UZI Talk Forums

View Poll Results: Is the fa uzi still a militarily relevant weapon?

Voters
234. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes: It's still the war horse of old

    183 78.21%
  • No: What, no flashlight mount?

    40 17.09%
  • Undecided: I'll vote after reading the entire thread

    11 4.70%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 5 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 100

Thread: Is the uzi a militarily relevant weapon?

  1. #1
    UZI Talk Life Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,247

    Is the uzi a militarily relevant weapon?

    I'm speaking of the full-size, full-auto platform only. The uzi smg has been successfully used by militaries in the past and is a remarkably robust and low maintenance weapon. On the other hand it is only 9mm and lacks the kitchen sink mounting ability of many of today's black rifles.

    Uzitalk has a host of informed members and I'd really enjoy reading y'alls opinions and reasonings on this. Thanks.

  2. #2
    UZI Talk Life Member
    jetskrtal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Evansville,Indiana
    Posts
    3,609
    I say yes.Reliable,simple to operate,easy to clean,good rate of fire,accurate.I don't think it needs to have 20 lbs. of accessories mounted to it ,ala almost every AR-15 platform you see these days.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    89
    I believe it is still a good close in defensive weapon and CQB gun. I don't think the UZI is ever going to replace the spot that the M-16/ M-4 is trying to fill, but I think it is more like the role of the M-1 Carbine in WWII and Korea. Good choice for someone that might need something bigger then a pistol, but a full battle rifle would be in the way of the assigned duties.

    The only drawback is that FMJ 9mm ammo is a notoriously poor fight stopper. But I guess that's why it has the happy-switch. If it's worth putting one hole in, might as well make it 5.

  4. #4
    Registered User StooperZero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    4,918
    9mm will kill you dead as a nuclear bomb........

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Port Charlotte, Fl
    Posts
    102
    Why not ask the surviving Arabs??

  6. #6
    UZI Talk Life Member
    piratesover40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    5,385
    Quote Originally Posted by jlbua
    Why not ask the surviving Arabs??


    The only reason there is a jacket at all on military rounds is because of the Genivia Convention. They put it in there to be humane. The theory is it is possible for the bullet to pass thru the body if not hitting vital organs and you will survive. That was before the AK-47 and the M-16 came to be. Also do you think the terrorists use FMJ cause they hope we might survive a wound? The make most of their own when they can't steal it and it's all lead with dirt, grass, shit from their left hand, etc,.
    ''If We Aren't Supposed To Eat Animals''. ''Why Are They Made Of Meat''?

    "Don't Tell Me the Sky's the Limit When There Are Footpirnts on the Moon" (unknown)


  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Port Charlotte, Fl
    Posts
    102
    You have to fight with what you have, if one round won't do use whatever you need. The guys in the sand box use FmJ and they don't just shoot 1 round. I don't relish getting shot with anything. A well placed 22 will drop you like a rock.

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    172
    The Uzi was born in a time when battle rifles were big, and weighed a lot. It was a significantly smaller and lighter package, at the time.

    It's easy enough to add rails to any gun, that's not what makes it modern. A contemporary system, in my opinion, would have to be closed bolt, have a last round hold open, and the ability to drop the mag out of the weapon with the strong hand, without changing your grip... but even after all that, it's still shooting 9mm..

    An M16 or other modern 5.56 rifles weigh only slightly more, are only slightly larger (in certain configurations), and massively increase the capabilities of the soldier bearing it (in addition to reducing the logistical challenges of having two different platforms to feed and maintain).

  9. #9
    UZI Talk Life Member
    johnnywitt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,542
    The whole submachinegun concept is, admittedly, kind of dated. But like a 1911 compared to a modern high cap plastic pistol the Uzi will always be an effective weapon in the right hands for CQB distances. The 5.56 loses a lot of umfph out of a 10.5" bbl. IMO. The Uzi with a buffer installed to increase the ROF and decrease the inherent choppiness of a 1.6lb. bolt recipricating in the receiver is a good weapon (maybe add an optic and use some +p+ ammo). I think things go through cycles just like the 1911. Right now, everybody and their brother wants an M4 style weapon like Uncle Mike used in the 'Nam, or Mikey Jr. is using in the sandbox.

