Micro Uzi/Uzi Pistol

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

Don't we have rules for similar situations for other guns that default to the exact opposite conclusion? Assuming HK91 over G3 is the only one I can think of specifically off the top of my head.

Good point. As far as the HK91/G3 distinction goes, I would consider the level of conversion before choosing one over the other (i.e. if it's an HK91 was a full-auto trigger pack inside, but no external modifications to resemble a G3, it's fair to call it an HK91). Likewise, when we see those HK94s that have been only partially converted to MP5 specification (full-auto and chopped barrel, but no other mods), we call them something like "HK94 (mocked up as MP5)".

It sounds to me as though what you are proposing (to be analogous) is that if you see a full-auto Uzi Pistol that lacks the side-folding stock, it would be labeled "Uzi Pistol" and not "Micro Uzi". Or maybe "Uzi Pistol (mocked up as Micro Uzi)".

Originally Posted by BurtReynoldsMoustache

we can know with almost complete certainty that you can tell a Micro Uzi from an Uzi Pistol by the muzzle.

Yeah, I should think so. Or at least, that is what I have understood. I would think the mil-spec Micro Uzi needs a compensated barrel for control during automatic fire. I would guess that a civilian Uzi Pistol could be modified to take a Micro Uzi barrel, but MPM's guns don't have such barrels because they don't need them - they have been modified to fire only blanks, which don't have much recoil. (This is also why many of the full-auto Uzi Pistols in Hollywood are also lacking stocks.)