TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote: More velocity - hmm, that's debatable. A longer barrel doesn't automatically mean higher velocity - especially if the ammo is regular factory off-the-shelf stuff that has been tuned for the average 5" handgun barrel, the longer barrel might even slow the bullet down.

A little more research dug up this:

http://www.ar15barrels.com/tech/9mm.gif

Which looks like even an increase from 6" to 16" barrels only result in a 200 fps velocity increase at best.

So the velocity increase alone doesn't seem to be as much of a factor as I thought it might be..

Edit: which seems to indicate to me that you should just SBR that uzi down to a 10 inch barrel or so and maybe start to eliminate the negative of it being hard to operate with that extra bit of barrel sticking out.

AndyC wrote:The ergonomics of a hand-held mini-Uzi is dreadful - it wasn't designed to be a semi-auto handgun.

I didn't notice this at first and wanted to come back to it. Yes, a semi auto mini Uzi seems to have no advantage whatsoever over say a Glock 17 with a happy stick.

But if we're discussing a full size uzi with a stock, then I think there is some merit.

AndyC wrote:

74novaman wrote:But if we're discussing a full size uzi with a stock, then I think there is some merit.

A stock would make its performance a lot better, yep - but it wouldn't be something he could carry around.

I think we're trying to talk about 2 different things then Andy. I don't think an Uzi would make a good conceal carry piece, but my original post was trying to answer the OPs question regarding the Uzi his friend bought (which is a stocked and has a 16" barrel)

LSUTiger wrote: Granted, I would love to have the full auto version but how is a semiauto UZI better than say a semi-auto glock with a 33rd magazine?

Basically, I think in some instances a semi auto Uzi would be preferable to a semi auto glock. Not all circumstances by any means, but I see a niche for it in an arsenal.

Thanks for the insight on bad triggers with the uzis. I've never had a chance to shoot one, but I guess with my first carry piece being a DA/SA Taurus semi and my first rifle being an AK, I'm just used to bad triggers.

So, scenarios where I think a semi auto Uzi outperforms a glock:
Home defense situation
trying to hit a target at 100 yards

Are there better options than an Uzi? Absolutely. But if you're just asking me to pick between a glock or an uzi, I wouldn't just disregard the uzi as an option like most of page one did. That's my only point.

74novaman wrote:I'm going to have to disagree here. I think, just like a "neutered" semi auto assault rifle has a valuable place in a civilian arsenal, so does a semi auto SMG.

Advantages a semiauto UZI has over a pistol in a fight:
1) capacity Glock 17 with a 33 round magazine
2)less recoil But not by that much...

....

To those who consider it worthless without the happy switch, are AR-15s and semi auto AKs equally worthless? No, but then it is still a rifle. An SMG is a submachine gun. When you take the "machine gun" out of the "submachine gun," what you have left is a very heavy pistol with a high capacity pistol magazine (like the 33 round Glock magazine and a sight radius slightly longer than a pistol's, that can't be easily concealed. Not enough benefit in my book.

The ability to deliver well aimed, rapid semi auto fire pretty much negates the lack of a happy switch in almost any situation one of us would find ourselves in, I would think. Yes, I agree.

Aaanndd, theres my .02

Here's another 3¢.

If he likes the gun that is fine. From what I have heard an Uzi is not built to be accurate on full auto. I don't know how accurate the neutered ones are with a stock and long barrel. I personally can't find a use for pistol caliber carbines beyond plinking and maybe for someone who can't get a CHL but wants to carry a concealed rifle for self defense. They only improve ballistics a very little over a handgun and they are big and heavy compared to a handgun. Let the guy live his ignorant fantasy and hope he learns better. Most people live their lives thinking flash is more important than substance anyway.

The primary advantages of a heavy, long barreled gun that fires pistol ammunition are diminished recoil, marginally faster shot to shot times, and better long range accuracy due to the longer sight radius.

There are few long range situations in which a non - LEO would be justified in using deadly force.

The shot to shot time difference is small. A better result could be achieved by going up to a larger caliber pistol.

It carries the drawbacks of being more difficult to maneuver in tight quarters, harder to keep from exposing one's position by poking out around cover, and easier for a bad guy to grab and take away in the close range situations that dominate civilian use of firearms for self defense.

It's always instructional to look at what police agencies do, because they try lots of things and when they deploy something, it gets used in lots of real world situations. Some police agencies issued guns of this type to patrol officers for use in the role that rifles fill in most agencies. Those real world uses were failures, and I don't know of any law enforcement agency that continues that practice today.

In my view, a pistol caliber carbine is a tool that would be most useful to someone who doesn't want to invest the time and effort required to learn to fight well with a pistol through a deadly force encounter. I don't think it's a better solution than a pistol, nor even a good solution except for a rare intermediate to long range application where a rifle would be used if one were available.

The other major applications for this type of gun are as a recreational tool for plinking (at which it excels), or as fulfillment of a fantasy (I always wanted a gun that looks like an Uzi....). Both are good enough reasons for buying one, and if one has the cash, why not?

LSUTiger wrote:A friend of mine purchased a semiauto UZI 9mm carbine. He now thinks he is special.

Not very tacticool compared to some of the AR carbines I see.

tacticool wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:A friend of mine purchased a semiauto UZI 9mm carbine. He now thinks he is special.

Not very tacticool compared to some of the AR carbines I see.

Well, I'd have to agree he is special - in his perception of beauty.

It begs the question: If this gun looks cool, what might "ugly" look like?

Excaliber wrote:

tacticool wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:A friend of mine purchased a semiauto UZI 9mm carbine. He now thinks he is special.

Not very tacticool compared to some of the AR carbines I see.

Well, I'd have to agree he is special - in his perception of beauty.

It begs the question: If this gun looks cool, what might "ugly" look like?

I'm sure someone will answer "Glock", so I thought I'd get a reply in here before someone else does.

Excaliber wrote:

tacticool wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:A friend of mine purchased a semiauto UZI 9mm carbine. He now thinks he is special.

Not very tacticool compared to some of the AR carbines I see.

Well, I'd have to agree he is special - in his perception of beauty.

It begs the question: If this gun looks cool, what might "ugly" look like?

(And yes, I have one.)

No question PawPaw beat the Uzi, but AndyC's entry takes the prize, hands down!