The Uzi - a proper soldier's weapon or a Hollywood gun ?

SaoriseBiker

Once when having a pint with a fella from the IDF I asked him about the effectiveness of the Uzi. He shrugged his shoulders and said " It's something for the Hollywood movies and that's about it ". Now obviously any weapon has the potential to do damage, who would like to stand in the way of an old Tommy gun !!!! But I have seen the Uzi been carried by the Special Branch here in the past (don't know if it is still used ?).

So for you fellas who know your stuff, how would you rate the Uzi as a military combat weapon ?

bluecode

No expert but would have thought the UZI was primarily intended as step up from a pistol for second line troops and the likes of tankers for self defence. They are generally referred to as machine pistols which is a clue in itself. Useful for short range and in confined spaces. So special forces certainly made use of them too. Like sall sub machine guns accuracy and range are poor.

I often saw them used by Special Branch. At a place I used to work, a detective would often escort the security van carrying the wages. It was disconcerting to pass a guy with an UZI on your way to the canteen.

On the point of their accuracy, there was a story that when Branch foiled the attempt to kidnap Galen Weston in the eighties. There was a lot of fire from the UZIs but the only casualties were some cows in the next field.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

Its more effective as a short range weapon. I fired it a few times and enjoyed every second of it. Very accurate but very much a close range weapon with a high rate of fire

John_D80

I spoke to a former IDF officer before about the Uzi. He said it had a vicious recoil. On the plus side though, in over ten years in the IDF he had never once seen a stoppage on one.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

John_D80 wrote: »

I spoke to a former IDF officer before about the Uzi. He said it had a vicious recoil. On the plus side though, in over ten years in the IDF he had never once seen a stoppage on one.

Sorry IDF as in Israeli Defence Force or do you mean IDF as in (Irish Defence Force, PDF) ? It's just some people use IDF incorrectly. I will give my comments either way.


If you mean PDF, then he is pulling your balls, the UZI is not in service with the PDF.

If you mean Israeli DF, the handfull of times I fired the UZI, I was very surprised with the lack of recoil. I was expecting a good bit of kick but there was minimal recoil.

Although, I didnt fire it for 10 years.

Kat1170

Got a chance to fire one once, almost zero recoil.

biko

It's not intended for long range, more like "aim over there and fire many bullets".
The small size and big mags makes it good for bodyguards and CT units as a weapon for clearing a house or similar work in small spaces.

IRLConor

benwavner wrote: »

I was very surprised with the lack of recoil. I was expecting a good bit of kick but there was minimal recoil.

I would have expected relatively low recoil too. The Uzi is what? Roughly 3 times heavier than your average 9mm pistol? 9mm pistols have relatively soft recoil, ergo the Uzi should have even less.

goldie fish

IRLConor wrote: »

I would have expected relatively low recoil too. The Uzi is what? Roughly 3 times heavier than your average 9mm pistol? 9mm pistols have relatively soft recoil, ergo the Uzi should have even less.

It has a wrap around bolt, that ensures it does not rise like most machine guns do. The counter with this feature is its weight.

IRLConor

goldie fish wrote: »

It has a wrap around bolt, that ensures it does not rise like most machine guns do. The counter with this feature is its weight.

Presumably the extra weight from that feature is one of the reasons it doesn't rise as much. If the balance of the gun moves forward of the CoG during firing it should counteract muzzle rise somewhat.

Actually that's quite a neat feature, since you could make the gun balance at the pistol grip and only be nose heavy when it needs to be. I'd never thought of that. You learn something new every day.

Zambia

From Wkik

From the 1960s through the 1980s, Uzi submachine guns were sold to more military and police markets than any other submachine gun ever made.[5]

It cant be a hollywood gun if it got that many stamps of approval.

Besides Chuck Norris used it I rest my case.

goldie fish

Zambia wrote: »

From Wkik

From the 1960s through the 1980s, Uzi submachine guns were sold to more military and police markets than any other submachine gun ever made.[5]

It cant be a hollywood gun if it got that many stamps of approval.

Besides Chuck Norris used it I rest my case.

Chuck used the Ingram more than the Uzi

Zambia

Damn so he did

SaoriseBiker

Zambia wrote: »

From Wkik

From the 1960s through the 1980s, Uzi submachine guns were sold to more military and police markets than any other submachine gun ever made.[5]

It cant be a hollywood gun if it got that many stamps of approval.

Besides Chuck Norris used it I rest my case.

