Talk:Uzi submachine gun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or list is a nominee for the Version 0.7 release of Wikipedia. See the nominations page for more details.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 Actual photograph 2 Uzi production 3 Scorpion redesign 4 one each hand? 5 Games/Films? 6 merge mini UZI stub into article 7 Uzi and the MAC-10 8 .40 S&W 9 The Bolt 10 Micro Uzi/Uzi pistol 11 Pop Culture section deletion 12 Madness Combat? 13 Folding Case Uzi? 14 In popular culture 15 Croatian Uzis 16 Safety 17 Confusion with MAC-10 18 naming 19 Variant Photos 19.1 Variants info

[edit] Actual photograph

So I'm browsing this fine article and click on the old photo; to my horror I see it's an airsoft/replica/toy/whatever. I've replaced the image with one of my Uzi SMG (with green furniture and the .22 kit). I'll try to get a picture of it in a more traditional configuration. --Cortland 03:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Yep, you're right - that was a photo of a softair replica...I was kind of surprised it took so long for someone to notice. The original photo was deleted as a copyvio about a year ago, so i took a quick snapshot of my softair Uzi because I figured it was better than having no photo at all :P. Your photo is way better than mine (not only because it shows the real thing, but because it's actually a way better photo), so you won't hear me complaining :) -- Ferkelparade π 23:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I have a query in with Vector Arms, who produce Uzis in the US. They have agreed to provide a bunch of images; we're working out the details. Georgewilliamherbert 21:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Vector is good people -- I bought my full auto IMI and some suppressors from them. If you want photos of a Mini or a Micro I'm sure there are folks on Uzitalk who would gladly give you permission. Note that Vector doesn't produce Micros. If you're looking for photos of a specific configuration of the full size full auto let me know -- I've got IMI fixed buttstocks, IMI vertical foregrip, BFAs, suppressors, several caliber conversion kits, shoulder carry rig, top covers with red dot sights, etc. etc. In some ways I think less is more here, as the Uzitalk.com reference library has more info and photos than you could ever hope (or want) to amass on Wikipedia. Cortland 07:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uzi production

I heard that no more uzis are bieng made. Is thius true?

Yes its true. but that is only for the regular uzi. i guess that they will still manufacture the micro uzi etc. (ive read it in an article about uzi)

I doubt it...I'm pretty sure they are still making semi-auto uzis in limited edition for US buyers. I'm not sure about standard millitary automatic UZIs though. It's a very profitable weapon for IMI, so I doubt they would stop producing it all together. You probably just heard that the IDF and Israeli military is finished using it.Elysianfields 02:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The importation of Uzis into the U.S. was halted in 1989 based on the sporting use provision of the GCA. When Vector Arms acquired a mass of registered, pre-86 transferable full-auto Uzi receivers in the mid-90s, they had a hell of a time finding Uzi parts. Vector contacted IMI in 1996, but IMI had shut down their Uzi line a few years earlier when they moved to Tel Aviv. Presumably IMI has the ability to resume production if they wanted. FN (an Uzi licensee) stopped producing Uzis in the 80s and no longer has the tooling and equipment to support Uzi production. The other IMI licensee, Lyttleton Engineering, made Uzis for South Africa during the Rhodesian war, but it too has obviously ceased manufacture. There are likely unlicensed copies still being made in some parts of the world (Croatia, China), but it appears likely that no more legitimate Uzis are being made. Vector Arms continues to manufacture semi-auto Uzis domestically using pre-1989 IMI receivers and Group Industries receivers. It remains to be seen what will happen when this supply of receivers is exhausted. --68.10.180.135 19:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the supply of semi-receivers will ever be exhausted. In addition to the full-auto receivers Vector bought at the Group Industries bankruptcy auction, they also bought over 15,000 semi-auto receivers at something like 4 cents each. He probably bought GI's stamping dies, too. --128.82.56.36 17:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scorpion redesign

Is the Uzi really a redesign of the Scorpion? Ashmoo 03:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No. The Uzi was designed in 1950. The Scorpion was designed in 1959.

[edit] one each hand?

" The grip-mounted magazine gives the Uzi a highly distinctive, instantly-recognizeable profile, and as such it is often seen in TV shows, movies and computer games. In such portrayals, the weapon is often fired one-handed (especially the Mini- and Micro-Uzis) and in some cases even as a pair of weapons, one in each hand. While theoretically possible, such a method of use would be nothing short of wasting ammunition."

can someone put in why it would be wasting ammunition. it presumes knowledge.

There are a couple of factors at work. First, don't expect to hit anything with a firearm without using the sights (i.e., aiming). Human vision would tend to preclude looking down the sights of two separate guns at the same time. The second factor is controlability. The Uzi is surprisingly controlable in full-auto (from the shoulder anyway -- I've never tried one-handed), but controlability would certainly suffer in offhand full-auto due to muzzle rise. With respect to the Micro Uzi, that puppy has a much higher rate of fire than the full-size making one-handed controllability truly impossible.

I think explaining the two-handed thing would be misguided. Hollywood movies/TV/computer games portray everything inaccurately. If we explain every stupid thing seen in a movie, it would be a very long article. Personally, I think the whole bit should be removed. Is two-Uzi use really common enough in these media to justify being mentioned? Ashmoo 03:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"Although it is theoretically possible to hold and fire a pair of weapons in this manner, the inadequate recoil control of each weapon by the user contributes to extremely poor accuracy, as well as the possibility of hand or wrist injury."

Now someone tried to explain it, but this is inaccurate for the Uzi. I fired it when I was in the Bundeswehr and it practically has no recoil since it is open-bolt. It would be possible to fire two Uzis if there wasn't the problem of aiming. OnisanT 11:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you actually tried firing it one-handed? It's a little different... I don't recommend it. Georgewilliamherbert 05:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's anything like the Mac-10 then it might turn around in one hand causing the shooter to harm themselves. Anyone know if it applies to the Uzi? Angrynight 06:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hate to be a party pooper, but personal experiences with Uzis count as Original Research and as such are irrevelant to discussions of this article. You'd be better off having this discussion on an internet forum. Regards, Ashmoo 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ummmm.....no. No more than personal experience as an engineer designing bridges counts as Original Research and makes editing the Bridge article based on being a professional bridge design engineer against policy. Georgewilliamherbert 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Except that an engineer can point to the primary literature to prove an edit. Editors cannot use their own experiences as Primary Sources. See WP:NOR The role of expert editors Ashmoo 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You are overextending the intent of WP:NOR. It is intended to avoid unverifyable sources. Experts are not supposed to use unpublished, otherwise unavailable personal knowledge for articles which is not part of the general body of knowledge of experts in the field. This is a quality control check on expertise; you can't verify a personal unpublished result, or reliably reproduce it.

In cases like this, the specific knowledge refers to an easily replicatable specific test. Most actual professionals that use firearms have tried this at home... once. the results are stray bullets all over the range, typically. This specific knowledge is common among professionals with SMG experience. It is easily verifyable; find a gun range that rents submachineguns for target practice (some countries don't have any, and some states in the US don't have any, but there are a bunch in Las Vegas and in other locations), and rent an Uzi. You'll understand within a few rounds fired.

In any case, it's been referred to in magazine publications and training manuals on firearms before anyways, so it's not even OR in that sense. It's not widely published ... because anyone who's serious or professionally trained knows how bad an idea it is and has probably demonstrated it to themselves once to make the point clear. But it is published.

That I have personal experience on this point does not make the result original research. If I were the only person to have ever done it, and I'd never written it up for publication in a gun magazine or Uzi training manual, that would be OR. But it's silly to think that I'm the only person to have ever test-fired an Uzi one handed. Claiming this was OR is ridiculous... Georgewilliamherbert 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

That an editor has had personal experience doesn't make it OR, that is true. But Verifiability states we need a 3rd party source. It may well be common knowledge amongst professionals, but this common knowledge needs to be verified. Requiring readers to go out and rent uzis doesn't count as verifiable, doing this is an experient which is the height of OR.

