QBZ-95 vs INSAS

jat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
244
Likes
197
Type Assault rifle
Place of origin India
Service history
In service 1998–present
Used by See Users
Wars Kargil War
Nepalese Civil War
Production history
Designer ARDE
Manufacturer Indian State Ordnance Factory Board, Ishapore
Variants See Variants
Specifications
Weight 4.25 kg (9.4 lb) empty
4.6 kg (10.1 lb) loaded
Length 960 mm (37.8 in),
750 mm (29.5 in) w/stock folded
Barrel length 464 mm (18.3 in)
Cartridge 5.56x45mm INSAS, 5.56x45mm NATO, 5.56x30mm MINSAS
Action Gas-operated, Rotating bolt
Rate of fire 650 rounds/min
Muzzle velocity 900 m/s (2,953 ft/s)
Effective range 450 Meters
Feed system 20/30-round detachable box magazine


Type Assault rifle
Place of origin People's Republic of China
Service history
In service 1997[1]-Present
Used by See Users
Wars Sri Lankan Civil War
Cambodian–Thai border stand-off[2]
Production history
Manufacturer China North Industries Corporation
and China South
Produced 1995—present
Variants QBZ-95B Carbine,
QBZ-95 Rifle,
QBB-95 LSW,
QBZ-97 5.56 mm Rifle,
QBZ-97A 5.56 mm Rifle,
QBB-97 LSW 5.56 mm Rifle,
QBZ-97B 5.56 mm Carbine
Specifications
Weight 2.9 kg (6.4 lb) (QBZ-95B Carbine)
3.25 kg (7.2 lb) (QBZ-95 Rifle)
3.35 kg (7.4 lb) (QBZ-97 Export)
3.9 kg (8.6 lb) (QBB-95 LSW)
Length 609 mm (24.0 in) (QBZ-95B Carbine)
745 mm (29.3 in) (QBZ-95 Rifle)
758 mm (29.8 in) (QBZ-97 and QBZ-97A)
840 mm (33.1 in) (QBB-95 LSW)
Barrel length 369 mm (14.5 in) (QBZ-95B Carbine)
463 mm (18.2 in) (QBZ-95 Rifle)
490 mm (19.3 in) (QBZ-97 and QBZ-97A)
600 mm (23.6 in) (QBB-95 LSW)
Cartridge 5.8x42mm DBP87 (QBZ-95),
5.56x45mm NATO (QBZ-97)
Action Gas-Operated, Rotating bolt
Rate of fire ~650 rounds/min (QBZ-95)
~800 rounds/min (QBZ-95B Carbine)
Muzzle velocity QBZ-95 - 930 m/s (3,050 ft/s), QBB-95 - 970 m/s (3181 ft/s), QBZ-95B - 790 m/s (2581 ft/s)
Effective range Rifle - 400m point target, 600m area target
LSW - 600m point target, 800m area target
Carbine - 300m point target, 500m area target
Feed system 30-round box magazine
75-round drum
Sights hooded post front sight and aperture rear sight, optional 4x telescopic sight


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.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
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.
  • too many unnecessary parts - Suitcase carrying handle, which has been taken off in some of the newer versions.
  • heavy - At 4.6 kg fully loaded? I think it is a non issue. A heavier rifle is more stable. I think the weight is just right. I'd rather OFB or RFI came up with INSAS AR with a heavier barrel, say from INSAS LMG so that it can sustain rapid full auto fire.
  • poor manufacturing quality - Yes, this is a big issue to me. The fit and finish is simply not good enough to attract foreign customers. In reality, looks don't matter. They do matter if we want to make money selling these.
  • 20 round MAG - No big deal. 30 round MAG is available and is being used in INSAS LMG.
  • Known issues include cracking of polymer in cold conditions, said to be a maintenance issue. - True. Again, manufacturing quality control needs to be tightened.
 