  10. #10
    UZI Talk Life Member
    Quarterbore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Valley Forge PA
    Posts
    1,047
    I voted...

    But the MAX-11 is a better weapon system...

    A year ago I never really brought the M11/9 out of the safe... Now, if I had to defend a small area... Give me the MAX-11 and leave the UZI in the safe!

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    95
    I like Uzi's as much as the next person here, but you gotta wonder why the Israeli's are cutting up perfectly good Uzi's just to sell to the limited U.S. collector market, rather than keeping them in reserve stocks, or selling them on the international arms market.

    My guess is that the Israeli military doesn't want them even as reserve weapons, and no one on the international arms markets want them. So, their only value is as cut-up parts to sell to American collectors.

    Tells you something.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Charlottesville, VA
    Posts
    94
    Oblofusc is right- if the Israelis are cutting up UZIs, that does indeed tell you right there that the full-sized UZI has no value.

    Just like all of the gun buy-back programs that are popping up all across the great USA- those are destroyed, too, regardless of brand or model. So that tells you something right there- all guns are bad.

    Or the millions of arms our own government has destroyed over the years- if they weren't good enough to sell to our own people, or to other countries, certainly they had no value other than scrap metal.

    Or all of the jeeps which were still in crates, sold for scrap metal- who in their right mind would want a brand-new military Jeep for pennies on the dollar?!? Insane. Not even worth selling to other countries- just sell 'em for scrap metal and melt 'em down. Same thing with older warships and tanks- why not sell them to other countries, rather than scrap them? Certainly not for reasons of self-preservation.

    No, clearly, since Israel doesn't see fit to sell their older subguns to other countries, that most certainly does tell you something. Then again, it could be that, like most every other country, they've moved on to newer designs which replaced the full-sized UZI (which had a long and successful career- and still does in many places in the world- including the USA), and they don't want the potential liability that may occur by selling them to other countries. It could be that they don't want to put more arms into the hands of those who shouldn't have them. It could be that they're simply being responsible. My guess is that, if we didn't have May 19, 1986 to contend with, some of those arms would indeed be sold here to responsible collectors- but thanks to our own government, that is not to be.

    Just food for thought.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Oblofusc
    I like Uzi's as much as the next person here, but you gotta wonder why the Israeli's are cutting up perfectly good Uzi's just to sell to the limited U.S. collector market, rather than keeping them in reserve stocks, or selling them on the international arms market.

    My guess is that the Israeli military doesn't want them even as reserve weapons, and no one on the international arms markets want them. So, their only value is as cut-up parts to sell to American collectors.

    Tells you something.
    At least they were smart enough to recoup some of their money on them, unlike the US who destroys millions of expensive guns at a cost to them.

    As far as the Uzi goes, if I needed a subgun, it's the one I'd choose for many reasons. Price, reliability, simplicity, caliber, parts availability, magazine capacity and battle proven effectiveness.

  14. #14
    UZI Talk Supporter
    CIB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    AR
    Posts
    1,614
    Sure it's a viable weapon. The AK-47/AKM has been in service longer, and has few rails/accessories available for it. The reason rails is such a big deal now is because of the technology available to modern armies, to a lower tech military it (uzi) would be a fine CQB/PDW weapon.
    Us gun enthusiasts here (in the US) tend to complicate things like this, by focusing on such things as parts availability, soldiers don't carry spare parts around, and in the US military at least, are'nt authorized to "work" on the weapons. Or price, military contracts usually get a better price than us civies do.
    Another is "Battle Proven", I don't get this one, if militaries never introduced something new, we'd still be fighting with pointy sticks, and rocks, and not have the choices that are available to us now!
    Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. -Sir William Pitt, The Younger 1783

  15. #15
    Registered User Go-Spudz-Go's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by piratesover40
    Also do you think the terrorists use FMJ cause they hope we might survive a wound? The make most of their own when they can't steal it and it's all lead with dirt, grass, shit from their left hand, etc,.
    LOL! Okay, that was funny.

