User talk:BroadArrow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feel free to leave a message for BroadArrow here.

Hi, I did update of pages bellow, would you please look at them and correct language? Thank you!

Info about CZ/Vz - Vz. is abbreviation (often written without dot at the end - Vz) of vzor which means model. Only weapons adopted by army normally has Vz in the name (e.g. successful CZ 75 pistol was not adopted by army so there's no Vz 75 pistol). CZ is mostly abbreviation from Česká Zbrojovka - Czech Armament Factory. But it's a bit complicated, there were/are several weapon manufactures in Czechoslovakia/Czech Republic - Zbrojovka Uherský Brod (most known nowadays), Zbrojovka Strakonice, Zbrojovka Brno, Zbrojovka Vsetín. For more information see:

Also military weapons were after WWII designed by several independent development centers (e.g. ZVS-VVÚ Brno, VTÚVM Slavičín etc.) and then assigned to a production factory, so it couldn't be said e.g. Sa 58 was designed by CZUB, you may only say it was produced by CZUB. Next, there are several trademarks containing CZ and ČZ (see urls above) and a model name itself also may contain CZ (e.g. CZ 75 or CZ 550 is in my opinion model name not abbreviation of factory name). Note Sa is abbreviation from Samopal, which means submachinegun (e.g. "9 mm samopal vzor 48a" = "9 mm samopal vzor 23" - 9 mm submachinegun model ... or "7,65 mm samopal vzor 61 Škorpion" - 7.65 mm submachinegun model 61 Scorpion). Czech army used term Samopal for Sa 58 assault rifle too (full name is "7,62 mm samopal vzor 58" - "7.62 mm submachinegun model 58"), may be as an analogy to Russian term "automat".


Contents

[edit] Vz 27

I've expanded the article you started on the Vz 27 by a teensy-tiny bit, after I spotted this picture here. It's a cute little thing. Airport 1975 20:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vzor, Vz. Vz, and CZ

I'm trying to get a correct reading of the vernacular here. CZ is the company name and is properly listed as CZ without any punctuation, correct? So, then Vz is shown two different ways both with and without a period after the Vz, right? Now, then, Vzor means Model, right? Why isn't it the CZ Vz. 27, for instance? It's very common for the word "Model" to be left out of firearms names as redundant. For instance, the Remington 700, Winchester 1897, etc. We don't just come out and say, "Model 700" although I would know what you're talking about. Current CZ pistols, according to the web site, are listed as CZ 92, or CZ 83, for instance. So, why should the older models be Vz 50, and the newer models be CZ 75, for instance? I'm just trying to get this correct and universal. Of course, I am of the opinion that it should be, CZ 27 and not CZ Vz. 27, CZ Vz 27, Vz. 27, or Vz 27. What do you think?--Asams10 19:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your question! I think it's important that we do resolve the use of CZ/Vz designations on Wikipedia as the variety of styles used is making things confusing!

Personally, I would use "Vz XX" to refer to a Czech military firearm with an official military "vzor" designation and "CZ XX" to refer to commercial firearms made by CZ (if CZ itself called it that, of course). (To be really precise, I would always use "ČZ" instead of "CZ" if it wasn't such a hassle on English keyboards!)

It gets a little confused for three reasons:

1. "CZ" (an acronym for the company Česká Zbrojovka) and "Vz" (an abbreviation of a military designation "vzor") look similar

2. both CZ and the Czech military used years as model numbers

3. CZ made both military and civilian firearms.

For example, I would call a "Samopal vzor 58" (rifle model 58) a "Vz 58" for short although you could also correctly abbreviate it as "Sa Vz 58" although I think it's a little long and cumbersome. (Whether you use stops at the end of abbreviated words is a matter of style; I don't.) So, "Vz 58" is an abbreviation of its Czech military designation. Whether or not it was made by CZ is irrelevant. As it happens, CZ did make Vz 58s. But I would never call a CZ-manufactured Vz 58 a "CZ 58".

Similarly, I would call not a CZ 75 a "Vz 75" as there has never been a "Vz 75" adopted by the Czech military. CZ itself called it a "pistole ČZ vzor 75" in Czech but calls it a "CZ 75" for short.

BroadArrow 10:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tavor edit

My bad on the Tavor - I wasn't aware that it can be reconfigured, but I still think that the point needs to be made that you can't simply switch shoulders in the middle of a firefight to shoot around the left side of an obstacle. Your thoughts? Spinolio 04:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries. You can change it if you want. Personally, I think saying it can be "configured" implies it requires an alteration more than simply flicking a switch in a firefight.BroadArrow 06:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at the new edit and let me know what you think. Spinolio 17:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Although, to be picky, most military rifles weren't designed to be shot by left-handers. At best the controls won't be accessible. At worst, left-handers will get a face full of brass. Well known cases in point are the M16 (before the case deflector was added on the A2) and the M1 Garand just to name a couple. (I have a left-handed friend who insists on shooting his M1 left handed and innevitably gets some nasty cuts on his eyebrow by the end of a competition.) The Tavor and the Steyr AUG are unusual in that they can be used just as effectively by left-handed shooters. I should point out that I don't have an axe to grind on the issue. I think all soldiers should train to shoot right-handed weapons to prevent someone getting a nasty surprise using a comrade's rifle in a firefight. So I think it's a waste of time making them ambidextrous. Just my two cents worth. BroadArrow 08:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:CZUB_logo_on_CZ_75B_grips.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:CZUB_logo_on_CZ_75B_grips.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CZUB_logo_on_CZ_75B_grips.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CZUB_logo_on_CZ_75B_grips.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk 15:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)