Last edited:

jat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
244
Likes
197
You and I don't seem to be in disagreement much. Mind, the Cons are what the advantage the QBZ-95 has over INSAS. The 20 round mag for a assault rifle destroyes the concept of "modern assault rifle" don't you think? Mind you the IA is no spray and pray army nore is it the US army which wastes 500 000 rounds on 1 militant but what is the point of switching from the proven and tested FAL with a 10 round MAG to a 3 round burst/ full auto and having 20 round MAG?
Another question for you or anyone. Why the need to rifled gernades? Doesn't the UBGL cover this area today? Or do rifled gernades provide another advantage?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
You and I don't seem to be in disagreement much. Mind, the Cons are what the advantage the QBZ-95 has over INSAS. The 20 round mag for a assault rifle destroyes the concept of "modern assault rifle" don't you think?
That 20 round MAG is not a problem with the gun per se, it is a problem with the policy makers. If you want, you can very well install the 30 round MAG from the INSAS LMG to the INSAS AR. It was a decision taken by, God knows who.

P.S.: Even people who make the INSAS (a close friend of mine works at RFI) hate that suitcase carrying handle.

Mind you the IA is no spray and pray army nore is it the US army which wastes 500 000 rounds on 1 militant but what is the point of switching from the proven and tested FAL with a 10 round MAG to a 3 round burst/ full auto and having 20 round MAG?
Here is something I would applaud the policy makers for. They deliberately refused to have full auto on the standard INSAS AR. Good decision. Look at the Anglo-Argentine War. Both had FN-FALs, the Brits had single shot and triple burst while the Argentinians had full auto. The latter wasted bullets and could not aim properly. They lost in those battles where the rifle played an important part.

Another question for you or anyone. Why the need to rifled gernades? Doesn't the UBGL cover this area today? Or do rifled gernades provide another advantage?
UBGL makes the rifle heavy. Why have a separate instrument for launching grenades when you can do it with your barrel? Also, most of the grenades launched from UBGL tend to be smaller than those launched from the barrel.

Those who are in the Army can probably give a better explanation.
 

jat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
244
Likes
197
The only disadvantage I can see in the bullpup would be the complexity involved. Perhaps this is why PAP and Special forces wanted the QBZ-03 which is similar to the AK-47 and easy to maintain. If we new more about he duties involved of PAP and Special Forces of China we could know more and where they are deployed.
RR still trusts the AKM and AK-47's/knockoffs captured from the enemy. They have switched to the Tavor for the UBGL and optical sights.
Front line infantry I guess doesn't need gimmicks just rifle that can do a lot of jobs since they tend to move in large formations.
COIN Ops require faster reaction and each individual to out perform the enemy at every task.
Reload time is already mentioned. Changing a bull-pup MAG requires a lot more practice and time.
Countries like Singapore, South Korea and PRC China with conscripts have switched to bull pups.
The worlds largest best equipped army in the world aka US army doesn't seem to hint towards moving to bull pups.
That being said, I don't know specifically what the issue with optical sights the QBZ-95 would have. The placement does seem higher, but is that really an issue? The carrying handle seems to be obstruction when placing optics, but is that a lot?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,270
Likes
19,493
The only disadvantage I can see in the bullpup would be the complexity involved. Perhaps this is why PAP and Special forces wanted the QBZ-03 which is similar to the AK-47 and easy to maintain. If we new more about he duties involved of PAP and Special Forces of China we could know more and where they are deployed.
RR still trusts the AKM and AK-47's/knockoffs captured from the enemy. They have switched to the Tavor for the UBGL and optical sights.
Front line infantry I guess doesn't need gimmicks just rifle that can do a lot of jobs since they tend to move in large formations.
COIN Ops require faster reaction and each individual to out perform the enemy at every task.
Reload time is already mentioned. Changing a bull-pup MAG requires a lot more practice and time.
Countries like Singapore, South Korea and PRC China with conscripts have switched to bull pups.
The worlds largest best equipped army in the world aka US army doesn't seem to hint towards moving to bull pups.
That being said, I don't know specifically what the issue with optical sights the QBZ-95 would have. The placement does seem higher, but is that really an issue? The carrying handle seems to be obstruction when placing optics, but is that a lot?
The US army is one of the best equipped. The Brits have bullpups.

Yes, COIN Ops require rapid fire weapons like the AK, PK, Galil, Tavor etc.. They have a mix and match of all types, from the pictures that I see.

That raised sight is a good idea. You won't have to bend your neck to get your eyes closer to the barrel.