You mean Wiki ? No offense mate, but I'd take that with a pinch of salt, some fan boy of the Israeli's no doubt :rolleyes:

SaoriseBiker

goldie fish wrote: »

Chuck used the Ingram more than the Uzi

Well if the Chuckster prefers the Ingram who can argue !!!! ( BTW, the Chuckster was a military Policeman in the US Air Force before becoming a professional kickboxer)

" Chuck Norris was asked if he would be running for President, after a chuckle, he stated, nothing makes him run. "

" When Alexander Bell invented the telephone he had 3 missed calls from Chuck Norris "

" Chuck Norris doesn't call the wrong number. You answer the wrong phone. "

Zambia

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

You mean Wiki ? No offense mate, but I'd take that with a pinch of salt, some fan boy of the Israeli's no doubt :rolleyes:

Hang on

Granted I could write that on Wiki myself but in the grand scheme of things it was very widely used.

I would be shocked if you could come up with a more widely used Machine Pistol of those years?

Stovepipe

The thing about the Uzi was that it reflected the growing maturity of the Israeli arms industry, which had been largely based around copying other people's designs or rebuilding captured weapons. Nothing would give a young country more confidence than to be able to build it's own weapons and not depend on others for supply.

regards
Stovepipe

SaoriseBiker

Zambia wrote: »

Hang on

Granted I could write that on Wiki myself but in the grand scheme of things it was very widely used.

I would be shocked if you could come up with a more widely used Machine Pistol of those years?

Maybe the MAC10.

SaoriseBiker

Stovepipe wrote: »

The thing about the Uzi was that it reflected the growing maturity of the Israeli arms industry, which had been largely based around copying other people's designs or rebuilding captured weapons. Nothing would give a young country more confidence than to be able to build it's own weapons and not depend on others for supply.

regards
Stovepipe

Yeah but the state has to depend on an endless supply of US dollars to make them

bluecode

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Yeah but the state has to depend on an endless supply of US dollars to make them

Even without American dollars. The Israelis would survive. They managed to win several wars without any help and in the face of an arms embargos.

Never to be underestimated.

SaoriseBiker

bluecode wrote: »

Even without American dollars. The Israelis would survive. They managed to win several wars without any help and in the face of an arms embargos.

Never to be underestimated.

The Palestinians also had an arms embargo on them. Kennedy ended the embargo on the Zionists in 1963.

BlaasForRafa

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

The Palestinians also had an arms embargo on them. Kennedy ended the embargo on the Zionists in 1963.

Jesus wept, why don't you actually enlighten yourself before making stupid comments. During the six-day war the typical IDF infantry weapons were the Uzi, the Fal and the FN Mag. Israel's tank regiments were typically made up of Centurions, Amx-13's and reconditioned Korean-war era Sherman tanks. The Israeli air force was almost entirely of french origin, made up of Mirage's, Ouragons, Magisters etc.

Also not all Israelis are Zionists, so calling them "The Zionists" just shows up your personal bias.

Stovepipe

@S'Biker, when the British examined captured weapons taken from Haganah/Irgun prisoners, they found them to be well made copies of WW II weapons such as the Sten, Mauser 98K and MG34. They even found a store of home-made 60mm mortar bombs that matched the original in every detail.The Uzi was a logical evolution from those WW II weapons.

regards
Stovepipe

SaoriseBiker

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Jesus wept, why don't you actually enlighten yourself before making stupid comments. During the six-day war the typical IDF infantry weapons were the Uzi, the Fal and the FN Mag. Israel's tank regiments were typically made up of Centurions, Amx-13's and reconditioned Korean-war era Sherman tanks. The Israeli air force was almost entirely of french origin, made up of Mirage's, Ouragons, Magisters etc.

Also not all Israelis are Zionists, so calling them "The Zionists" just shows up your personal bias.

6 day war was in 1967, Kennedy ended the embargo on the Zionists in 1963 As for the Uzi and FN Mag, the FN was been used by the Irish, Brits and many other armies up until the 80's, I can happily say I fired it meself in me old days in the FCA . Besides the Egyptian and Syrians were probably even worse armed than the Zionists and the Mirage was actuallly quite a good fighter in it's day, pity we didn't have a few of them. The fact that they were using old tanks etc was probably due to them not been bankrolled back then like they are these days by the Yanks.

Zambia

Mac 10 is not even close in popularity to the UZI.

14 country's is well below the Uzi take up rate.

