Talk:vz. 58

Change back all edits by Koalorka

I dislike recent changes to this article, many interesting information were removed, why? I suggest to undo changes and go back to the version from 11 November 2007. hrd

hrd: If anyone is interested I created web page based on previous article version, the page is available here.

• Really? And what don't you like? The fact that I described the weapon in detail? What "interesting" content did I remove, you mean the"couch-commando"-type comparison with the AK-47? Please elaborate. Koalorka 19:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

• compare versions and you will see; it's not only comparison missing; btw what was wrong with this comparison?

The comparison serves no purpose whatsoever. The Vz is not an AK period. Koalorka 16:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it does serves one purpose and that is to point out to the less educated that this is the completely different weapon, as to unfamiliar individuals it just looks like Kalashnikov AK-47 which it isn't. Stonufka (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• That's what the Design details section is for. Otherwise we may need similar comparison for say the M1911 and the Glock, because novices may not notice the differences initially. I trust most of our readers are not intellectually challenged. Koalorka (talk) 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with a little comparison between similar types of weapons , indeed after re-reading "Design details" I see it as nothing more than described in great detail but to see differences with AK-47 I would have jump in to "AK" page and read its Design details and than trying to grasp the differences. The simplicity of pointing out quickly the differences doesn't harm anyone and helps those so called intellectually chalenged.This is public information and certainly not reserved for the experts. You and I might know the peculiarites of both designs but that still doesn't mean exluding a little bit of information on the side. I did like the comparison even in its less professional style. Well I must be intellectually chalenged than. Have a fun. (comparing M1911 with Glock 19 perhaps) Stonufka (talk) 08:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

IMHO it makes sense to compare 1911 to e.g. HP/GP as well, comparison of 1911 and Glock doesn't make much sense. Analogically it makes sense to compare Sa 58 to AK, not Sa 58 to e.g. M16. Also note that:

• speed-loading device is not standard Sa 58 equipment
• thought CZ858 might be designed for the market in Canada (I don't know for sure), it's sold at least in the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic too

• Why does it make sense to compare the vz. 58 to the AK? They have nothing in common except for the ammunition used. Comparing based on appearance alone is tantamount to trivia. We do not use trivia in firearms related articles.

My encyclopedia source states that there is a speed-loader included.

hrd: what is the source? I didn't find notice about speed-loaded in any book/documentation including original military instructions. I haven't seen it either, is there any image of it? IHMO it makes no sense to design such equipment if rifle supports loading from clips. I guess it's an after-market accessory for civilian use because filling magazine from clips might be considered dangerous.

CZ-858 was specifically designed for the Canadian market. I know the importer who got CZ Hermex to produce the longer barrels, so it was most certainly for the Canadians.

hrd: Hermex is made by Hermex and CZ-858 and Canadian VZ58 (?) are made by Ceska Zbrojovka. CZ858 is offered with standard and long barrels (Hermex and FSN01 with standard and short barrels). Long barrel version might be designed for Canadian market because longer barrel is needed by Canadian law AFAIK, but I'm not sure if CZ-858 with standard barrel was offer first in Czech Republic or first in Canada. Do you have more specific information about it?

CZ858 with standard barrel was offered for czech market shortly after Hermex CZH 2003 (basically CZ-UB just temporized to see how Hermex will come out with paper work and such and after his succes, they introduced their own variant) - thus I'm pretty sure, it wasn't designed specifically for canadian market. However long barreled CZ 858 was introduced for canadian market, because standard one falls into "restricted" category. Btw CZH 2003 is "manufactured" (actually only converted into semi-auto) by Zbrojovka Praga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.112.33.239 (talk) 02:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Samopal?

Well ask yourself about that translation "samopal --> submachine gun"

I don't think so ,so in the spirit of translation the correct would be impossible, at best "automatic firearm" would do.Stonufka 12:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

At that time (about 1958) term "samopal" was really used for any automatic firearm regardless of used cartridge. For prototype of vz. 58 was used term "Samopalová puška - SaP (submachinegun rifle)". But today samopal means submachinegun (and útočná puška is assault rifle). So I'm not sure which translation is better, may be yours. hrd

Well it possibly can't be translated precisely, but in the article it would be a bit strange to call it "a submachine gun" and than continue to describe it as "an assault rifle" , hence the confusion.As far as article cleanup is concerned maybe a person who tagged it could explain ....Stonufka 14:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed translation as you proposed. hrd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.42.207.61 (talk) 10:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, samopal means submachinegun, you may don't like it, you may disagree with it, but that's all what you can doing. It's still submachinegun. Making some strange new terms sucked out of finger is just stupid. It's like "translate" submechinegun as "machinegun pistol", that's also historical term, but it's just not correct translation. Even today czech and slovak armies still use term "samopal" for vz.58 and there is no doubt about current meaning of that word. If someone feel confused, it's his problem because rest of text is explaining enough ("..is an assault rifle designed and manufactured..") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.34.198 (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree a little bit, IMHO "automatic firearm" is still better, but I'd change time to past: "7,62 mm samopal vzor 58, which meant 7.62 mm automatic firearm model 1958". hrd