The carrying handle of INSAS has a spring mechanism and it sits right under the empty case ejector. If the spring breaks that handle could obstruct the ejected case. Placing sights won't be a problem. We already have INSAS with sights attached. The sight can be on top of the receiver or bolt carrier or on the side like in AKs. See pictures below:

INSAS Carrying Handle Spring:


INSAS with Carrying Handle and Optical Instrument mounted on it:
 

ALBY

Section Moderator
Mod
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
2,375
Likes
2,122
Country flag
That 20 round MAG is not a problem with the gun per se, it is a problem with the policy makers. If you want, you can very well install the 30 round MAG from the INSAS LMG to the INSAS AR. It was a decision taken by, God knows who.

P.S.: Even people who make the INSAS (a close friend of mine works at RFI) hate that suitcase carrying handle.



Here is something I would applaud the policy makers for. They deliberately refused to have full auto on the standard INSAS AR. Good decision. Look at the Anglo-Argentine War. Both had FN-FALs, the Brits had single shot and triple burst while the Argentinians had full auto. The latter wasted bullets and could not aim properly. They lost in those battles where the rifle played an important part.



UBGL makes the rifle heavy. Why have a separate instrument for launching grenades when you can do it with your barrel? Also, most of the grenades launched from UBGL tend to be smaller than those launched from the barrel.

Those who are in the Army can probably give a better explanation.
uBGLs may be heavy but with out it u have to remove the grenade from barrel if want to shoot bullets and vice verse.it will be practically gonna create problems in battle field thats why most of the armies are now using UBGLs
Full auto wont be a problem insas is lighter than slr and fires an intermediate cartridge so the recoil will be comparatively less.plus a army like ours which stresses on marksmanship wont go for spraying unless under extreme pressure plus full auto will come handy in the cases like clearing trenches and bunkers and rooms with multiple targets where full auto will be helpful.here is the place where AKs excell.
even though 30 round mags are compatible with insas ar none had been sporting with a 30 round mag.and 20 round mag tend to be emptied soon and this will require frequent mag changes.FALs were having 20 round mags coz 30 round one would be bit lengthy for it which will make shooters problems while shooting in a lying position.
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,509
Likes
1,018
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.
Dude from where did you get that fact :confused:
 

jat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
244
Likes
197
It worked in Kargil with some defects. Considering it didn't completely fail like the M-16 in jungle warfare I think the INSAS proved its mettle by performing better than most rifles at those altitudes and temperatures.
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,509
Likes
1,018
I thought I should post this.

That would be pleasure..


1. Sights:
Main reason why i pressed Insas better than 101 coz of its sights, AK-101 retain its iron sights from AK-47, which is very raw and cannot be rely for accurate aiming compare to Insas iron sights or M-16/M4, Which have double rear peep sights for aiming ( Long 400m & beyond and medium 200 to 300m )..































2. Reliability:

Insas is extremely reliable coz it share majority of AKM internal parts like trigger and receiver & mechanism firing pin few to call, In training or field it work in mud and water its the basic rifle of every Infantry Unit in Indian army and its use extensive without much jamming, It require bit more effort to clean but much easier compare to other western rifles like M-16/G-36/M4/HK-416

AK series stand first class compare to any 5.56mm western based or western rifles in maintenance and reliability..


3. Polymer Mag:

Polymer mag used in various armies including Germany and Poland, Translucent Mag gives us the idea abt the rounds in mag where as in AK one cannot in intense gunfight, Polymer Mag are NOT prone to break if fall from hand but if some one try to crush it under his boot may be..



4. Fixed butt:

Insas to regular Infantry comes in fixed butt, But for Mech Inf and Para forces its folded, Its easy to aim with fixed butt than folded, Regular Infantry have space and marksman ship is very important in regular infantry..






Over all its a outstanding Rifle, I too user of INSAS, And i am aware of its quality so does AKM..
 

Saumyasupraik

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
200
Likes
164
Country flag
INSAS isn't the same length as the M4, it's around 5 inches longer overall weight.Only with stock folded for the INSAS-Folding and stock retracted for the M4 is the length same.I guess both rifles aren't much modular as well when it comes to changing upper receivers with shorter barrels.
 

