>>143 (OP)
An open-bolt SMG designed in the 1970s? Weird. It was thirty or forty years late to the party, as far as stamped sheet metal bullet hoses go. It's weird to me that it was designed to use Uzi mags. Would it not have been less expensive to buy a license to produce the Uzi rather than doing R&D to produce a new design? Also, that buttstock looks like it was designed with contempt for the very concept of ergonomics. From what I've read about these, it doesn't even fold. It's detachable, so the designers don't even have "well, we had to make some compromises to get a folding stock" as an excuse.
I wonder if they are at least reliable.
I always thought the S&W Model 76 was really cool looking. In the unlikely event that I ever get the licenses for Class III stuff, or the Supreme Court invalidates NFA 34, I want one, just because of Charlton Heston in "The Omega Man." I know, it's an unlicensed copy of a much better design. I know, most of the guns were lemons and they had a horrible reputation and did not sell well. I know, they were unreliable. I've watched some videos of guys disassembling them to do a show and tell with the components, and every part, from the crude stamped sheet metal fixed sights sloppily tack-welded in place with big blobby ugly weld beds to the bolt to the folding stock, looks like it was made by the slow kid in a high school shop class and then assembled by chimpanzees. I don't care. They're cool and I will always want one.