Semiauto UZI - Serious tool or a Range Toy?

[eodinert]

...and Garands, too, but that doesn't mean there are not better options.

 

[paske]

That was not the question

 

[Gundoc]

My girlfriend who has fired handguns but NEVER a long gun. Last week she shot my UZI for the first time. From 70 feet, open sites, she had a 3" group with 128 rounds.

 

[peterdekeles]

Well, since I have an UZI model A, I guess my answer is my UZI. Have been trying to talk myself into a Ruger 556 for a year. No good reason yet. I'll probably kill as many people with my UZI as a new Ruger, ZERO

 

[ATL_Matt]

I kind of think it depends on your range of alternatives. It's a weapon of war and in the right hands, it will protect you, it's reliable and easy to shoot well at speed. When it was one of my early military weapons, it would have been near the top. Today, I've collected allot of guns that are simply better - as compact, lighter, better on an armored target, more ergonomic, better optics, F/A, etc. To me, all kind of depends on UZI compared to what given the way the question was worded. Best.

 

[Gundoc]

The 9mm has been doing a very good job since 1902, and the UZI's has been keeping Israel free in 8 wars against superior odds since 1948. Wish a car was made that reliable.

 

[ole442]

Wish a car was made that reliable.

And that easy to work on.

 

[muddygirl]

Not the carbine asked about by OP...but:

Purchased an Action Arms Uzi Pistol a couple weeks ago, and my wife, (muddygirl) loves it. Is now her choice for home defense over her Ruger LC9s. Loaded with IMI 115 HPs. She shoots it very well after one range session. Will practice a lot more and she'll be even more confident. Feeds everything well. Cycles practice load of 124fmj (@ 980 fps in the Ruger) no problem, too, was surprised at that.

Great site you have here!

 

[IndyGunCollector]

HK G3 for me. My UZI is a paperweight until I find a semi bolt.

 

[Colt614]

I'm sure I won't be using anything F/A or 9mm, semi auto .308 is the way to go.

 

[paske]

.308, in house??

 

[Macfee421]

My father is in his mid 70s, he has carried a Ruger Bearcat , single six or Black hawk in his pocket for 30 or 40 years. He lives in very rural area.
He shot 2 to 3 hundred rounds a week with these guns at various targets. Live game, cans, acorns and pine cones by the tree full have been destroyed. I have every confidence that in a conflict he will put .22 holes dead center of targets.

its not that he dose not have modern hi capacity options (if 870 or Garand counts) he has confidence and skill and in SHTF isn't that the key?

 

[salochin]

nobody has mentioned a mini carbine. Smaller and lighter. Wife and kids could handle it easily. Very concealable. Fun at the range but anything built so well to stand up to abuse is meant to be depended on.

 

[Deputy276]

You think 9mm is superior to 5.56? :thinking

Not to get in an ammo war (hehe), but I would definitely say that. I had personal experience with the 5.56MM ammo in Vietnam in 1968, and I have zero confidence in that caliber. Mainly because the gun and ammo that Special Forces tested BEFORE Uncle Sammie adopted it were far different creatures. The Green Beanies used guns with 1 in 14 inch twist. This caused the 55 grain bullet to be "unstable" in flight. It tended to yaw in flight (a twisting or oscillation around a vertical axis). While that yawing wasn't great for long range accuracy, the AR-16/M16 wasn't made for long range accuracy in the first place. The wound effects of a yawing bullet are horrendous on the human body when it is travelling at 3200FPS. Reports from the field described human limbs being severed from the body. Pretty wild stuff. But Uncle Sammie was still in the "long range accuracy" mindset and wanted the M16 to equal the M14 in that realm. So they went to 1 in 12 twist rifling to stabilize the bullet. And it certainly did that. But the side effect was it took away a lot of the lethality of the yawing bullet. So we had numerous cases of the enemy getting multiple hits with the new "stable" bullet, and it not doing much more damage than a .22 rifle. Lots of through-and-through wounds, but no more horrendous wounds.

Fast forward to the disaster in Somalia with the Army Rangers. If you read Blackhawk Down, you will read reports of lots of unfired ammo laying on the bottom of the vehicles. The results of troops taking "immediate action" after a jam. And this was with the supposedly "perfected" M16A2. You will also read about numerous hits with very little damage. And that is with the new green-tip ammo. So the military got even BETTER accuracy and still use a less-lethal bullet. In the meantime, our enemies are using a clunker from 1947 that is VERY deadly. And whata surprise...it is in .30 caliber. :ak
Sooooo...would I take a .38 caliber (9MM) bullet over a .22 caliber bullet for home defense? You betcha! :thumbs_up

 

[woodchuck84]

I think is carry my1911 on my hip, my ar and my uc9. Any 9mm is better than nothing and it's a NATO round so supply would be easier than other rounds out there. The ar would be my 1st choice over more open terrain and in urban environments but make no mistake, somebody armed with any uzi variant would be better armed than most!