Saumyasupraik

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
200
Likes
164
Country flag
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.
What do you mean by stoppage like failure to fire/jamming or stopping power. If you want to say stopping power then iff the barrel is 18" in INSAS's case which is more that M4's 14.5" how is the stopping power going to be less than the M4 when propellant wouldn't burn completely as it burns in 20" or 18" barrel.Even the stopping power difference in 18" and 20" would be very minute.

That 20 round MAG is not a problem with the gun per se, it is a problem with the policy makers. If you want, you can very well install the 30 round MAG from the INSAS LMG to the INSAS AR. It was a decision taken by, God knows who.
I guess one reason could be ammunition conservation another could be if you might have noticed the pistol grip and magazine are in a near perfect axis which could assist in aiming while prone.Although a full-auto variant being accepted in numbers would be welcome, even the Swiss have 20 round mags and semi-TRB-auto SG550s.



Here is something I would applaud the policy makers for. They deliberately refused to have full auto on the standard INSAS AR. Good decision. Look at the Anglo-Argentine War. Both had FN-FALs, the Brits had single shot and triple burst while the Argentinians had full auto. The latter wasted bullets and could not aim properly. They lost in those battles where the rifle played an important part.
British were using semi-automatic only SLR's no 3 round burst variants.I've never even heard of 3 rounds burst FAL's.I guess it was the training and not the full-auto capability of the rifles that made Tommies come on top.Commonwealth training is particularly harsh.Most soldiers avoided FAL's full-auto capability it was just too uncontrollable in full-auto
 
Last edited:

winton

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
90
Likes
5


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.
here is my take on the comparison with pros for the qbz unless stated otherwise:

Its lighter so I can carry more ammo, kill more enemy. Its lighter so, I don't always have to be in the prone position.
accuracy is an non issue as I've seen reports on youtube that it is accurate to 400m. so thats really all you need in an infantry rifle. Otherwise, I'd use a rem 700 with a mega scope.

Barrel lengths looks about the same on both rifles, so they are similarly accurate on this respect, but
qbz components are milled, which is more expensive and makes the rifle more accurate then the stamped process of the INSAS.
plus the insas is based on the ak47, so accuracy aint so great anyway.


Its shorter length barrel from the pistol grip means its more maneuverable in trenches around rocks or building or from cover position.

There is less kickback, so the next shot is not spoiled and I wont fatigue to early. Means I can kill more enemy.

Its calibre has more stopping power, so you can incapacitate enemy in one shot.

Like an M16, it needs to be treated with care and can't be thrown around like the INSAS.

The INSAS is based on the ak47 so its reliability should be just as good. however given indian poor manufacturing quality and design hasl reduce this more. The weapon has had extensively documented troubles with reliability. So this make the qbz the pic of the litter in terms of reliability.

Given the choice, I'd rather have the qbz.
given a choice between the insas and ak47, I'd rather have an ak47.

the insas is a failed design and the IA should stick to imports like the ak47.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,123
Likes
40,572
QBZ-95 is worst kind of bullpup with heavy recoil, Indian Soldiers used during joint exercise had very negative remarks except its looks..
 

badguy2000

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
5,133
Likes
736
QBZ-95 is worst kind of bullpup with heavy recoil, Indian Soldiers used during joint exercise had very negative remarks except its looks..
QBZ-95 is not a success,although the machining tech and material applied to it is much advanced than INsas.


that is why QBZ-03 rolled outs
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,720
Likes
18,504
Country flag
QBZ-95 is not a success,although the machining tech and material applied to it is much advanced than INsas.


that is why QBZ-03 rolled outs
in WW-2 Germans had advance tanks and manufacturing then Russia. We all know what happen in tank battle and who wont.
 

Kunal Biswas

Member of the Year 2011
Ambassador
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
31,123
Likes
40,572
Can you give me some details about its manufacturing technique etc ?

Also what kind of fiber is used ? All these claims are empty unless someone provide proof of what he is claiming..

QBZ-95 is not a success,although the machining tech and material applied to it is much advanced than INsas.


that is why QBZ-03 rolled outs
 

Broccoli

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2012
Messages
231
Likes
107
QBZ-95 is not a success,although the machining tech and material applied to it is much advanced than INsas.


that is why QBZ-03 rolled outs
If it's not a success, then why did they release heavily upgraded version? Clearly PLA has plans to use it for years to come.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top