Talk:Uzi submachine gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

differance between model A and B

The Uzi was not based on the M23/25.

Contents 1 Actual photograph 2 Uzi production 3 Scorpion redesign 4 one each hand? 5 Games/Films? 6 merge mini UZI stub into article 7 Uzi and the MAC-10 8 .40 S&W 9 The Bolt 10 Micro Uzi/Uzi pistol

[edit] Actual photograph

So I'm browsing this fine article and click on the old photo; to my horror I see it's an airsoft/replica/toy/whatever. I've replaced the image with one of my Uzi SMG (with green furniture and the .22 kit). I'll try to get a picture of it in a more traditional configuration. --Cortland 03:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, you're right - that was a photo of a softair replica...I was kind of surprised it took so long for someone to notice. The original photo was deleted as a copyvio about a year ago, so i took a quick snapshot of my softair Uzi because I figured it was better than having no photo at all :P. Your photo is way better than mine (not only because it shows the real thing, but because it's actually a way better photo), so you won't hear me complaining :) -- Ferkelparade π 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I have a query in with Vector Arms, who produce Uzis in the US. They have agreed to provide a bunch of images; we're working out the details. Georgewilliamherbert 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Vector is good people -- I bought my full auto IMI and some suppressors from them. If you want photos of a Mini or a Micro I'm sure there are folks on Uzitalk who would gladly give you permission. Note that Vector doesn't produce Micros. If you're looking for photos of a specific configuration of the full size full auto let me know -- I've got IMI fixed buttstocks, IMI vertical foregrip, BFAs, suppressors, several caliber conversion kits, shoulder carry rig, top covers with red dot sights, etc. etc. In some ways I think less is more here, as the Uzitalk.com reference library has more info and photos than you could ever hope (or want) to amass on Wikipedia. Cortland 07:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uzi production

I heard that no more uzis are bieng made. Is thius true?

Yes its true. but that is only for the regular uzi. i guess that they will still manufacture the micro uzi etc. (ive read it in an article about uzi)

I doubt it...I'm pretty sure they are still making semi-auto uzis in limited edition for US buyers. I'm not sure about standard millitary automatic UZIs though. It's a very profitable weapon for IMI, so I doubt they would stop producing it all together. You probably just heard that the IDF and Israeli military is finished using it.Elysianfields 02:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The importation of Uzis into the U.S. was halted in 1989 based on the sporting use provision of the GCA. When Vector Arms acquired a mass of registered, pre-86 transferable full-auto Uzi receivers in the mid-90s, they had a hell of a time finding Uzi parts. Vector contacted IMI in 1996, but IMI had shut down their Uzi line a few years earlier when they moved to Tel Aviv. Presumably IMI has the ability to resume production if they wanted. FN (an Uzi licensee) stopped producing Uzis in the 80s and no longer has the tooling and equipment to support Uzi production. The other IMI licensee, Lyttleton Engineering, made Uzis for South Africa during the Rhodesian war, but it too has obviously ceased manufacture. There are likely unlicensed copies still being made in some parts of the world (Croatia, China), but it appears likely that no more legitimate Uzis are being made. Vector Arms continues to manufacture semi-auto Uzis domestically using pre-1989 IMI receivers and Group Industries receivers. It remains to be seen what will happen when this supply of receivers is exhausted. --68.10.180.135 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the supply of semi-receivers will ever be exhausted. In addition to the full-auto receivers Vector bought at the Group Industries bankruptcy auction, they also bought over 15,000 semi-auto receivers at something like 4 cents each. He probably bought GI's stamping dies, too. --128.82.56.36 17:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scorpion redesign

Is the Uzi really a redesign of the Scorpion? Ashmoo 03:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No. The Uzi was designed in 1950. The Scorpion was designed in 1959.

[edit] one each hand?

