Vector uzi .vs. Norinco 320 uzi pros&cons

[mlopez1933]

Long time viewer first time poster!Has any one ever used both the vector are norinco uzi and saw a big difference in craftmanship and function.heard alot of mixed reviews about the norinco,s and would like to hear from people who have used both and what they thought of both.pro's and con's...plus what could be done to make them function better if any! Thanks

[lomalinda]

If you could get an IMI (banned in 1989 by Roberti-Roos) that would be your best choice. That said, generally, Vectors are considered to be the best of the types currently available in CA. Norincos can require some work on the feed ramps, and since they're foreign made, if you want to use something other than their nutty stock, you need to replace parts to make 922R compliance.

Link to 922R parts: http://www.danddsales.com/

Vector is probably your best bet. You should spend no more than about $1200 for them right now.

PRK has them, out-of-state people will sell them broken down (upper to FFL, rest to you), and Vector said they'd do the same as OOS people. Whether they're actually selling them at that price is debatable. I called them and the woman admitted they were taking forever to get them out. Your best bet is to get one from PRK (may still have the Norinco, too) and support a ground-breaking FFL in the process. (Also will have bullet button attached, which Vector definitely won't do.)

[lomalinda]

http://home.earthlink.net/~vasq6876/uzisite/

http://files.uzitalk.com/reference/pages/norinco.htm

[mlopez1933]

great review just what i was looking for,i can get one from PRK but its with the filled in thumbhole stock and a little priceee for $1400 but not much choice down here in ventura.uncle paul's been trying from vector for month's to get one with no luck.plus the people dont have good customer service!.thanks again for your reply.

[69Mach1]

Give Vector a call. They are still in the business of building UZI clones and they are CA friendly. One thing to take note about the Norinco 392's is that they came into this country with the barrel nut welded on.

[lomalinda]

I think I mentioned it before, but your options for the Vector in any semi-auto centerfire configuration are:

1. Magazine lock and 10-round magazines. PRK is working on a lock, and there're others on the board who do them. PM me if you want to hook up with them and I'll pass your info along.

2. Obliterate the pistol grip by the use of a Norinco 320 stock whose thumbhole is filled in. There's a guy on this board (LOL), who does a hell of a job with this, and if you need his help, I bet a statement to that effect will likely get you a PM from him.

A 22 cal version is possible with the appropriate conversion kit. It's cheaper, and it allows you to run the thing with a fixed "folding" stock, a regular thumbhole stock, or a screwed in wood stock. While that's not a powerful caliber, it's dirt cheap (relatively speaking) and it allows the carbine to retain the most faithful appearance of its pre-Roberti-Roos predecessors.

[AJAX22]

IMI's are NOT banned....

(show me the entery that says Action Arms ImI Model A, or Action Arms IMI Model B in the 89 list)

Uzi is a TYPE of firearm, not a make/model.

[lomalinda]

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf

Page 3 references Uzi (and Galils).

Page 33 names the manufacturer (IMI) and the model (Uzi).

What do you make of this? Is it new language added to the RR as an underground ruling by the DOJ? (Not a lawyer, so don't crucify me for improper terminology.)

[Derracs Deniur]

http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/awguide.pdf

Page 3 references Uzi (and Galils).

Page 33 names the manufacturer (IMI) and the model (Uzi).

What do you make of this? Is it new language added to the RR as an underground ruling by the DOJ? (Not a lawyer, so don't crucify me for improper terminology.)

That same publication says all AR-15s are illegal too, if I remember right. The AW Guide is a GUIDE. It is not law, nor is anything it says valid in a court of law. It is valid so long as nothing changes since the time it was written. Seeing as how interpretation of the law, case law, new bills, etc can change the law every day; that means the AW Guide became outdate several years ago.

AJAX is technically right, the ONLY entries in our Penal Code in regards to ANYTHING IMI related are:

12276. As used in this chapter, "assault weapon" shall mean the following designated semiautomatic firearms:
(a) All of the following specified rifles:

...

(2) UZI and Galil.

...

(b) All of the following specified pistols:
(1) UZI.

...

So IMI is not a listed brand. On the other hand, it could be argued that ANY rifle or pistol that says UZI would be illegal. That means if you made a single action revolver and named it UZI, it COULD be argued that it's an assault weapon. Ths could also mean that all the other importers and manufacturers of Uzi type weapons, like Action Arms, Mitchell's Guns, etc. could be argued to be listed even though they didn't exist that the time the list was written. This goes back to the double edged sword of INTENT of the law and INTERPRETATION of the law. One day it saves, the other days it kills. In this case, in my opinion, it kills.

On the same hand though, there is NOTHING stopping a manufacturer from 're-manufacturing' IMI weapons with an S stamp and the same serial so that we can buy IMI manufactured "SUZI" carbines.

Again, UZI is not a make and model. So TECHNICALLY an IMI UZI is not listed. Now is it an area I want to play in? HELL no. Should someone play in this area and take one for the team if it came down to it? In my opinion, HELL no. Does that mean we can't play in this area? Absolutely not... it just wouldn't be wise.

Besides, considering the comparable price, compatability, general availability, etc of IMIs and Vectors, you really should just get a Vector and be done with it. Just be sure it's configured legally or keep it disassembled until you're out of state.

[aplinker]

Give Vector a call. They are still in the business of building UZI clones and they are CA friendly. One thing to take note about the Norinco 392's is that they came into this country with the barrel nut welded on.

Welds take 5 min with a Dremel cutting wheel.

I have a Norinco 320 and it's just fine. It won't win any beauty contests, but it's been VERY reliable.

You'll need to replace some parts and such for compliance if you wanna make her sexy, but considering they're less than half the cost, it's a good deal.

I have other pistol caliber carbines if I want to shoot them for actual use, so the UZI is for fun. It's fun to shoot, but it's not a real shooter like some others - if that makes sense. At $1500 I'd rather have an MP5 clone or USC.

[lomalinda]

"On the same hand though, there is NOTHING stopping a manufacturer from 're-manufacturing' IMI weapons with an S stamp and the same serial so that we can buy IMI manufactured "SUZI" carbines."

I think that this was done with some of the MAC-type stuff that was recently being sold in CA by an avant garde FFL.

But would this even be needed in light of the Harrott decision? I thought that the AW had to be listed by both make and model, rendering the decision to name "Uzi" impotent?

[aplinker]

How bold are you? Are you willing to stockpile some $ to fight another pseudo-Harrot?

If enough of them were here, eventually there would be a situation, and the matter would need to be resolved.

"On the same hand though, there is NOTHING stopping a manufacturer from 're-manufacturing' IMI weapons with an S stamp and the same serial so that we can buy IMI manufactured "SUZI" carbines."

I think that this was done with some of the MAC-type stuff that was recently being sold in CA by an avant garde FFL.

But would this even be needed in light of the Harrott decision? I thought that the AW had to be listed by both make and model, rendering the decision to name "Uzi" impotent?

[lomalinda]

"How bold are you? Are you willing to stockpile some $ to fight another pseudo-Harrot?"

That's not bold-- it's reckless given what we CAN get without legal jeapardy.

I'm just thinking out loud about the laws and their limitations, something quite common on this site.

[aplinker]

"How bold are you? Are you willing to stockpile some $ to fight another pseudo-Harrot?"

That's not bold-- it's reckless given what we CAN get without legal jeapardy.

I'm just thinking out loud about the laws and their limitations, something quite common on this site.

My point is merely that there's some uncharted territory here. AJAX22 is perhaps more willing to push on this, but I'm more reticent about stating things as cut and dry as he is.

Fundamentally, I agree with his analysis, I'm just not willing to put the $ up for it, since I'm just fine with my "chinese junk."

[Derracs Deniur]

"On the same hand though, there is NOTHING stopping a manufacturer from 're-manufacturing' IMI weapons with an S stamp and the same serial so that we can buy IMI manufactured "SUZI" carbines."

I think that this was done with some of the MAC-type stuff that was recently being sold in CA by an avant garde FFL.

But would this even be needed in light of the Harrott decision? I thought that the AW had to be listed by both make and model, rendering the decision to name "Uzi" impotent?

This goes back to SERIES weapons. The CA DOJ can't say "Thompson series" and then ban EVERY type of weapon that LOOKS like the Thompson. This was NOT to limit the government, it was to denote that aesthetics alone does not ban a weapon. You can have something like an HK94 and a similar clone that runs on straight blowback (wasn't it the old Special Weapons that were straight blow back instead of roller locked?) and while they LOOK similar, their function is completely different and one could be so far out of spec that no original parts would fit it. So what then exists? A clone or an entirely new weapon that looks like the original?

The "Uzi" entry is quite different. It's not saying "Uzi type", "Uzi series", "Uzi-esque", "Uzi style", etc. It says "Uzi". Uzi is listed. Period. Is your gun an Uzi? Well if it says Uzi, then it is. It's pretty cut and dry. The AR/AK was different because they said "series". You could have a weapon, like a Stag Arms for example, that LOOKED like a listed weapon but was NOT an AR-15. It was a STAG-15. So it's NOT within the name of the series and it is almost guaranteed that their dimensions and tolerances are not 100% identical to those of the weapons in the AR-15 series (especially thanks to Colt modifying the AR-15 series to be as far from Mil-spec as possible). So it's an entirely different weapon.

I understand that you're thinking out loud, but you're dealing with bureaucracy here. This is not the place to make assumptions, use false logic, or jump to conclusions. It's cut and dry and everything is quite literal. Not to pick on you, but take a step back and REALLY take a look at what you're thinking before you continue down the path you're thinking.