Having said that if it is documented by 3rd party magazines and Uzi training manuals then there is no problem. I was never arguing the actual facts of this particular case, but merely noting that personal experiences alone do not count as verifiable. Regards, Ashmoo 23:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Totally agreed. This fixation on one-handed firing is asinine. But regarding the MAC-10, keep in mind that it's chambered in a heavier recoiling cartridge and has close to TWICE to ROF as the Uzi. --70.160.160.175 07:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Games/Films?

Is the section that lists games/films that the Uzi has appeared in really a good idea? The Uzi (and its likeness) has been in hundreds of games and movies over the years. This list is going to get really long if it continues. Will anyone who comes this article gain anything by a list such as this?

I think only including works that mention it by name or where it plays a significant role in the plot should be included. Regards, Ashmoo 03:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

These are accepted part of firearm articles, and when they get to long they are just moved to a sub-page. Ve3 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ashmoo, I agree that asking whether the section is a good idea is a good question (one that I had been asking myself, and was wondering where to ask in general, about all gun articles). But I wouldn't have just deleted it... Better to ask first, if it's a major change like that, of content going away.

You might look at the discussion on: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FN P90 in popular culture

Georgewilliamherbert 04:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone remove the "Invasion USA" picture, those are Ingram Mac-10s or 11s, NOT IMI Uzis.

[edit] merge mini UZI stub into article

merge - the mini UZI stub is redundant. --Shuki 22:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I just boldly redirected the stub to here. It's not worth a merge; the info on the stub was incorrect anyways. Mini Uzi is the compact submachinegun, not the machinepistol Micro Uzi which became the Uzi Pistol as a semi-auto import. Georgewilliamherbert 22:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

To be technical it was the "semi-auto import" Uzi pistol that became the machine pistol Micro Uzi. IMI introduced the Uzi Pistol in 1984 basically for the American market. They didn't start making Micro Uzis until 1986. But whatever. Check the Uzitalk reference library ;) --Cortland 06:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

All my friends in the business had played with fully auto Micros in 84, but they may well not have produced any for series production until 86. Anyways, the details in the stub were wrong, and the level of detail we're discussing now is below notability ;-) Georgewilliamherbert 06:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, people starting converting Uzi pistols as soon as they were introduced in the America, but IMI didn't start producing factory Micro Uzis until 86. Below notability!? For Wikipedia, maybe :-) --70.160.160.175 05:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uzi and the MAC-10

Right now we have a stub on the article that the MAC-10 is dubbed an "American Uzi". After removing a game in the list that was erroneously put there (James Bond 007: Agent Under Fire has a MAC-10, which is called Ingalls inname, a simple renaming of "Ingram"), I was thinking that there should be a section or larger mention on how the two are seperate weapons and should not be confused for one another. -TonicBH 02:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] .40 S&W

I've read of a small run of IMI factory Uzi's in .40S&W. Can anyone confirm this?

[edit] The Bolt

"the bolt wraps around the barrel, allowing a heavier, slower-firing bolt in a shorter, better-balanced weapon"

Shorter and better-balanced, sure, but shouldn't that be "lighter, quicker-firing bolt", precisely because it does not contain nearly as much metal as, say, the 9mm Sterling SMG used by British forces until the late 1980's?

The telescoping bolt allows for a heavier bolt than a non-telescoping bolt would in a weapon of the same given length. The design goal in small full-auto weapons such as this is usually to keep the cyclic rate down as much as possible, not increase it. Riddley 23:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micro Uzi/Uzi pistol

I was reading the Micro Uzi and Uzi pistol articles. They were stubs and the wording was nearly identical to the Variants bit of this one. I saw someone redirected Mini Uzi at one point, so I went ahead and redirected Micro and Pistol, as well as added a pic of the pistol to this article. No objections I hope. I expect someone will revert me if they feel I'm out of line. Thernlund 10:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture section deletion

I have been asked to explain why I have removed the pop culture section of this article. My reasons can be found here if anyone cares to actually look at them: WP:MILHIST#POP, and WP:GUNS#Guidelines. I have mentioned these in my edit summary, but I will explain what they state quite plainly, no pop culture sections unless they have a genuine impact on the gun, such as making it more famous. None of the examples in the section I deleted meet that criteria. They also state that lists of appearances in movies, games, and songs should not be included in articles. These fail the acid test of notability, which is, would some random person associate the gun with the game if you asked them about the gun. This works with the Walther PPK, but not with the Uzi. I will wait before I remove the section, and am willing to discuss this before I make any changes.--LWF 22:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, and WP:GUNS redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms, and I cannot find in either a statement about fictional occurrences of real weapons. Anthony Appleyard 22:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Look right at the top of the links. It says it quite plainly.--LWF 22:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I found Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms#Guidelines. But this much use of Uzis in popular fiction would seem noteworthy to many people, even though an army-minded man may not like that sort of use of those weapons, but it happens. Anthony Appleyard 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but most people already know that it is used in lots of games. Do they need to know all of them, especially when there is more useful information that they need? Most people would say no. Also, you should really check the military history guidelines, they are much better, which is why WP:GUNS links to them.

Also, don't use an asterisk for the paragraphs, use a colon, it helps the formatting a great deal.--LWF 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Many people know, but not all, and many people do not know which games use Uzis and would be thankful for a list of which games use Uzis.

That aspect of the military history guidelines sounds as if it was written by an army man who does not like videogames. This point seems to need a policy discussion. Anthony Appleyard 05:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

One question, who really wants to know every game a particular gun has been used in, however inaccurately? The list is huge, and quite frankly has no impact on the gun. Remember the acid test of notability I mentioned earlier? All those games fail it. And just so you know, that policy has been debated numerous times in numerous places. Yet through that it has remained the same, and it is still the policy of the projects that this article falls into. In which case the pop culture should be removed unless the policy is changed after a discussion there. Feel free to discuss this over at the Firearms project or the Weaponry task force of Milhist, since that's the specific task force for guns. Here are the shortcut links: WT:GUNS, WT:WEAPON.--LWF 13:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, please delete the "popular culture" section! It's trivial and useless. The only people who would care about this are video game players, and the readership of Wikipedia is much more diverse than that. --Cortland 03:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be trivial and useless to some readers, same as that when I read the Daily Telegraph newspaper I skip all the football and finance news. I can understand some military types objecting to war videogames. But Wikipedia readers include many videogame players, and to them such context is relevant. As I have no interest in football, by analogy I might say "Most football club news is only of interest to football fans, so call it footballcruft and delete it."; but I know how THAT suggestion would be received. Likewise with details about Pokémon characters with Pokémon fans versus people who want much of it deleting as "Pokécruft". Likewise with much other specialized interest-group matter such as Star Trek stuff. Anthony Appleyard 05:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think what's necessary here is a distinction between the pop culture section and the list of games and movies - on the one hand, the Uzi is undeniably a pop culture (or rather, counterculture) icon in a way very few other weapons are and in a way that has almost no relation to the weapon's actual real-world use - this fact in itself is noteworthy and should be reflected in the article, so a "pop culture" section, in my opinion, is a very good idea in principle. On the other hand, an endless list of movies and games does not convey any information beyond the obvious fact that the Uzi makes appearances in tons of movies and games (which can, and should, be stated in a short sentence). There's nothing wrong with (for example) listing all weapons used in Counterstrike (in the appropriate article), maybe along with some explanation how the portrayals of these weapons in the game differ from their real-world counterparts, but the way it's currently done here looks very much like a list for listing's sake - I don't think anyone ever goes through that list and says "O my gosh! The Uzi appears in GTA! Who would have known?". So in essence, let's keep the pop culture section, but remove the useless list -- Ferkelparade π 09:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my personal philosophy on it: don't put the reference to the game in the gun's article, put a reference to the gun in the game's article. If a person wants to find out more they can then just follow the wikilink, rather than forcing people interested in the gun to wade through a list of pop culture to find the gun info. Besides, in my experience a pop culture section, no matter how good, inevitably leads to a giant list being formed. Only through constant vigilance and reversion of the article does it not form.--LWF 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

People do not have to "wade through a list of pop culture to find the gun info": the pop culture is in its own section near the end. Anthony Appleyard 15:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point I will be blunt, I have the consensus of two wikiprojects and their policies saying to delete. Putting the reference back in is going againt consensus and policy. If you disagree with the pop culture policies feel free to discuss it at the appropriate projects, but the fact of the matter is that the pop culture section should be deleted.--LWF 21:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is what I propose: I propose the removal of the lists of places where the Uzi has appeared while keeping the other portions. The lists don't add much to the article and are usually not very notable, and do not belong per the policies of two projects. Does anyone agree?--LWF 02:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I entirely agree - that seems to be the best way to go -- Ferkelparade π 09:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Madness Combat?

It's really hard for me to say this especially because I'm a HUGE fan of Madness Combat, but is it really worth putting here as included? There are probably a billion flash animations that have had Uzis in them. I say if it doesn't even deserve an article, it shouldn't be in this list.--Katana314 13:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Folding Case Uzi?

The fold out brief case machine gun used in RoboCop 2 is supposedly a specially designed Uzi although this may be wrong! -- Awar 13:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

It's not related to the Uzi at all - it's an Ares FMG. Georgewilliamherbert 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about the author's references to "...the Uzi is notorious for slam-firing when dropped or exposed to sudden shocks" and, "Though the Uzi's receiver is equipped with pressed reinforcing ridges to accept accumulated dirt and sand, the weapon may jam with heavy accumulations of sand in desert combat conditions when not cleaned regularly."

I have done a fair amount of research on the (standard) Uzi, and have yet to see any mention of slam-fire problems except in this article. Anecdotally, after mentioning this concern to an Uzi-owning friend he proceeded to take his cocked (but unloaded) Uzi and repeatedly slam it butt-first onto a carpeted floor with extreme force without the bolt releasing. In contrast, my AR-15 bolt will release when set down on its butt in anything but the gentlest manner (of course, being a closed-bolt action it's not nearly as susceptable to slam firing as an Uzi).

To the second point, my research has specifically praised the ribbed receiver design for its contribution to keeping Uzis running in the most inhospitable desert conditions. It's my impression that the Uzi has earned a reputation perhaps only second to the AK-47 in its ability to just keep firing. To say, "...the weapon may jam with heavy accumulations of sand in desert combat conditions when not cleaned regularly" strikes me as a tautology that could be applied to virtually ANY weapon (except perhaps the AK).

I think the author would do well to delete these statements or include citations in their support.

[edit] In popular culture

I have restored Uzi submachine gun#In popular culture. It is of interest to many people. Someone deleted it as "crufty", but often cruftyness is relative: e.g. to some people football matter is relevant and important, and to other people it is "footballcruft" to be skipped over. Anthony Appleyard 05:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should mention that by restoring it you have ignored the policies of several projects, and several separate consensuses. This is a very bad thing. Besides the list isn't even accurate. For example, the ZMG 9 mm isn't an Uzi, even an amateur can tell that. It is a Steyr TMP but someone thought they looked similar. Get my drift? Besides, remember the acid test of notability? The list fails it.--LWF 14:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• If there are mistakes in the list, then please correct them. As I said above, what is not notable to one reader may be notable to another. Lots of pages about real things have sections about their appearances in popular culture fiction. Anthony Appleyard 17:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The policy and consensus still remain. Even if you disagree with them.--LWF 18:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to refer you to this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M1911 in popular culture. This AfD lists all of the firearms pop culture articles that were deleted. It waas decided by a large number of people that these references didn't belong on WikiPedia. This consensus still stands, as it became the policy of two WikiProjects which have already been listed.--LWF 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• OK, OK, I have commented out most of it. Anthony Appleyard 22:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am saitisfied with what remains. Thank you for listening to what I had to say.--LWF 02:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Croatian Uzis

