You will remain a stubborn military illiterate ..
By posting
some reviews by civilians on an export version of Type-95 rifle, You haven't proved much ..
Don't expect to understand military firearms by Internet reviews, you are not the user ..
And comparing them with Famas and M-16 top ups, Does not qualify that Rifle either ..
Lets start about the points you noted, And compare to our INSAS 1B1 ..
===============>>
INSAS 1B1 Iron Sights >
Benefits >
1. Large leaf sights, Are easy to flip and grasp in slipper hands, Specially when in mud or water ..
2. Duel flip up leaf sights, For long and medium ranges ..
3. Sights are alined with butt stock, This gives clear line of sight regardless of placing of cheek bone of the user over the butt stock, Flexible under combat conditions ..
------------------
QBZ-95 iron sight, Design flaw >
Flaws >
1. Smaller leaf sights, Harder to flip in slippery hands,
2. Duel flip up sights ?
3. Sights are placed over +5cms from the base of butt stock, It needs a proper height of the eye to aline both rear and front sights, This increase reaction time under combat stress ..
================>>
Recoil >>
INSAS LMG at full auto, In sitting position ..
============== =>>
Cheek Rest >>
For your defense,
I would give QBZ-95 +1 as its based on AK, Just like our INSAS, FAMAS is a bad design bullpup mainly coz of the same cheek bone rest issue ..
M16 is not a bullpup, The firing mech is not at butt, Its not same with QBZ-95 or Famas where user cheek feels the shake of the firing mechanism, Its harder to concentrate specially >
1. Over those tiny sight provided in your qbz ..
2. QBZ design is much influenced by AK which gives a bigger recoil compare to those of Famas ..
3. And that too the sights placed over a +5cm high top up ..
Under continual usage, The user will have issues with alining his eye with both sights ..
============================
Get both QBZ and M16, try out at some firing range in US ..
To get the feeling what i am saying ..
what's your points?
1. QBZ95 's bad iron sight ?---I think it's quite clear now.
...(a).you quoted the wrong pic of Type81-1
...(b).at least some Indian in Canada owning the T97 with his own experiece has corrected you.and further more, many T97 player has no problem with this Iron sight it self...
2. the so called 'heavy recoil'? --- obviously this is another baseless claim. I don't know where you get that...
3. the high 'line of sight' and Cheek rest issue?,yes ,this is the problem of QBZ95 (Type97 as well).but this just happend in Optical sights mounted cases...
....(a) the rifile was designed in early 1990's , at that time the optical sights were not as popular as today...the iron sight is primary sight method
....(b) PLA Army is the largest Army with the largest Infantry units ...I don't think we could afford too many modern Optical sights for the whole army
....(c) we don't think QBZ95 has much difference with other Rifiles(FAMAS, M16 none-flattop version) on these issues...
....(d) no change or any improvement on this issue so far? no ...just wait please, I would explain later
-----------------------------
two clips of video to expose some strange statement about so called ' heavy recoil' issue....
shooting on the move excercise------------some SF unit from the Army
[video=youtube_share;MW1mRU9t6rk]http://youtu.be/MW1mRU9t6rk[/video]
some PLA Marine unit
[video=youtube_share;wHCMHSRbzi4]http://youtu.be/wHCMHSRbzi4[/video]