IMI or Group Industries

rhouston8

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 9 / 0 / 0
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,095
I did just notice something yday when taking the ole Group and IMI out for some minor blasting. I have an extra top cover w a pic. rail welded to it. Bought from a fellow board guy who made them way back. Anyway this normal looking top cover will not fit onto my Group at all. It binds up where the diagonal parts of the top cover sides are located up front. The top cover that's always been on my Group fits fine and the gun has always shot fine.

And this rail'd top cover fits fine and shoots fine on my IMI so it shall reside there with a mounted micro dot.

sooo.... I guess differences DO actually exist in Group top cover/receivers vs. IMI.

Just minor food for thought.
 

RoverDave

Administrator
Staff member
Feedback: 113 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
16,006
Location
ND
The primary problem is spec issues with the receiver. I've seen IMI and aftermarket top covers, stocks and fore grips that fit fine on IMI guns but not on Group/Vector guns. Your group top cover had to be made somewhat out of spec to fit on the out of spec receiver. Manufacturers overcame these issues when completing the gun but they show up when trying to install parts after-the-fact. The parts will fit fine on some Group/vector guns, but that's just another indication of the inconsistency of those receivers.
 

rhouston8

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 9 / 0 / 0
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,095
The primary problem is spec issues with the receiver. I've seen IMI and aftermarket top covers, stocks and fore grips that fit fine on IMI guns but not on Group/Vector guns. Your group top cover had to be made somewhat out of spec to fit on the out of spec receiver. Manufacturers overcame these issues when completing the gun but they show up when trying to install parts after-the-fact. The parts will fit fine on some Group/vector guns, but that's just another indication of the inconsistency of those receivers.

That sure seems to be the case here. It's just the first (well 2cd if you count the original GI bolt being crap) time I've actually had issues with it over the last decade+. Oh well.
I wonder to what degree a set of GI parts will fit onto various GI receivers ?- or was each one custom fit (God forbid!).
 

tsmgguy

Well-known member
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
72
Read this and decide. The Vector Uzis are not "out of spec". That's just internet disinformation. It's the converted IMI semis that are out of spec. The article tells you why that's the case.

I'd never try to install FN/IMI parts on a Vector FA gun because the Vector is mostly South African. Why not run the Vector with the parts it originally came with?

http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2867
 

RoverDave

Administrator
Staff member
Feedback: 113 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
16,006
Location
ND
The Vector Uzis are not "out of spec". That's just internet disinformation.

What you're saying is 100% inaccurate. The receivers that were used to build all of the full auto UZIs from Group Industries and Vector were out of spec. The owners of both companies discussed that at length with me when I was doing research for my book. They talked in great detail about all the work they had to do during assembly of the guns to overcome the spec issues with the receivers. Several of the UZI Talk members visited Vector during a tour I organized and the owner showed many of the steps they have to complete to try to get the receivers closer to spec. Richard from BWE firearms, the best UZI gunsmith in the country, as commented on the spec issues many times. That's not to say that Vectors are bad guns. The problems were overcome in most of the guns and people have gotten a lot of great use from them, but they have spec issues. Occasionally replacement parts and accessories don't fit properly because of the spec issues. Saying that it's "internet disinformation" is complete bullshit.
 

pmf

Well-known member
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Messages
2,314
What you're saying is 100% inaccurate. The receivers that were used to build all of the full auto UZIs from Group Industries and Vector were out of spec. The owners of both companies discussed that at length with me when I was doing research for my book. They talked in great detail about all the work they had to do during assembly of the guns to overcome the spec issues with the receivers. Several of the UZI Talk members visited Vector during a tour I organized and the owner showed many of the steps they have to complete to try to get the receivers closer to spec. Richard from BWE firearms, the best UZI gunsmith in the country, as commented on the spec issues many times. That's not to say that Vectors are bad guns. The problems were overcome in most of the guns and people have gotten a lot of great use from them, but they have spec issues. Occasionally replacement parts and accessories don't fit properly because of the spec issues. Saying that it's "internet disinformation" is complete bullshit.

OK Dave, I've been a member of this board for a long time since buying my out of spec Vector in 2001 and read your never ending posts about how IMI guns are better than Vectors because Vectors are 'out of spec'. Can you elaborate on that? Every time anyone asks the Vector vs. IMI question, you chime in with the out of spec comment. The implication being that Vector guns are fatally flawed -- then there's the comment that they're OK and fixable in most cases ("but why would you want to buy one?" implication). Had I read that when I bought my gun, I'd have steered clear of Vectors. Glad I didn't.

Judging from the gun I have, it must not be much of an issue because it just runs and runs and runs. I did replace the sear on it once. I've got no problems swapping lowers/grips on it (e.g. a 45 ACP conversion). Barrels go in and out fine. The bolt doesn't rub. I've been using the same top cover the entire time. What else is there left, but a sheet metal box? Are the angles not perfectly 90 degrees? Is it not square? Too long? If the receiver is out of spec, then did I just get lucky? Or was it the opposite in your case with the Vector you owned?

We need a beating the dead horse icon. :poke Or maybe a broken record ... skip .... skip ... skip.
 

Samuel_Hoggson

Well-known member
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
Joined
Feb 21, 2004
Messages
672
Location
Dover-Foxcroft, ME
Have two Vectors and both are like pmf's. That doesn't make me a Vector fanboy......nor an IMI hater. I don't read Dave's and Richard's posts as Vector-bashing.

Both are being truthful. Bear in mind Richard fixes problems, doesn't likely see non-problems. My wife used to caution her friends about my seeing pathological states in everybody cuz that's what I dealt with all day.

If you own a Vector you probably noticed they shoot kinda high. I thought that was normal until I shot an IMI. Yeah, the frames are out of spec. But the devil is a quantitative dude. Is it out of spec enough to be problematic? Most Vectors are not. And I really don't care that mine shoots high. Makes 200 yd hits easier. Even good welds go bad given enough time and impact. Do trunnions go early on a higher percentage of Vectors? Yes, but again, both mine are way past the early breakage point.

Couple years ago ran into a IMI gun that would not run at a shoot. Turned out the blocking bar removal was poorly executed. Like bad Vector welds or imperfect frame alignment, it's fixable.

We're lucky to have a resource like Dave, Uzi encyclopedia and author. We're lucky to have Richard here, too.
 

ole442

Banned
Feedback: 49 / 0 / 0
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
3,796
Location
Way freakin' too close to the city....especially n
OK Dave, I've been a member of this board for a long time since buying my out of spec Vector in 2001 and read your never ending posts about how IMI guns are better than Vectors because Vectors are 'out of spec'. Can you elaborate on that? Every time anyone asks the Vector vs. IMI question, you chime in with the out of spec comment. The implication being that Vector guns are fatally flawed -- then there's the comment that they're OK and fixable in most cases ("but why would you want to buy one?" implication). Had I read that when I bought my gun, I'd have steered clear of Vectors. Glad I didn't.

Judging from the gun I have, it must not be much of an issue because it just runs and runs and runs. I did replace the sear on it once. I've got no problems swapping lowers/grips on it (e.g. a 45 ACP conversion). Barrels go in and out fine. The bolt doesn't rub. I've been using the same top cover the entire time. What else is there left, but a sheet metal box? Are the angles not perfectly 90 degrees? Is it not square? Too long? If the receiver is out of spec, then did I just get lucky? Or was it the opposite in your case with the Vector you owned?

I thought Dave was saying even after a GI/Vector has been worked over, some new parts from other manufacturers may have issues because of the out of spec issue. I guess you can make them run but future experience with other parts may not be as reliable as an IMI UZI! At least that's what I get from the whole thread.
 
Last edited:

MontanaRenegade86

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
Joined
Oct 11, 2014
Messages
374
Location
Montana, USA
OK Dave, I've been a member of this board for a long time since buying my out of spec Vector in 2001 and read your never ending posts about how IMI guns are better than Vectors because Vectors are 'out of spec'. Can you elaborate on that? Every time anyone asks the Vector vs. IMI question, you chime in with the out of spec comment. The implication being that Vector guns are fatally flawed -- then there's the comment that they're OK and fixable in most cases ("but why would you want to buy one?" implication). Had I read that when I bought my gun, I'd have steered clear of Vectors. Glad I didn't.

Judging from the gun I have, it must not be much of an issue because it just runs and runs and runs. I did replace the sear on it once. I've got no problems swapping lowers/grips on it (e.g. a 45 ACP conversion). Barrels go in and out fine. The bolt doesn't rub. I've been using the same top cover the entire time. What else is there left, but a sheet metal box? Are the angles not perfectly 90 degrees? Is it not square? Too long? If the receiver is out of spec, then did I just get lucky? Or was it the opposite in your case with the Vector you owned?

We need a beating the dead horse icon. :poke Or maybe a broken record ... skip .... skip ... skip.

I have no dog in this fight, but I'd like to make an observation.

If you have a full auto Uzi, any Uzi, and it works flawlessly...you are way ahead of everyone who doesn't have an Uzi at all.

I only have registered Uzi bolts. I couldn't care less if somebody else thinks they're shit or not, they are mine and they serve my needs.

And, FWIW, my Vector semi auto has a slight alignment problem. So I'd say it's out of spec, at least somewhat. It makes a nice truck gun, though.
 

RoverDave

Administrator
Staff member
Feedback: 113 / 0 / 0
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
16,006
Location
ND
OK Dave, I've been a member of this board for a long time since buying my out of spec Vector in 2001 and read your never ending posts about how IMI guns are better than Vectors because Vectors are 'out of spec'. Can you elaborate on that? Every time anyone asks the Vector vs. IMI question, you chime in with the out of spec comment. The implication being that Vector guns are fatally flawed -- then there's the comment that they're OK and fixable in most cases ("but why would you want to buy one?" implication). Had I read that when I bought my gun, I'd have steered clear of Vectors. Glad I didn't.

Judging from the gun I have, it must not be much of an issue because it just runs and runs and runs. I did replace the sear on it once. I've got no problems swapping lowers/grips on it (e.g. a 45 ACP conversion). Barrels go in and out fine. The bolt doesn't rub. I've been using the same top cover the entire time. What else is there left, but a sheet metal box? Are the angles not perfectly 90 degrees? Is it not square? Too long? If the receiver is out of spec, then did I just get lucky? Or was it the opposite in your case with the Vector you owned?

We need a beating the dead horse icon. :poke Or maybe a broken record ... skip .... skip ... skip.

I generally don't bring it up unless someone asks for a comparison between a Vector and an IMI conversion gun, or if someone incorrectly claims that Vectors aren't out of spec. In this case you made the ridiculous claim that Vector spec issues are "internet disinformation". I think it's appropriate to call BS on that for future readers that might think your claim had any merit. It doesn't, no matter how many times you repeat it. I don't think your experience with a single gun outweighs the fact that the manufacturers themselves have confirmed the spec issues, or that Richard has had to repair guns with spec issues, or that many Vector customers buying guns in the early 2000s posted information here about sending guns back to Vector to fix alignment issues. All you have to do is look at a Vector to know they are somewhat out of spec. The space between the front and rear sight ears was too short so the manufacturers had to hack off the back side of the front sight ears to make enough room for the top cover.

I've never claimed that "Vector guns are fatally flawed". The majority of them have worked fine and the ones that didn't are always fixable. A buyer just has to know what the history has been to know what to look out for when buying a gun. The claims people make about Vector being the worry-free option are misleading. You need to check them for parts fitting or not fitting. (Several people have noted wood stocks not fitting properly and that's the case with my Vector.) You need to check them for feeding problems due to alignment. You need to check them for bullet impact problems due to alignment issues. If those things are okay, then all is good. If not, then a buyer should factor the repair price into the cost of the gun to determine if it's a fair deal.

If you don't want to beat a dead horse, quit dragging it back out.
 

ole442

Banned
Feedback: 49 / 0 / 0
Joined
Jan 17, 2008
Messages
3,796
Location
Way freakin' too close to the city....especially n
Have two Vectors and both are like pmf's. That doesn't make me a Vector fanboy......nor an IMI hater. I don't read Dave's and Richard's posts as Vector-bashing.

Both are being truthful. Bear in mind Richard fixes problems, doesn't likely see non-problems. My wife used to caution her friends about my seeing pathological states in everybody cuz that's what I dealt with all day.

If you own a Vector you probably noticed they shoot kinda high. I thought that was normal until I shot an IMI. Yeah, the frames are out of spec. But the devil is a quantitative dude. Is it out of spec enough to be problematic? Most Vectors are not. And I really don't care that mine shoots high. Makes 200 yd hits easier. Even good welds go bad given enough time and impact. Do trunnions go early on a higher percentage of Vectors? Yes, but again, both mine are way past the early breakage point.

Couple years ago ran into a IMI gun that would not run at a shoot. Turned out the blocking bar removal was poorly executed. Like bad Vector welds or imperfect frame alignment, it's fixable.

We're lucky to have a resource like Dave, Uzi encyclopedia and author. We're lucky to have Richard here, too.

Yes indeed!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.

Please Visit our Sister Sites Below

Sister Board - Sturmgewehr Sister Board - MachinegunBoards


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter
Top