Yeah, and "kulomet" is "ball-thrower" right? It's still same story, samopal = submachinegun. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.49.34.198 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The more correct translation of "7,62 mm samopal vzor 58" would be "7.62 mm automatic firearm model 58" since nowhere is there mentioned 1958 in the original name it was just sourced from 1958 that is why it is called vz. 58 (or vzor 58) and not vz. 1958. Karami14 (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes you're right exact translation of "gulomet" or "kulomet" is ball thrower so is "mínomet" mine thrower or better a mortar now thats just funny eh , be serious a submachine gun is now an assault rifle !? Why don't you instead of making silly comments like that , use your witts in somewhat more constructive way and address this inconsistency so what is Samopal Vz 58? an assault rifle or submachine-gun? I guess Skorpion Vz 61 is an submachine gun and so is Uzi and I'm not calling M16 "samopal" although technically I could.Indeed English-Slovak dictionary tranlates word "samopal" as submachine-gun but I believe this is technically incorrect and so for benefit of doubt "firearm" is pretty universal descriptions and nobody is translating it as "ohnivé rameno" You made me smile. Stonufka 12:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's more ... straight from Wikipedia entry "A submachine gun (SMG) is a firearm that combines the automatic fire of a machine gun with the cartridge of a pistol, and is usually between the two in weight and size." I can see how Sa vz.58 categorize in that description! Let us conclude that translating word samopal is rather uneasy and I stand by "automatic firearm" as more neutral in describing the weapon and its function and thus avoiding classification as well.As a fluent speaker of both czech and slovak I can't recall calling Uzi or Škorpion or MP40 anything but "samopal" so in that case neither of the languages uses the class of the weapons as description just the function call it no equivalent in those languages! Have a nice day Stonufka 12:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Falling Block?

The article regards the vz.58 as a falling breechblock rifle. This seems to be wholly incorrect, for an automatic weapon - especially regarding the diagram of internal components provided on the page, which seems extremely reminiscent of the bolt carrier and group of the FAL rifle, which is a tilting block design. worldguns.ru (http://world.guns.ru/assault/chex/sa-vz5-e.html) also regards the vz as a tilting block action, rather than falling block, which (as a cursory glance of the falling breechblock page will hopefully show you) seems completely wrong. worldguns.ru is run by Maxim Popenker, a well respected firearms journalist and researcher. I imagine he has had hands-on experience with the vz to deduce this, and that falling breechblock as used here may be simply a mistranslation. As with the 'samopal - submachine gun' debate raging elsewhere on this page. For the record, I'd like to state that despite wikipedia's definition on SMGs, different militaries have different standards on the topic. The XM177, a cut-down M16 model, was for a number of years referred to as a sub-machine gun, as was (in some few circumstances) the AKS-74u carbine. Samopal is almost certainly regarding submachine gun. As the term 'assault rifle' was not coined until some time after or around the introduction of the StG44, it wouldn't have been regarded. 'Sub machine gun' would indeed be the category between a full size rifle and a pistol, regardless of what it fired. The StG started development as, officially, a 'maschinenpistole', it should be pointed out. 94.192.226.233 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As a native Czech/Slovak speaker you are simply wrong. "Samo(-)pal" means literaly "Self(-)firing" and you are correct that *today* it is used in the more narrow sense of a submachine gun. However during the time of the development of vz. 58, there were several categories of "samopal"s - lehké(light), now just called "samopal" and těžké(heavy) now generally called "útočná puška" (this is from english term assault rifle). That said, between the general populace the old generalized meaning of "samopal" to cover both submachine guns and assault rifle categories is still common.

Basically, there is no diret translation possible of "samopal" in the meaning of 1958 - at that time there existed no equivalent term in the english language - the English numenclature was simply different at that time. More detail at the Czech "Samopal" article at http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samopal

For now, I believe the best way is to take the literal czech term and do a literal translation - "Samopal vz.58 (Automatic firearm model 58)" - that is the only correct translation *of the 1958 meaning* of the term. We are already stating in the lead that it is an assault rifle thus no need for mixing it with submachine guns.

Alternatively, if we wanted 100% academic correctness, then we would have to distance from the common abbreviation and say "Těžký samopal vz.58 (Assault Rifle model 58)" but that movses away from WP:COMMON, so the literal translation is pretty much the only non-misleading term.83.240.117.207 (talk) 12:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Cyprus vz.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)