did EMEI pull a fast one?

And yeah, we see some importers are getting some cool variations of the CQ-A. All the tooling for the front sight already exists because its what everyone else uses. It should be a simple matter to change it back if requested.

twyeh said:
EMEI contracted guns... are not the same as the ones used by their Military or Police. North Sylva contracted these out to their own specs obviously, with cost cutting in mind.
Click to expand...

enefgee said:
The Chinese will build pretty much anything the customer wants, at the quality level the customer wants it.
Click to expand...
 
I believe EMEI rifles are not sharing the same tooling with the military plants, they are essentially a sub contractor/clone. But I can assume they can obtain the parts and fit them in if required through Norinco management.

Jarvy said:
This is something I want clarified, because the T97As that were made prohib seem to have the proper sights, then the sample models of the T97NSR that North Sylva passed around seem to have the proper sights, so what happened to the production version? Did EMEI pull a fast one?

And yeah, we see some importers are getting some cool variations of the CQ-A. All the tooling for the front sight already exists because its what everyone else uses. It should be a simple matter to change it back if requested.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
So a while back I actually got a PM from North Sylva regaarding this issue-

Are you having issue with accuracy? Frankly, this is the first complaint I've heard regarding these sights.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have complained about the sights, but just in general terms. "They suck," "They strain my eyes" and so on.

I personally think it creates an accuracy issue, because of the difficulty in making sense of the sight picture. Might also be a partial cause of eye strain as your brain tries to sort out conflicting information of what to focus on. This probably varies from rifle to rifle. I had to crank my front sight post pretty far over, so the effect was very pronounced for me.

HawkWei's contacts at EMEI confirmed that the front sight change was a cost-cutting measure. I think that was a mistake. That change, to me, took it from an unergonomic, but completely functional rifle, to a rifle that just not worth the price tag. There's a certain charm to the awkward but rugged safety and mag release. You can work around it. But the front sight is offensively cheap.
 
Jarvy said:
So a while back I actually got a PM from North Sylva regaarding this issue-



I'm pretty sure a lot of people have complained about the sights, but just in general terms. "They suck," "They strain my eyes" and so on.

I personally think it creates an accuracy issue, because of the difficulty in making sense of the sight picture. Might also be a partial cause of eye strain as your brain tries to sort out conflicting information of what to focus on. This probably varies from rifle to rifle. I had to crank my front sight post pretty far over, so the effect was very pronounced for me.

HawkWei's contacts at EMEI confirmed that the front sight change was a cost-cutting measure. I think that was a mistake. That change, to me, took it from an unergonomic, but completely functional rifle, to a rifle that just not worth the price tag. There's a certain charm to the awkward but rugged safety and mag release. You can work around it. But the front sight is offensively cheap.
Click to expand...

My front sight was bang on for me, never noticed an issue...

Also it started as a ~$750 rifle... Anything on it shouldn't be offensive for cost cutting measures. I think regardless of a sight it's a terrifically made firearm for all the complaining people do about Norinco
 
tdod101 said:
Can you not just order a proper front sight?
Click to expand...

No. Its part of the gas block and attached directly to the barrel

pAhQVDz.jpg


My front sight was bang on for me, never noticed an issue...
Click to expand...

Which is all well and good if you're lucky enough to get a rifle that zeros with a perfectly centered front post. I had to drift mine way left.

Also it started as a ~$750 rifle
Click to expand...

Where are you finding them new for $750? For $1000+ I want the properly functioning front sight.

I think regardless of a sight it's a terrifically made firearm for all the complaining people do about Norinco
Click to expand...

Do you think I'm making a fuss to fix the rifle because I DIDN'T love it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom