Opinions of the Sten.
THe only fact i have is that it is inaccurate from a far.
Considering that it could be made in one’s garage, I find it to be an excellent weapon. However, beside the fact that it was extremely cheap and easy to make it doesn’t really have any other astonishing features.
The Stirling SMG was a Sten with money thrown at it.
Thank you for the info sgt DerMann, i didn’t know it was easy to make/produce.
A friend made a Sten Mk2 (except the barrel) from scratch in 12 hrs in his machine shop. In series production they can be produced astonishingly quickly - that’s what they were designed for!
I actually heard that they were pretty accurate(?). Rate of fire was not as fast as PPSH but not slow (? like mp40?). Pretty unreliable and I think there were a few cases of accidental discharge. Built mainly for its cheapness and production speed, when Britain found itself needing lots of submachine guns. I dont think there was much liking of the gun among troops.
IIRC they cost about $ 2 to make, which certainly implies rapid and simple production.
There is a Harry Harrison sci fi book called “Rebel In Time” where white supremacist goes back in time to try and alter history by getting the Confederacy to win the ACW.
The wonder weapon he chooses for this is the Sten, precisely because it can be made simply and probably by the technology of the day.
Kind regards
Fluffy
It didnt’ have a very high rate of fire, about 500 RPM if I recall correctly. However, the length and the fact that it fires from an open bolt are reasons that cause it to be inaccurate. Also, the 9mm Parabellum round isn’t much accurate over 50 meters, but this is seen with weapons even today.
Edit
I don’t even know if the Sten has a saftey. If it does, it would be a very simple one that might not have been that effective. Anyone know anything about this?
It has the same safety as seen on many SMGs of the era - a slot to turn the bolt handle up into. It’s supposed to be effective.
The issue of safety with open-bolt SMGs is what happens if the bolt is forward, a magazine is on, and the weapon is knocked or jolted enough to make the bolt move back far enough to pick up a round. This is a problem with every SMG which does not have a means to lock the bolt forwards. Germans with MP38s reportedly used leather thongs attached to the barrel and the cocking handle to prevent it doing this. The MP40 had a lock, as did the later-produced STENs.
This is a great book. The guy sent back to track down this supremist in the deep South of 1860’s is Black too! Makes for an interesting read.
It has the same safety as seen on many SMGs of the era - a slot to turn the bolt handle up into. It’s supposed to be effective.
The issue of safety with open-bolt SMGs is what happens if the bolt is forward, a magazine is on, and the weapon is knocked or jolted enough to make the bolt move back far enough to pick up a round. This is a problem with every SMG which does not have a means to lock the bolt forwards. Germans with MP38s reportedly used leather thongs attached to the barrel and the cocking handle to prevent it doing this. The MP40 had a lock, as did the later-produced STENs.[/quote]
I dont think many liked the STEN, there is an interesting article at the bottom of this link describing a misfire.
Not a bad article, although anecdotal lines like this:
Many Canadians were wounded or even killed by Sten Guns even before being committed to battle.
when not supported by evidence go far to perpetuating popular myth.
It looks like a toy.
Just saying that its not my favorite weapon.
Well I think any British solider would take a Thompson over a Sten anyday. However the Thompson was very expensive for the time. Anyhow I guess you could compare the Sten to the Sherman tank. Not great but should get the job done.
Interestingly the STEN was never issued in the Italian campaign and the Thomson continued to be used.
That’s probably due to the fact that the Brits were reliant on the American logistical supply chain for that campaign, made more sense to get issued yank kit than waiting around for Brit stuff.
Plus all allied soldiers favoured the thompson heavily over any competing SMG.
My bold.
Interesting comment, based I assume on interviews with ALL allied soldiers ?
:roll:
Have you ever held a Thompson ? They’re basically a ship’s anchor with the bits that don’t look like a Tommy removed.
If you have a museum nearby, try to arrange with the curators a hands-on visit, where you can view and handle a number of weapons.
It should give you one idea as to why the STEN, for all it’s foibles continued to be used for long after the war.
I think you’ll find the answer in your post above.
Also as Student-Scaley pointed out, the Log Sp was American through the Italian campaign - they didn’t carry 9 x 19.
(That and nine mil rds tend to rattle about a bit in the M1.)
(Edited to add the first ‘d’ in “they didn’t carry.”)
Maybe some of these would help.
http://www.machinegunbooks.com/index2.html
Though Im not sure hes not right. If Britain could have made any other SMG, I think they would have. One of the main reasons why the Sten lasted so long I think is that the UK was flat broke after the war. Remember rationing didnt even end until the 1950’s. And we still had a heck of a lot of other priorities other than designing a new SMG.
In the post war years there were hundreds of SMG designs kicking about and some may well have been the ultimate small metal gun, but it wasn’t as if there was a dearth of ready made weapons so few were developed.
At a time when people were tired of killing, any politicos putting great wads of dosh into R&D of new weapons would have been kicking their ‘careers’ into touch PDQ.
Let’ face it, most of our political masters have always wanted to run the forces on a shoestring - until their ineptitude pushes things so far that they call on us for help.