  16. #16
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,062
    I believe everything depends on the application the weapon is intended for, CQB and house to house usually mandates a shotgun or smg. Now as for the Israelis,I too believe that the reason they chop up their Uzis is so they cant be used against them at a later date and to make some money(they are Jewish right?!).But just because they update to a newer weapon doesnt mean it's a better weapon(I.E M4 carbine). I just think it's hypocritical for people to say they wouldnt take a UZI into battle,but would strap a 1911 or Glock on to fight in Iraq. How many times do we have to say" It's not the weapon,but the operator that wins the fight."

  17. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by wonderdog451
    CQB and house to house usually mandates a shotgun or smg..
    Not since the '80s. Shotguns are good for opening doors, after that, it's back to the rifle.

    I just think it's hypocritical for people to say they wouldnt take a UZI into battle,but would strap a 1911 or Glock on to fight in Iraq.
    I don't think anybody is suggesting replacing a submachine gun with a pistol.. That's two steps backwards.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by CIB
    Sure it's a viable weapon. The AK-47/AKM has been in service longer, and has few rails/accessories available for it. The reason rails is such a big deal now is because of the technology available to modern armies, to a lower tech military it (uzi) would be a fine CQB/PDW weapon.
    Us gun enthusiasts here (in the US) tend to complicate things like this, by focusing on such things as parts availability, soldiers don't carry spare parts around, and in the US military at least, are'nt authorized to "work" on the weapons. Or price, military contracts usually get a better price than us civies do.
    Another is "Battle Proven", I don't get this one, if militaries never introduced something new, we'd still be fighting with pointy sticks, and rocks, and not have the choices that are available to us now
    !
    What is there not to get? There's no complicating of any matters. Individuals need to be aware of spare parts avaiability for the guns they buy, they are not supported by any organized supply chain.

    Soldiers may not "carry" spare parts, but they have them available through their unit armorer, or another common weapon if necessary.

    As far as battle proven, The gun served its country of origin and several others including our own well for many years in many a conflict, large and small. It has proven itself reliable in battle.

    The same cannot be said for the M16 fiasco until the many problems with it were addressed after being issued and put in an environment that surfaced alot of problems with it.
    The problems still exist.....it's a lowsy design, one that goes against the priciple of "Don't shit where you eat". It blows back contaminants into its action, eventually crippling the weapon under heavy useage and requiring vastly more maintainance than many other battle rifles, carbines and subguns.

    There's nothing wrong with "low tech".......matter of fact, low tech is very effective and our military and many others have the casualty lists and grave markers to prove it.

    Simple reliable design, volume production with limitd resources and widespead dispersion made the Uzi a great weapon of choice at the time for Israel and other military and police forces around the globe and it would still hold its own under similar applications today.

  19. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    78
    The UZI 2008, I believe the pole # does not reflect the realty outside of this board, The subgun is no longer a consideration in MAJOR Militaries, the end of the cold war was the end of the line. There is still some subguns being used in the rear guards,cooks, truck drivers, police but for the most part, we have seen the last of the new UZI,s Sterlings,Hk MP5's all replaced with other things like the M4/SA80's Famas.

    Outdated does not mean ineffective..... but it is Outdated.
    Last edited by IC; 02-07-2008 at 12:17 PM.

  20. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,062
    If you ask if the Uzi is miltarilary relevant the answer will probably be no. No major army fields it any more. Now,if you ask if it is militarily effective,the answer is yes. Outdated and ineffective are two totally different things. Our government has spent a lot of time and money updating the M16 and the same thing could be true of the Uzi. With the influx of PDWs lately,there is room for a updated Uzi. A new chambering,topcover rail and bayonet rail are small changes and easily implemented. But it seems to me that some of these new weapons are solutions looking for a problem. A 10mm/9x25 PDW is more than capable of defeating most soft body armor at reasonable ranges . But people like new toys so we have new weapons. Not necessarily better just newer.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter.