.

Umarex .22LR Uzi Pistol

msmalley1227msmalley1227 Member Posts: 119 ✭✭
edited February 2013 in Ask the Experts
Trying to settle an argument. Does anyone know if the Umarex 22LR Uzi pistol made by Walter of Germany can be converted to full auto. I know the illegalities of it but my argument involves wheither or not it can be done. I say they are made so it is not possible and a friend of mine says a gunsmith that knows what he is doing can do it if he isn't concerned with the law. Who is right?

Comments

  • beantownshootahbeantownshootah Member Posts: 13,137
    edited November -1
    Of course it "can" be converted to full auto.

    Any gun that fires semi-auto "can" be so-converted, its just a question of what's involved and how difficult it is to do the actual conversion.

    Now, not being familiar with the workings of this particular gun, I can't say how easy/hard it is to do the conversion, but I have little doubt that a competent gunsmith could do it if they set their mind to it.


    Edit: I think the question is really "how hard would it be to convert it to full auto"? If you want a true select fire gun (ie semi OR auto, as the situation demands) that might be pretty difficult, because it might require a complete redesign of the fire control group with parts fabrication.

    But depending on the design, just defeating the trigger disconnector (for example) to let the gun go full auto only may be absolutely trivial.

    This guy claims that converting the Umarex .22 MP5 clone (which I'd imagine is probably pretty similar internally/by design to their Uzi clone) to full auto is trivial and only takes a few seconds.





    Edit #2: Just read another account where someone made their Umarex .22 M4 clone go full auto by mistake when substituting in different springs in the trigger group to lighten the pull. Sounds like a pretty easy conversion to me, and you may even be able to get the same by modifying existing springs.

    Anyway, I don't think this sort of modification is a good idea. Of course its illegal by state and federal law and carries a long jail sentence if caught and convicted (which does happen). But these guns just aren't built to handle full auto cyclic rates of fire. They're largely zinc alloy (ie "pot metal") and that kind of fire rate also burns out barrels fast.
  • msmalley1227msmalley1227 Member Posts: 119 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Thanks a lot. Looks like I've got to buy him a 6 pack.

    MLS
  • jthoresenjthoresen Member Posts: 437 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I can't speak about the Umarex 22LR Uzi, but I'm interested in improving the trigger on my Umarex 22LR M4. In studying this I've read multiple reports of guys going overboard and the gun becomes full auto.
  • rufe-snowrufe-snow Member Posts: 18,456 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Many of the parts of these German made clones, are made of zinc diecastings = potmetal. Doubtful if they are designed to take the stress of full auto fire.

    These U tube wizards who rework the trigger group innards, so that they are full auto only. Probably cause them to selfdestruct, a lot quicker then they would normally.
  • beantownshootahbeantownshootah Member Posts: 13,137
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by rufe-snow
    These U tube wizards who rework the trigger group innards, so that they are full auto only. Probably cause them to selfdestruct, a lot quicker then they would normally.

    Of course, though I think its plain that durability isn't really a consideration here. If it were, presumably you'd be starting with a more solidly built gun (like a Ruger 10-22), not some zinc-casting adult toy like an Umarex.

    The guy in the video claims a cyclic rate of fire on his "legal" (cough. . .cough) conversion of 1200 rounds per minute. Watching the video, that seems about right, too.

    At 20 rounds per second, he'll burn though his standard 25 round magazine in. . .1.25 seconds flat. With a lot of practice, he may be able to get 5 5-shot bursts with good trigger control. (Yay. . .that was worth risking 20 years in jail for [:p]).

    If I were interested in this sort of conversion (which again, I'm not), I'd at least try messing with a stiffer recoil spring and/or increasing the mass of the operating block to reduce the cyclic rate of fire a bit.

    This is basically this reason why I don't already own a (legal) full auto gun. I've shot them, and honestly, I find firing one round at a time a LOT more fun/interesting than letting them spray like a sewing machine. True burst fire of 3 rounds would be interesting especially from something like an MP5 or Uzi submachine gun, but that would require a serious redesign of the trigger control group by someone with real expertise, not some 5 second internet hack.

    Incidentally, the many gun haters now who are making noises about misnamed "assault" rifles all think that full auto guns are the most evil thing possible.

    In my opinion, despite this common perception, the exact opposite is true. The full auto guns pose quite a bit LESS risk to the public than pure semi-auto ones. The reason is that if lunatics like the ones who did the Sandyhook shooting or the CO theater shooting were using full auto guns, they'd find that a. they couldn't control their guns during shooting and b. they'd quickly deplete their magazines, wasting most of their ammo and permitting a counterattack while they were reloading.
  • competentonecompetentone Member Posts: 4,651 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by beantownshootah

    Incidentally, the many gun haters now who are making noises about misnamed "assault" rifles all think that full auto guns are the most evil thing possible.

    In my opinion, despite this common perception, the exact opposite is true. The full auto guns pose quite a bit LESS risk to the public than pure semi-auto ones. The reason is that if lunatics like the ones who did the Sandyhook shooting or the CO theater shooting were using full auto guns, they'd find that a. they couldn't control their guns during shooting and b. they'd quickly deplete their magazines, wasting most of their ammo and permitting a counterattack while they were reloading.


    Excellent point. (Though I doubt the 6-year-olds at Sandy Hook would have been able to put up much of a "counter attack" against the attacker -- the death toll was so high there mostly because of the victims' vulnerability to attack.)

    Along similar lines, it might sound weird to those who don't understand the capabilities and limitations of firearms, but I think it's actually "good" that these lunatics choose firearms when they decide to go on their murderous rampage. I'd hate to even think about the carnage that would result if someone chose fire as their "weapon of choice" when deciding to commit mass-murder.
  • beantownshootahbeantownshootah Member Posts: 13,137
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by competentone
    Excellent point. (Though I doubt the 6-year-olds at Sandy Hook would have been able to put up much of a "counter attack" against the attacker -- the death toll was so high there mostly because of the victims' vulnerability to attack.)

    Maybe the death toll would have been lower if the shooter had quickly depleted all his ammo, or if he had to reload more frequently, giving whomever was present more of a chance to flee, or responders more time to appear. Maybe full auto would have degraded his ability to place shots, reducing lethality. This is speculative, of course.

    The point is only that I can't imagine how a full auto gun would have made this particular situation any worse. The perception that full auto guns are somehow "more dangerous" is fueled more by Hollywood mythology and the fact that these are banned rather than any practical/tactical reason. In the "real world" the people who have access to full auto guns and the ability to use them, still rarely actually use the capability except under fairly limited circumstances. If full auto were really so dangerous/effective, why is this true?

    I suppose full auto weapons could be more dangerous in "drive by" type shootings where some unskilled shooter could pour out a whole bunch more ammo quickly at one target. If you're targeting one person (or a small group) at close range and wanted to get in and out as quickly as possible, full auto could offer something.

    And that's basically the context in which they were banned; after 1930s alcohol prohibition era gangland shootings, that are basically analogous to today's drug-gang shootings.

    quote:Along similar lines, it might sound weird to those who don't understand the capabilities and limitations of firearms, but I think it's actually "good" that these lunatics choose firearms when they decide to go on their murderous rampage. I'd hate to even think about the carnage that would result if someone chose fire as their "weapon of choice" when deciding to commit mass-murder.
    This isn't speculative. Before mass public murder by firearm became popular, arson and explosives were the methodologies of choice. If it were even possible to block all access to semi-auto weapons (doubtful, if you consider that heroin is still readily available just about everywhere), these things would just come back again.

    Its probably a little bit harder to get the ingredients to concoct a homemade bomb in the post-Oklahoma city era, but I'm pretty sure interested parties could still do it. And nobody is going to ban or restrict access to gasoline, for example.

    Ultimately, the gun haters are focusing on the AR-15 angle because they're basically scared of the way those guns LOOK; but any shooter could have done the same damage with an "ordinary" semi-auto handgun (yes, even with "limited" capacity 10 round magazines), or even a few revolvers.

    Non-availability of guns didn't stop one lunatic from recently killing one adult and three children in China, and wounding 23 others with a KNIFE.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57559179/china-school-knife-attack-leaves-23-injured/
  • DRP-AZDRP-AZ Member Posts: 2,318 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The NFA 34 was motivated by, nearly exclusively, the use of the Thompson SMG, in gangland wars involving illicit trafficking in alcohol. The St. Valentine's Day massacre is often cited as "the last straw".

    See how this works? One Governmental overreach, leads to criminality, leads to violence, leads to more Governmental overreach...and so on...and so on...
  • dfletcherdfletcher Member Posts: 8,077 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    It takes much effort and expert work from a qualified gunsmith to turn a firearm from semi - automatic to fully automatic. On the other hand, it takes a goofball with a file and a dremel about 30 seconds, although that's not his goal .....[}:)]
  • tsr1965tsr1965 Member Posts: 8,682
    edited November -1
    I have to believe that these Umarex copies, are made by GSG, in Germany. They are turning out so many look-alike's, on their diecast machines.

    As for the full auto...any one with experience in mechanical functioning, can turn anything into fully auto. John Browning once turned a Winchester 1873 into a full auto.

    The deal at Sandy Hook would have ended much sooner, if a staff member were armed, and laid one between that kids eyes.

    Best
Sign In or Register to comment.