I am pretty sure the VZ58 would be fine.
As with the AKs, it's going to slower to reload than an AR, and not as accurate, but it's clearly good enough to fight with.
"3 Gun matches” are supposed to be training for a fight, but as with nearly all types of shooting competition they have become speed races and equipment races, so I would not expect to win against a good shooter armed with an AR, but that in my mind is not as important as most folks seem to believe it is. 3 Gun is a game. It’s a very good game and a good competitor is a person you would probably not want to get into a deadly fight against, but as good as many of them are, it’s still a competition. You don’t die if you loose.
It’s not as focused on deadly combat as it could be. It favors the shooters that can shoot fastest and not miss, and that is a very good skill to learn, but in war 2 skill sets that are even more important than shooting are movement and communication.
I am NOT in any way against 3 gun matches and I think they are wonderful ways to train, but they are not as complete as they could be in (only) 2 ways.
#1The targets are not shooting back. 9No training can really prepare a person for that. )
#2 the targets do not move and get out of the line of fire, giving you only time to make one or sometimes 2 good hits. That's how real fight go about 99% of the time.
That kind of training is WAY more realistic. To train you how a real fight will probably be is better than winning a cup.
If you can set up a course of fire with both the targets and the shooter moving, your training will be far more beneficial.
In such a course I have found that those using AK-47s, AK-74s M1As, HKs and FN-FALS do about as well as those that have ARs. So I have to believe a VZ would be fine for training, (and they are very good guns,) so I doubt you would have any problems at all for the real purpose of that training. That purpose is NOT to win a cup or a ribbon. It’s to learn to fight effectively.
Most 3 gun matches today are set up to test shooter and AR against shooter with another AR.
Pistols and shotguns are probably all about equally matched, but the AR is clearly that easiest carbine/rifle to master for speed of fire and for speed of reloading.
Fast shooting with courses of fire that require several hits on a still target, in a short period of time are often specified.
It’s good fun, and good for competition, but in a fight enemies don’t stay still when you shoot at them--- and REALLY don’t stay still if you SHOOT THEM unless they are DRT (dead right there)
If they do hit the ground dead you would stop shooting that enemy and look for another.
So the courses of fire are not as “realistic” as the so-called experts seem to believe.
If you can hit a 5” circle in the middle of the “chest area” of a target in 3 seconds you could also hit the head with one of two in less time, right? In a real fight you will NEVER have opportunity to shoot an enemy 4 times in the chest without him moving.
Just like in deer hunting, a good hit in the chest, spine or brain is going to give better results than peripheral hits around the center of the intended target.
In fact the real world has shown us that if you hit an enemy in an area outside the central nervous system 4-6 times, and spread those hits out they kill better than hitting them all together, but neither is as good as a center hit that traumatizes the central nervous system.
CNS hits drop people and then they bleed out.
Multiple hit that do not traumatize the central nervous system cause the enemy to stop firing only when he bleeds out first, or gives up.
A better way to train for rapid fire combat drills is to set up the course to demand hits on some moving targets, but we seldom see that (that is how I set my courses up, but outside of a few Marine unites, I don’t know of anyone else doing that. I have an acquaintance in a SEAL team who tells me his fellows are now adopting that method of training, but as I said, it’s rare.
Learning to top up your rifle and to put ACCURATE fire on target is FAR more important than fast group shooting on a paper or gong that doesn’t move.
Learning to use cover, concealment and communication skills is even more important that the shooting skills. Situational awareness is the focus that is the foundation of everything else.
So the VZ (or any other carbine) may not be as good for gaming, but I do not think they are a lot worse for fighting.
The AR is clearly faster to manipulate the safety, and to reload a magazine into, but again I am comparing the ARs to the AKs and therefore also to the VZ to the extent I can guess. I am just guessing about the VZ, but I think my guess is justified. The VZ is a bit faster than the AK with its safety and reloading, but not as fast as the AR.
Anyway, in a real fight the AKs of the world have proven to be QUITE effective and VERY GOOD tools for a soldier. In power and also in reliability they are better than the ARs in the opinion of many. Some many say the opposite, but I have not met one yet that has been in combat against one who will say that. (other than some snipers who can stay out of range of the AK.)
If you like the VZ don’t let anyone talk you out of it. One argument to its favor may be that getting a VZ is a bit difficult these days, and getting an AR is quite easy.
So you can get the AR later if you find you want to have both. If you like the VZ get it soon.
So………that’s my 2 cents worth.
You may place value on my opinion, or you may value it at what it cost you.
Nothing!
