Pro's of QBZ-95 Bullpup design, 5.8 mm ammo is said to be superior to 5.56 and 5.45. Up to debate but a larger bullet is always a good thing. Rate of fire, and option full auto etc, Weight, larger 30 round mag Color Has a variant with a silencer Small size Cons, poor iron sight, not marksman best friend here Barrel length is shorter despite being a bullpup design, Interesting to note the QBZ-97(5.56 Nato variant) has a slightly longer barrel length. placement of the safety receiver. Complicated maintenance procedures (note from what I've gathered from people who own the rifle, While the design is modern its more complicated than the M-16?rifle experts may want to enlighten us on this.) The 5.8 mm ammo is said to have little difference from the 5.56 ammo and not even close the stoping power of 7.62 Warsaw or Nato. Not combat tested, no news is good news? not exactly, everything has problems, even AK-47's so why is there very little scrutiney on this rifle? CCP pride propaganda? The PLA special forces that trained with Russians were seen using a "new" design the QBZ-03? One can wonder why? Can not fire rifle grenades... issue in modern warfare? pending on army requirements? LMG varient has a heavy drum located at the rear, awkward place in a bullpup design. INSAS, Pros, Ironsight is pretty decent Has a variety of scopes and other sights that can be placed can fire rifled grenades has a sight for it as well Longer barrel than the M-4 yet same over length India 5.56 ammo is said to have 10% extra pressure than standard NATO rounds reliable Transparent mag accurate, no issue here. Works in Kargil, will work in all conditions. Combat proven Effective with a bayonet Quick reload time? Avalialbe UBGL with a button fire rather than trigger fire Cons, too many unnecessary parts maintenance heavy compared to AK-47 heavy poor manufacturing quality 20 round MAG Known issues include cracking of polymer in cold conditions, said to be a maintenance issue. From what I gather, the QBZ-95 is better for anyone that has never held a rifle. The Bullpup design forces the user to take aim properley when standing upright. The shorter lenght makes it ideal for Urban warfare but the PAP is also the ones recieving new QBZ 03 rifles? It is lighter which is a large advantage but judging from the ironssights and placement of optics its not a "marcksmenship" rifle. Corrent me if i'm wrong because I like the feel of lee enfielld. The INSAS is a big heavy cheap rifle in comparison to the QBZ-97/ but seems to be more a soldiers rifle, tough like the FAL yet shorter and not a SLR. The stoppage is said to be less than the M-16 or M-4. Both designs have their advantage. But I am doubtfull of the reliability of the QBZ-95. If reliability isn't concern its the versatility. The Chinese can not use rifle gernades with this rifle. Has a poor iron sight unless the Norinco want to sell optics to every soldier even the part-time concripts that will leave soon. The advantage of the bullpup is ergonomics. You don't need to be genious to figure out how to properly hold the rifle, but mantiance is another concern if your not trained.