The Type 97 is back . . .

Status
Not open for further replies.
091121204929c8cd1ad3b8df89.jpg


Hot Damn, now THAT's a design I could get behind.

(or slightly ahead of)

(see what I did there?)

(Bullpup joke)
 
So who is going to make or import the front rail system? To be honest I like the fixed sight carry handle. If I added the below mounting system with a red dot the fixed sights would co-witness. . . . Also the mounts don’t look to difficult to manufacture. . . .

type97rail.jpg
 
JBD said:
If he is still around he could elaborate.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm still sucking air, if that is what you meant.





I am not sure what "impressive groups" are.
A friend took and posted the pictures without my knowledge.
Although it was long time ago, I think he chose the best target of that day,
and I remember most targets were worse than that.

I don't know what you want me to elaborate on, but
the gun that shot that target had few things done,
like a preventive crown job I did, very basic and straight forward,
and a nice trigger job a friend did for that gun.
I think it was said at that time.


In my experience, the hardest thing in accurately shooting the t97 is to overcome
the gun's tendency to move a huge amount during the locktime,
(and the reason to that is the original design of the firing system).
That was the reason it was so hard and painful to shoot it accurately.
To learn to overcome the gun's specific reaction, is to learn to hold
a gun steady in a different way than one is used to hold other guns.
For me it was a frustrating and physically painful experience.



At least for those who attempted it and succeeded,
fixing that flaw in design was not easy task either,
(finding a solution and proving it to work).
To make things clear, the gun used to shoot the target posted here
had the original factory (commercial) firing system
like any other T97 sold in Canada, with only a trigger job, as I said.
 
mralberta said:
AT one point the web site showed 13 units in stock. It then showed 61.

Will Norinco be able to supply such a large quanty of these firearms with keeping up to quality control?
Click to expand...

Uhmmmm, are you for real, dude? It's the Chinese manufacturing complex.. They could keep 1000 Canadas full of guns if there was enough interest and at this price point, they will keep the qc up to snuff.

BenL said:
But it's a Communist's gun no? Aren't they the ennemy ;)
Click to expand...

Meh, Commies in China, Fascists in the US/Israel, just as bad for the socialist in me :cool:

P.S. Preordered one :D
 
Pooker said:
I agree that the Tavor has an overall general better design, but both rifles originate from the same decade, and the Tavor seems to predate the QBZ-95 (according to the Wiki Pages.


Hahahaha oh god, my sides!
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

The Tavor development started in 1991 and continued through 2001. It was adopted in 2009 (I assume this gave time for trials and for a few final kinks in the design to be worked out). The Type 95's development history isn't really given on the wiki page, but it was adopted by the PLA in 1997, and production began in 1995. So no, they are not really from the same decade. The Type 95 was in production and issued well before development on the Tavor was completed. Also, when you examine the design of both rifles and the features present on them, it becomes clear that the Tavor is a truly modern bullpup rifle system, while the Type 95 is really a first generation bullpup.
 
Ar180shooter said:
Yes and no.

The Tavor development started in 1991 and continued through 2001. It was adopted in 2009 (I assume this gave time for trials and for a few final kinks in the design to be worked out). The Type 95's development history isn't really given on the wiki page, but it was adopted by the PLA in 1997, and production began in 1995. So no, they are not really from the same decade. The Type 95 was in production and issued well before development on the Tavor was completed. Also, when you examine the design of both rifles and the features present on them, it becomes clear that the Tavor is a truly modern bullpup rifle system, while the Type 95 is really a first generation bullpup.
Click to expand...


I dont know why all of the Tavor owners have to jump all over the T97. I think they may be insecure and trying to legitimize a huge purchase :p Flame suit on :D

We all know the Tavor is a nicer rifle than the T97 and has more to offer, but it has a ridiculous price associated with that. The T97 is hardly ergonomic, but is by no means a horrible design. From the looks of things mag changes aren't that bad, and all you have to do is charge the handle instead of hitting a bolt release that would be on the Tavor. Oh no, half a second or less lost! Hopefully it will be a reliable fun rifle, and no it is not comparable to a Tavor and like AR180 said, they are different generations.

So stop complaining and enjoy your fancy shiny Tavors :p

tvpresspass we will have to have a shoot together and compare them sometime (that is if the T97 makes it into country NR)

Have a good day gents,

J
 
TRaTSeRiF said:
By the way, am I the only wackoid here that actually likes the way these 97's look and even prefers them to Tavors from an appearance standpoint? :eek:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say they look better than a Tavor but I do like the attached carry handle. Front sight is a little whack tho.
 
cadgo said:
I wouldn't say they look better than a Tavor but I do like the attached carry handle. Front sight is a little whack tho.
Click to expand...

I found everything else on the market to be pretty ugly, even though I have a mild case of "like" for the Tavor. My wife tells me I've got a weird sense of aesthetics though, so who knows..

TV-PressPass said:
yes. You're insane Tratserif.
Click to expand...

She tells me that a lot too :D
 
Ar180shooter said:
Yes and no.

The Tavor development started in 1991 and continued through 2001. It was adopted in 2009 (I assume this gave time for trials and for a few final kinks in the design to be worked out). The Type 95's development history isn't really given on the wiki page, but it was adopted by the PLA in 1997, and production began in 1995. So no, they are not really from the same decade. The Type 95 was in production and issued well before development on the Tavor was completed. Also, when you examine the design of both rifles and the features present on them, it becomes clear that the Tavor is a truly modern bullpup rifle system, while the Type 95 is really a first generation bullpup.
Click to expand...

I thought the Thorneycroft would have been first generation,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorneycroft_carbine

and the EM-2 would be 2nd gen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM-2_rifle

I suppose the AUG, the FAMAS, and the L85 could be considered 3rd gen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullpup
with all the rest not really showing enough radically new features to be worthy of a 4th gen title.
IMHO, of course... :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom