The Sten Gun

I am serious, The Sten! A completet load of crap! I always used it by holding the Mag. you try firing a sten any other way, bloody difficult.
Sapper

 

With Sten 60th annivesary for the BBC

 

Originally posted by sapper@Aug 4 2005, 06:56 PM
I am serious, The Sten! A completet load of crap! I always used it by holding the Mag. you try firing a sten any other way, bloody difficult.

[post=37262]Quoted post[/post]


With the MK II "Plumbers delight", I totally agree with you. The MK III was a slight (though not great) improvement and facilitated the holding of the actual weapon rather than the mag (the one (Mk.III) I've fired handled very similar to the Sterling, but "pulled" to the upper left a little bit more harshly), but of the "Rolls-Royce" Sten (the Mk.V), with wooden stock and foregrip, I've never heard a single complaint from those who had to use it in action (such as my dad, who thought it was a dream to use). The Mk.V was apparantly a little too front heavy to shoot well holding the magazine.

Dave.

 

Originally posted by CROONAERT+Aug 4 2005, 02:11 PM-->(CROONAERT @ Aug 4 2005, 02:11 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-sapper@Aug 4 2005, 08:12 AM
The problem with the sten gun is that it shold never have been invented.[post=37249]Quoted post[/post]


Awww! Come on Sapper! :P

I'd have never been issued with my beloved Sterling, if they didn't invent the Sten!!!

Dave.
[post=37258]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
I'll second that. Despite the handicap of being RAF, i still managed to do the APWT on the Sterling!

 

I put this to Perf who is a new member and a gunsmith. Thought I would put this into the discussion as well. Heard my fathers mates talking about the Owen sub when I was a lad. Many went from the middle east to New Guinea.

With your love of guns, I wonder if you have ever seen an Australian Owen sub machine gun. These were used extensively by Aussie troops in New Guinea and most other Asian conflicts right up to the early part of the Vietnam war.

Great weapon, light, top loading magazine, 9mm, that was better than any other weapon when our troops were fighting in PNG (Close quarters). Drop it in the mud it still worked. Its two outstanding features were the top mounted magazine --and the provision of a separate bolt compartment inside the receiver so that the bolt was isolated from its retracting handle by a small bulkhead, through which passed the small diameter bolt. This ensured that dirt and mud did not jam the bolt and it was highly successful. The diggers even invented a triple magazine block. (99 shots) The OWEN was renowned for not jamming and very accurate.

This weapon was invented by a 24 year old.

There were 50,000 manufactured for Aussie troops which per capita is quite a large amount. The Yanks also placed orders as they had noticed the efficiency and accuracy of the weapon while fighting alongside the Aussies in New Guinea etc.

Geoff

View attachment 945 View attachment 946 View attachment 947

 

Trust the Aussies to come up with an original solution to a difficult problem. Sounds like the Owen SMG was a real winner.

Doug

 

Sapper, I don't wish to seem rude, but one of the things about your comments on the sten being rubbish is that, well, from what I have heard you must have had a run of bad ones because several books and talks I have had would indicate that it was pretty good. You are of course entitled to your opinion - just as I would expect you to respect mine.
Captain Peter Laidler - REME Armourer and distinguished author on the Sten Machine Carbine would certainly take issue with your comments.
If you held the Sten always by the magazine you certainly were not going according to the book and the training manual.
The holding of the magazine while firing causes wear on the magazine catch, the magazine lips and the interior of the magazine feed housing. All these problems combined lead to problems with the rounds feeding correctly and to the possibility of the magazine catch failing and the magazine in fact falling out whilst you hold it when firing, not a good state of affairs as I am sure you will know.
The army even issued a template for a tool to correct the wear of the mag. catch and overised parts to effect a repair.
The problem was fairly widespread with that regard is the feeling I get from talking to people.
If it was rubbish we would not have made 3 or 4 million of them - don't forget that the Sten was constantly developed up to the Mk5 which with the wooden stock etc was a better weapon than the Mk3.
I'm interested in constructive debate on the Sten but just to label it "rubbish" in my opinion, and despite the firing experience you have had, is really not correct.
Before you ask, no I have not live fired one but I know armourers who have and also veterans who had both good and bad experiences.
I am suprised more about the good comments on the Mk3 which because of its welded construction meant that certain of the interchangable parts of the Mk2 could not be serviced.
For example, in the Mk2 as you guys will know, you could strip the weapon and remove and replace a faulty barrel, couldn't do that with the Mk3 could you. Same for the mag hatch. I'd say service-wise the Mk2 was better.
I have a lot fo respect fro you guys who have fired and handled them, please believe me.
I will agree that a bad one could be baaaaaaad. But, a well serviced Mk2 with a good barrel and nut assembly, a good mag catch and good mags with good feed lips and only a max of 28 rounds in the mag would make a pretty good weapon. Of course, in the field, keeping it that way would be the problem.
I am now going to look for my tin hat and take cover while the comments come back. Mind you by the sounds of it, if you guys have Stens, I'm safe!!!

Kind regards and best wishes to all
MG
PS here's a tale - 2 instructors in the desert want to counter some rumours about the Sten, so in front of a big crowd they strip one, mix all the parts up with sand off the floor, blow them over, reassemble the weapon and fire off a full mag, with no problems. Magic, huh?

