I'm a avid reader of the 'perception vs facts' threads on here: PIAT, Sherman etc. One can draw nice overlapping Venn diagram with Perception, Preference, and Opinion. What intrudes very little on these are facts. I would dearly love some facts, good solid ones. I am not a veteran so I cannot allow myself the benefit of opinion, I've never fired any of the weapons so I cannot have a preference, and perception is not something I'd allow myself in these cases. So stats can indeed be used to present any kind of argument. Aside from the % and proportion issues, what cannot be ascertained from the RAMC info is conditions or circumstances: dropped weapons, recognition of enemy, time of day, circumstances, what have you. One can shoot at a man in the dark with a Bren thinking he was the enemy: battle accident. One can jump out of the back of a lorry with mates around and drop a loaded sten: battle accident. One can prepare to aim and then fire just when a person steps in front: battle accident. One can be advancing with a pistol, trip and pull the trigger: battle accident. Which was the fault of the weapon? None? Or are there reasonable expectations that could and should be imposed on materiel in battle conditions and some just fall short? Well that's just the point, isn't it. Whatever the take, here we have a weapon for which apparently specific Standing Orders exist ... ... and are there any such orders, above the usual training standards, for other weapons types?