" The grip-mounted magazine gives the Uzi a highly distinctive, instantly-recognizeable profile, and as such it is often seen in TV shows, movies and computer games. In such portrayals, the weapon is often fired one-handed (especially the Mini- and Micro-Uzis) and in some cases even as a pair of weapons, one in each hand. While theoretically possible, such a method of use would be nothing short of wasting ammunition."

can someone put in why it would be wasting ammunition. it presumes knowledge.

There are a couple of factors at work. First, don't expect to hit anything with a firearm without using the sights (i.e., aiming). Human vision would tend to preclude looking down the sights of two separate guns at the same time. The second factor is controlability. The Uzi is surprisingly controlable in full-auto (from the shoulder anyway -- I've never tried one-handed), but controlability would certainly suffer in offhand full-auto due to muzzle rise. With respect to the Micro Uzi, that puppy has a much higher rate of fire than the full-size making one-handed controllability truly impossible.

I think explaining the two-handed thing would be misguided. Hollywood movies/TV/computer games portray everything inaccurately. If we explain every stupid thing seen in a movie, it would be a very long article. Personally, I think the whole bit should be removed. Is two-Uzi use really common enough in these media to justify being mentioned? Ashmoo 03:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Although it is theoretically possible to hold and fire a pair of weapons in this manner, the inadequate recoil control of each weapon by the user contributes to extremely poor accuracy, as well as the possibility of hand or wrist injury."

Now someone tried to explain it, but this is inaccurate for the Uzi. I fired it when I was in the Bundeswehr and it practically has no recoil since it is open-bolt. It would be possible to fire two Uzis if there wasn't the problem of aiming. OnisanT 11:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually tried firing it one-handed? It's a little different... I don't recommend it. Georgewilliamherbert 05:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's anything like the Mac-10 then it might turn around in one hand causing the shooter to harm themselves. Anyone know if it applies to the Uzi? Angrynight 06:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hate to be a party pooper, but personal experiences with Uzis count as Original Research and as such are irrevelant to discussions of this article. You'd be better off having this discussion on an internet forum. Regards, Ashmoo 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm.....no. No more than personal experience as an engineer designing bridges counts as Original Research and makes editing the Bridge article based on being a professional bridge design engineer against policy. Georgewilliamherbert 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that an engineer can point to the primary literature to prove an edit. Editors cannot use their own experiences as Primary Sources. See WP:NOR The role of expert editors Ashmoo 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You are overextending the intent of WP:NOR. It is intended to avoid unverifyable sources. Experts are not supposed to use unpublished, otherwise unavailable personal knowledge for articles which is not part of the general body of knowledge of experts in the field. This is a quality control check on expertise; you can't verify a personal unpublished result, or reliably reproduce it.

In cases like this, the specific knowledge refers to an easily replicatable specific test. Most actual professionals that use firearms have tried this at home... once. the results are stray bullets all over the range, typically. This specific knowledge is common among professionals with SMG experience. It is easily verifyable; find a gun range that rents submachineguns for target practice (some countries don't have any, and some states in the US don't have any, but there are a bunch in Las Vegas and in other locations), and rent an Uzi. You'll understand within a few rounds fired.

In any case, it's been referred to in magazine publications and training manuals on firearms before anyways, so it's not even OR in that sense. It's not widely published ... because anyone who's serious or professionally trained knows how bad an idea it is and has probably demonstrated it to themselves once to make the point clear. But it is published.

That I have personal experience on this point does not make the result original research. If I were the only person to have ever done it, and I'd never written it up for publication in a gun magazine or Uzi training manual, that would be OR. But it's silly to think that I'm the only person to have ever test-fired an Uzi one handed. Claiming this was OR is ridiculous... Georgewilliamherbert 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That an editor has had personal experience doesn't make it OR, that is true. But Verifiability states we need a 3rd party source. It may well be common knowledge amongst professionals, but this common knowledge needs to be verified. Requiring readers to go out and rent uzis doesn't count as verifiable, doing this is an experient which is the height of OR.