 

Grubbins, I hate to seem rude also, but what you said in regard to sapper's remarks could be considered disrespectful. As a vet also (albeit of a different war) what you read in books is quite different to what we actually lived through. The Sten was rubbish, I've had the opportunity to handle several, the Mk V and the Mk II and while the V was better it was crap compared to other contemporary SMGs. You point out these books you've read that seem to disprove sapper's comments yet I can tell you books aren't the answer to everything. If you read a book about the M16A1 assault rifle in Vietnam, and the author happened to work at the Armalite company, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, or as a Army Ordnance deskwarmer, you would believe that the M16A1 was the picture of reliability and the grunts who died in the jungle because it jammed were at fault. These kind of people would have you believe that our soldiers and Marines in Vietnam died because they failed to properly maintain their weapons. I served in the bush for two years as a rifleman with 1st Battalion 9th Marines in the Nam and I and every other Marine I was with in B Company maintained our rifles properly and by the numbers. When firing on full auto you would get a jam every 3 or 4 rounds and on semi you could make it through about half the magazine before the weapon jammed. My point is that if I had posted that the M16A1 was rubbish and some armchair general who had never fired the weapon told me that I handled it wrong, I would be highly pissed. Back to the rest of your comments. On Stens prior to the Mk V you had no choice but to hold the magazine, as the barrel had no appropriate handguard and would become very hot after a magazine or two. Also, England made several million Stens for one reason. They were cheap (because of shoddy construction) and could arm many soldiers quicker than a quality SMG that wasn't pure ****. The Owen is an example of a hastily made weapon that worked, however. It was as spidge described it, a real winner. The Thompson SMG was on the opposite end of the Owen and Sten. It weighed about the same as the Owen, but was more expensive to produce. It was also very robust and reliable, as all WWII U.S. infantry weapons were. Also, the .45 ACP round leaves no doubt as to stopping power. I've seen firsthand what it does to the human body and if one is unfortunate enough to be hit in the torso he has slim chances indeed of surviving. The Thompson also fired fast and was accurate at 125 yards, which is as accurate as an SMG needs to be. So when you want to see the good SMGs of WWII look at the Thompson, Owen, and PPSh 41. The Sten is ****, end of story.

 

Check out this link for the Sten, Kinda funny too!!

http://www.canuck.freehosting.net/sten.htm


Cheers
Bob

 

To true, well the ones in ww2 were pretty ordinary the Thommy and mp40 were much more reliable

 

Hiya
I have seen that website it is not too bad for the pictures.
The story at the end could have ended in tragedy. It would seem the sten 'owner' did not have the safety on correctly or did not have the cocking handle back in the bolt properly. If he had done either it would have mitigated his problem - BUT - more to the point I acknowledge it could happen, if you're unfortunate enough to be clumsy and drop your weapon. Just another of the funny stories our vets have to tell.
Kind regards
M G

 

Let me say again, the Sten was just about the worst weapon ever invented, We would not carry it loaded. Why? because it had a nasty habit of firing when jolted! I placed mine on the ground and it fired a burst that parted my mates hair, how he was not killed I do not know..

Can you imagine a gun that was welded together? Any engineer would know that it is impossible to make a accurate weapon by welding, Guns are made very precisely.

The reason why we had them as a standard weapon was simple.. There was nothing else. If anyone needs further proof ask any war Veteran. If you stood in front of a barn door you would be lucky to hit it with half the burst. There is a true fact, an infantry man suddenly came face to face with an enemy, they both opened fire and both guns jammed, and they both fled before the other could un-jam their weapon.

The Sten,,,Utter rubbish, Seriously. My mate Spud, pointed it at an enemy forgetting it had not had its mag fitted. Luckily the German wanted to surrender.
Sapper

 

Sapper;
Thanks for your response. I'm no longer going to debate this issue, those are your life experiences and i respect them. In the scheme of things its good to know because I can balance them against the vets and others that say it wasn't too bad. BTW the silenced Mk2 was in service into the 1980s or so I believe.
What I am prepared to discuss is that in its time, what else could the army have done and why was it made exactly the way it was. I'm not talking about comparing it to modern day weapons, thats rubbish, but other contemporaries of its ilk.
Out of interest what else were you issued with. Without wishing you to cover repeated ground feel free to point to your previosu posts on this subject if you have already told people!
I'm going to start another thread on a different brit made weapon and I welcome your comments and experiences there.
Kind regards
MG

 

If I can make an observation I know that a number of British units and certainly the Essex regiment made it their policy to replace the Sten with captured MP40's at every oppertunity. In their Museum in Chelmsford there is a display showing a memeber of the Regiment in Germany and he is carrying the MP40. The description explains why he was carrying the MP40 and points out that it made sense as they used the same Ammunition plus the MP40 was a reliable weapon.

I think that say's it all and backs up the views expressed.

 

The best weapn was the german Schmieser LMG......SPELLING? beautifully balanced and certain death if you use it!
The sound was so distinctive that the nearest infantry man would let gp a couple of bursts in the direction of where the gun was fired. lethal and against orders to use it.
Sapper

 

Against orders to use it why?
Jack

 

The sound of an enemy weapon will draw fire from your own men.


Cheers
Bob

 

Oh ok so agaisnt orders for the allies to use it?

 

Not exactly, just not wise to do it. Depending on the unit there might have been an order forbidding the use of enemy weapons but that is up to the unit commander. For instance, when the Germans counterattacked the Rangers at Pointe-Du-Hoc the Rangers were forced to use German weapons because they ran out of ammunition for their own.