The article makes no mention of the Uzis made without a license by Koncar Arma in Croatia. There are only very minor dimensional differences, and have developed their own version, a more compact version, the Mini-ERO. It is closer to the Micro-Uzi then the Mini-Uzi in size and apperance, but is equipped with a sliding metal retractable stock. I am not sure if the Croatian military or security forces have adopted it yet. If anyone can help contribute to more on the ERO, I will start working on it adding a section for it soon. Feel free to add to it.SAWGunner89 04:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safety

"The weapon also features a grip safety, making it difficult to fire accidentally. Despite the grip safety, the Uzi is notorious for slam-firing when dropped or exposed to sudden shocks.[citation needed]"

I'm fairly sure that it cannot be both "difficult to fire accidentally" and "notorious for slam-firing". Any ideas?--THobern 15:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It could, say the trigger acidently snags on a pole or like a nail it wont go off but if you slam it, it will.(ForeverDEAD 15:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Or we could source something a little less on the inane-side.--THobern 17:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)

[edit] Confusion with MAC-10

This section seems to not very notable or encyclopediac and I think it should be removed. Many firearms look like other firearms to someone who doesn't know much about them. Sources are needed for all the assertions in the section to prove its notability. Ashmoo 09:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thought i cant provide any sources its extremely common for people to confuse the two. Mostly the fact that many movies portray them incorrectly along with TV shows will defiantly confuse the semi trained and untrained eye. Also because this is an encyclopedia it should be here to educate people of the differences ForeverDEAD 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Ashmoo 20:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously original research but I have owned firearms for 30 years and been reading gun magazines just as long and I have never heard anyone confuse a MAC-10 with an UZI. I've also owned both and the UZI rocks and the MAC-10 does not :-) Angry Christian (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] naming

I reverted the capitalization, it is not an acronym, it is a foreshortening of the creator's first name. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be an acronym. And it is capitalized in most literature and marketing material. Koalorka (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually Wikipedia policies for such things do state that only acronyms should be capitalized in their entirety. And personally, I consider the name Uzi to be more of a homage, than an actual abbreviation.--LWF (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then looks like the MINIMI and CETME AMELI are incorrect too. Good to know.Koalorka (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus comes from Talk:Glock/GLOCK vs. Glock debate and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks).--LWF (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with both and none seem to address this problem. GLOCK was simply a marketing tool. Uzi is an abbreviation for its designer. Koalorka (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite agree that it's an abbreviation, but I will say that I've never seen an abbreviation that is capitalized just because it's an abbreviation.--LWF (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but here's the source of confusion, say we have two firearms:

• The Minimi/MINIMI which is an abbreviated form for Minimitrailleuse and FN's insistence to call it the MINIMI.

• And we have the FN MAG or Mitrailleuse d'Appui General, and an undisputed title - MAG, not Mag, worldwide. Which one is correct?Koalorka (talk) 02:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, MAG is not an abbreviation, it's an acronym, which Wikipedia policy does say should be capitalized. In the case of Minimi/MINIMI, I believe it should be Minimi, as existing policy states,

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official".

So I would support the current article title Uzi submachine gun, and I would support the decapitalization of FN MINIMI and CETME AMELI.--LWF (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess the simplest solution holds true. I will de-capitalize those articles either today or tomorrow. Koalorka (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Variant Photos

I think the variant photos are all mislabeled. I'm not an expert, but from left to right I believe they're the Micro-Uzi, Uzi, Mini-Uzi, and Uzi again. The 18" barrel carbine version isn't shown at all; you can see from this Google image search that its barrel extends from the sleeve almost as far as the length of the rest of the weapon! Can anyone confirm my IDs? Kaleja (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

You're almost right. The first is an Uzi pistol, as evidenced by the fire selector which only has safe and fire; the second is a full-size Uzi, the next is a Mini-Uzi, and the next is once again a full-size. Good catch.--LWF (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Variants info

Where'd the info on the Uzi Pistol and Micro-Uzi go? And the Mini Carbine, for that matter? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Stalker. Kaleja (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• What? El_C 06:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)