Having said that if it is documented by 3rd party magazines and Uzi training manuals then there is no problem. I was never arguing the actual facts of this particular case, but merely noting that personal experiences alone do not count as verifiable. Regards, Ashmoo 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally agreed. This fixation on one-handed firing is asinine. But regarding the MAC-10, keep in mind that it's chambered in a heavier recoiling cartridge and has close to TWICE to ROF as the Uzi. --70.160.160.175 07:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Games/Films?

Is the section that lists games/films that the Uzi has appeared in really a good idea? The Uzi (and its likeness) has been in hundreds of games and movies over the years. This list is going to get really long if it continues. Will anyone who comes this article gain anything by a list such as this?

I think only including works that mention it by name or where it plays a significant role in the plot should be included. Regards, Ashmoo 03:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

These are accepted part of firearm articles, and when they get to long they are just moved to a sub-page. Ve3 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ashmoo, I agree that asking whether the section is a good idea is a good question (one that I had been asking myself, and was wondering where to ask in general, about all gun articles). But I wouldn't have just deleted it... Better to ask first, if it's a major change like that, of content going away.

You might look at the discussion on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FN P90 in popular culture

Georgewilliamherbert 04:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone remove the "Invasion USA" picture, those are Ingram Mac-10s or 11s, NOT IMI Uzis.

[edit] merge mini UZI stub into article

merge - the mini UZI stub is redundant. --Shuki 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just boldly redirected the stub to here. It's not worth a merge; the info on the stub was incorrect anyways. Mini Uzi is the compact submachinegun, not the machinepistol Micro Uzi which became the Uzi Pistol as a semi-auto import. Georgewilliamherbert 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To be technical it was the "semi-auto import" Uzi pistol that became the machine pistol Micro Uzi. IMI introduced the Uzi Pistol in 1984 basically for the American market. They didn't start making Micro Uzis until 1986. But whatever. Check the Uzitalk reference library ;) --Cortland 06:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

All my friends in the business had played with fully auto Micros in 84, but they may well not have produced any for series production until 86. Anyways, the details in the stub were wrong, and the level of detail we're discussing now is below notability ;-) Georgewilliamherbert 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, people starting converting Uzi pistols as soon as they were introduced in the America, but IMI didn't start producing factory Micro Uzis until 86. Below notability!? For Wikipedia, maybe :-) --70.160.160.175 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uzi and the MAC-10

Right now we have a stub on the article that the MAC-10 is dubbed an "American Uzi". After removing a game in the list that was erroneously put there (James Bond 007: Agent Under Fire has a MAC-10, which is called Ingalls inname, a simple renaming of "Ingram"), I was thinking that there should be a section or larger mention on how the two are seperate weapons and should not be confused for one another. -TonicBH 02:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .40 S&W

I've read of a small run of IMI factory Uzi's in .40S&W. Can anyone confirm this?

[edit] The Bolt

"the bolt wraps around the barrel, allowing a heavier, slower-firing bolt in a shorter, better-balanced weapon"

Shorter and better-balanced, sure, but shouldn't that be "lighter, quicker-firing bolt", precisely because it does not contain nearly as much metal as, say, the 9mm Sterling SMG used by British forces until the late 1980's?

The telescoping bolt allows for a heavier bolt than a non-telescoping bolt would in a weapon of the same given length. The design goal in small full-auto weapons such as this is usually to keep the cyclic rate down as much as possible, not increase it. Riddley 23:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micro Uzi/Uzi pistol

I was reading the Micro Uzi and Uzi pistol articles. They were stubs and the wording was nearly identical to the Variants bit of this one. I saw someone redirected Mini Uzi at one point, so I went ahead and redirected Micro and Pistol, as well as added a pic of the pistol to this article. No objections I hope. I expect someone will revert me if they feel I'm out of line. Thernlund 10:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)