Rating the IMI vs. the Vector SA Uzi Carbines

[lomalinda]

I've got a Vector and have never shot an IMI--only saw one once in Albany, NY--and I want to know what I'm missing. The guys at Uzitalk seem to feel there're construction issues, among other things, with the Vector that are not present on the IMI/AA models.

What do you guys who've seen/shot them both feel? IMIs are $1500-2100 in free states, while Vectors are coming down to around a grand or so. Part of that has to do with the fact that the IMIs are no longer being made, of course.

So, if one were to live in a place unadulterated by Roberti and Roos' handiwork, what would the consensus be?

[redcliff]

IMI has probably built more Uzi's in a month than Vector has in it's lifetime.

Given the choice I'd take an IMI. Not saying Vector's are bad, just that the likelihood of a problem seems quite a bit higher from what I"ve read. Being old, I remember when we could buy IMI's..a gun shop I worked at sold quite a few. I never once saw one come back for any kind of warranty work.

[B Strong]

There's not enough difference in function to make the IMI worthwhile in a shooter class gun, but the IMI is collectable, and that's what makes the IMI more expensive.

I've had Vector's and IMI's apart, semi's and full autos, and they're of comparable quality in all respects.

[SCMA-1]

I echo the sentiments of the comparable build quality between the original IMI Uzi's and the Vector counterparts. I've shot both extensively (FA) and own a pre Roberti-Roos IMI Uzi B Carbine. Unless there is something glaringly defective with the Vectors, they should make fine weapons to own and use at a fraction of the price of the originals. Uzi's are amazingly robust, simple, and reliable weapons and should have a place in the inventory of any serious firearms aficionado.

SCMA-1

[tenbrook]

They are the same execpt for the markings on the receiver. Building an Uzi is not rocket science.