BlaasForRafa

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

6 day war was in 1967, Kennedy ended the embargo on the Zionists in 1963 As for the Uzi and FN Mag, the FN was been used by the Irish, Brits and many other armies up until the 80's, I can happily say I fired it meself in me old days in the FCA . Besides the Egyptian and Syrians were probably even worse armed than the Zionists and the Mirage was actuallly quite a good fighter in it's day, pity we didn't have a few of them. The fact that they were using old tanks etc was probably due to them not been bankrolled back then like they are these days by the Yanks.

Seriously, go and read a few books and then come back to the thread. It doesn't matter when the embargo ended, the americans still weren't selling arms to the Israelis. And the Syrians and Egyptians were fully kitted out with the latest gear from the Soviets so they were by no means inferior.

bluecode

I thought this thread was about the Uzi, not an opportunity for people to air their ignorance of recent Middle East history. Go and read a proper history book for heaven sake, Sbiker. Your lack of knowledge/bias is embarrassingly obvious. :rolleyes:

Jawgap

I think it has a low muzzle velocity which obviously limits its range but makes it more suitable for confined spaces - something that's obbviously helped by its size.

Whether it's a 'soldier's weapon' probably depends on the soldier and the job he / she has been given!

Tenger

Jawgap wrote: »

I think it has a low muzzle velocity which obviously limits its range but makes it more suitable for confined spaces - something that's obbviously helped by its size.

Whether it's a 'soldier's weapon' probably depends on the soldier and the job he / she has been given!

Nice on topic post, answering the OP's question.
As far as I know from reading various books over the years, the Uzi was designed originally for troops in confined areas (tankers) thus it gives these troops (who previously were restricted to pistols) more defensive firepower. In addition its light weight and small size made it suitable for non-frontline troops who would ind a full size rifle restrictive towards their normal duties.
I assume the Special Forces liked it for its size and weight as well as high rate of fire?

So I guess it fulfills some roles very well but would not be suitable for a frontline squad who are holding a defensive position, which requires assault rifles and light machine guns?

I guess Hollywood started using it as it 'looked cool' and maybe suited the role of 'concealed weapon to be fired single handed'?

SaoriseBiker

Zambia wrote: »

Mac 10 is not even close in popularity to the UZI.

14 country's is well below the Uzi take up rate.

Your opinion. I could also have said the Glock machine pistol but since it's an Austrian I'll probably be denounced as antisemitic

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Seriously, go and read a few books and then come back to the thread. It doesn't matter when the embargo ended, the americans still weren't selling arms to the Israelis. And the Syrians and Egyptians were fully kitted out with the latest gear from the Soviets so they were by no means inferior.

bluecode wrote: »

I thought this thread was about the Uzi, not an opportunity for people to air their ignorance of recent Middle East history. Go and read a proper history book for heaven sake, Sbiker. Your lack of knowledge/bias is embarrassingly obvious.

If you read the OP again you would have seen that the reason I posted the thread was because I had a pint with a member of the IDF and he said the Uzi was a Hollywood weapon. Now could you get off your high horse and get back to discussing the merits of the Uzi.

Zambia

SaoriseBiker wrote: »

Your opinion. I could also have said the Glock machine pistol but since it's an Austrian I'll probably be denounced as antisemitic

No just wrong

Jawgap

Tenger wrote: »

Nice on topic post, answering the OP's question.
As far as I know from reading various books over the years, the Uzi was designed originally for troops in confined areas (tankers) thus it gives these troops (who previously were restricted to pistols) more defensive firepower. In addition its light weight and small size made it suitable for non-frontline troops who would ind a full size rifle restrictive towards their normal duties.
I assume the Special Forces liked it for its size and weight as well as high rate of fire?

So I guess it fulfills some roles very well but would not be suitable for a frontline squad who are holding a defensive position, which requires assault rifles and light machine guns?

I guess Hollywood started using it as it 'looked cool' and maybe suited the role of 'concealed weapon to be fired single handed'?

Nah. it looks cool because you can have one in each hand and it was the weapon of choice for the Terminator!!




I think SF like it not so much for its rate of fire but for its low muzzle velocity which meant that in a confined space, such as a room, bullets tended to stay in people rather than continue on through and ricochet around the place. Obviously enough it's easy to conceal.

The Sten and MP5 were / are similarly attractive for the same reasons.

If range / reach is not a major consideration it would be a good choice - I seem to recall that the FBI published research that in urban America the average distance over which an exchange of fire took place was 25 ft - effectively the width of a car and a sidewalk - so for intercepting a car or storming a building you could do worse than the "Uzi, 9mm."

Probably not the best choice in open countryside!