 

[Twinsen]

Not to get in an ammo war (hehe), but I would definitely say that. I had personal experience with the 5.56MM ammo in Vietnam in 1968, and I have zero confidence in that caliber. Mainly because the gun and ammo that Special Forces tested BEFORE Uncle Sammie adopted it were far different creatures. The Green Beanies used guns with 1 in 14 inch twist. This caused the 55 grain bullet to be "unstable" in flight. It tended to yaw in flight (a twisting or oscillation around a vertical axis). While that yawing wasn't great for long range accuracy, the AR-16/M16 wasn't made for long range accuracy in the first place. The wound effects of a yawing bullet are horrendous on the human body when it is travelling at 3200FPS. Reports from the field described human limbs being severed from the body. Pretty wild stuff. But Uncle Sammie was still in the "long range accuracy" mindset and wanted the M16 to equal the M14 in that realm. So they went to 1 in 12 twist rifling to stabilize the bullet. And it certainly did that. But the side effect was it took away a lot of the lethality of the yawing bullet. So we had numerous cases of the enemy getting multiple hits with the new "stable" bullet, and it not doing much more damage than a .22 rifle. Lots of through-and-through wounds, but no more horrendous wounds.

Fast forward to the disaster in Somalia with the Army Rangers. If you read Blackhawk Down, you will read reports of lots of unfired ammo laying on the bottom of the vehicles. The results of troops taking "immediate action" after a jam. And this was with the supposedly "perfected" M16A2. You will also read about numerous hits with very little damage. And that is with the new green-tip ammo. So the military got even BETTER accuracy and still use a less-lethal bullet. In the meantime, our enemies are using a clunker from 1947 that is VERY deadly. And whata surprise...it is in .30 caliber. :ak
Sooooo...would I take a .38 caliber (9MM) bullet over a .22 caliber bullet for home defense? You betcha! :thumbs_up

No. Almost none of that. The m855 was a downgrade from m193 though. They knew it was less accurate and less effective on flesh. It's an EPR for the M249.

Saying that, any cheap 5.56 will outperform any 9mm at any distance, if given 12 inches of barrel. Any make of m193 FMJ junk will outperform the best defensive 9mm+p ever made. Rifle bullets do incredible damage.

 

[Deputy276]

No. Almost none of that. The m855 was a downgrade from m193 though. They knew it was less accurate and less effective on flesh. It's an EPR for the M249.

Saying that, any cheap 5.56 will outperform any 9mm at any distance, if given 12 inches of barrel. Any make of m193 FMJ junk will outperform the best defensive 9mm+p ever made. Rifle bullets do incredible damage.

I suspect there are many dead soldiers in graves scattered throughout Europe that got hit with 9MM rounds that would disagree with you...if they could. Ever wonder why Uncle Sammie came out with a 3-shot burst control for the M16A2? It wasn't to conserve ammo. It was to insure lethality. It takes three .223 rounds to do what one 7.62NATO or .30/06 can do. When your M16 jams up after you ram that spectacular cartridge into a filthy chamber with that bolt assist, tell me how effective the .223 caliber is. Because you just disabled the gun.

 

[Twinsen]

Absolute nonsense. Go watch a ballistic gel video. 3250fps is no joke.

 

[Deputy276]

Absolute nonsense. Go watch a ballistic gel video. 3250fps is no joke.

Unfortunately, nobody has seen a ballistic gel walking around carrying a gun and threatening folks. And funny thing, but ballistic gel seems to be lacking bones and muscle. And a brain too. Sorry, not gonna base my life on abstract tests on Jello.

And 3250 was the ORIGINAL FPS of the M16. When you start chopping down barrel length, that number drops dramatically. Using your line of thinking, a Ruger 10/22 becomes a primary defensive weapon. I prefer something that punches larger holes than a varmit rifle. .38 caliber I put as minimum hole size against human beings. Depending on spectacular muzzle velocities to do spectacular stuff just isn't being realistic.

 

[DistalRadius]

With all due respect to your personal experience, that was literally 49 years ago. What you describe are well known and documented ammunition problems with the early adoption of 5.56x45mm. Even the "Blackhawk Down" incident was 24 years ago. Modern ballistic science has changed dramatically, 5.56 has proven to be quite accurate and plenty lethal within the typical infantry engagement range, even out of a 12-14" barrel. It also exhibits excellent penetration of body armor and drastic wound-channel characteristics both of which can be attributed to the extremely high muzzle velocity, so Twinsen is correct in this regard. This is backed up by literally thousands of first-hand battle reports from Iraq.

This does not mean there is not a place for a larger caliber, or even a full-bore 30-cal "battle rifle", but the ideas that your putting forth about the inefficacy of 5.56x45 (especially relating to 9x19) are outdated at best, if not borderline silly.