Question about MK III STEN

Seanpmc1 · 08-20-2009, 05:41 AM

Nige, one other question.

In the picture you posted of the different types, the first gun has an extra piece of tubing under the barrel shroud. What was that for?

**kanister** · 08-20-2009, 09:08 AM

by Seanpmc1

Anybody know what era this thing came from?

Hard to see in the pic, but the magazine housing says STEN M.C. MKIII. The other side of the same part shows "LB" and a very light stamping that appears to be F13757. Magazine has "S.18" stamped on it, there is a "G" stamped into the end of the barrel-shroud, and "S32" on the "A" side of the selective fire switch.

Hi, LB - Lines Brothers - produced 876000 MkIII in less than 18 mounths. Yours F....... appears to be of the second batch, hence a 1943 product..
Yours bears the modification of the Fininnish Army, sling swivels on the butt and under the barrel.

Seanpmc1 · 08-20-2009, 02:54 PM

by kanister

Yours F....... appears to be of the second batch, hence a 1943 product.

Thanks. Since its de-milled, I didn't see any reason to hide the serial number, but I suppose there was no reason to show the full number either.

I didn't know Finland used them, but thats interesting to know. The guy I bought it from had several of them and they all looked the same. I doubt he had any idea where they came from either. Just a middle-man that probably bought a hundred of them somewhere.

As cheap as it was ($35), I would have bought more than one, but the other ones he had had not been so gently treated in the demilling process.

**Nige H** · 08-20-2009, 10:37 PM

by Seanpmc1

Nige, one other question.

In the picture you posted of the different types, the first gun has an extra piece of tubing under the barrel shroud. What was that for?

Hi Sean,
the tube under the barrel shroud on the Mk1 is a forwards folding wooden pistol grip, again this feature was one of the items deleted from the Mk1* onwards, in fact I've seen at least two different types of Mk1 design, one of which had a flat bar type of Skeleton butt which would have required a lot of labour time to weld together, so hence this was quickly deleted from production for the double tubular Mk1 style (as seen in the picture). The Mk1* being the first move towards a cheaper economy model, that required less production time. However things didn't really get off to a proper start until the Mk2 came on stream, as by then the parts were being made at hundreds of factory's across Britain thus reducing cost, time and most importantly the chance of the enemy knocking out your firearms production.

Nige.

BTW Sten fact of the day, the Stens tubular body is actually steel tube that was lying about at the ROF Enfield when the gun was first designed, and was really for making the legs of a Vickers Machine Gun tripod

Seanpmc1 · 08-21-2009, 02:51 PM

by Nige H

The Mk1* being the first move towards a cheaper economy model, that required less production time

So since the II's and III's were basically attempts to simplify the weapon and make it cheaper to produce, I assume the earliest Mk I's were of much better quality and accuracy?

The way the sights are made on mine, I really don't see why they even bothered to put them on it. Or did they have some way to adjust point of impact before they left the factory? The front Barrel Bushing on mine looks to be centered, but if they had made the hole slightly off-center, they could have rotated it to change POI before they riveted it solid. That would at least have let them get the sights "close" to POI.

With the emphasis being mass production, I suppose the Soldiers probably just employed "Kentucky-windage" when they actually tried to use the sights...

**Nige H** · 08-27-2009, 01:43 AM

by Seanpmc1

So since the II's and III's were basically attempts to simplify the weapon and make it cheaper to produce, I assume the earliest Mk I's were of much better quality and accuracy?

The first Mk1 prototypes are different from the production models, but yes finish wise they were the best made gun up until the Mk5. All of the Mk1 production was produced by Singers manufacturing (sewing machines) and basically due to the vast facilities that Singers had in Britain they could manufacture the whole gun lock stock and barrel. But if you actually see one up close, the production models are no better made than most British produced Mk2's, again very crude, with blobs of weld and braze everywhere and no time spent on the finish or overall look. As to accuracy the first batch of Mk1's had a flash hider/compensator on the muzzle, but this was deleted after the first contract for two reasons, the 9mm rounds did not cause the barrel to climb noticeably during firing, and two the flash hider didn't hide anything LOL. Now according to some test done in 1997, comparing the Mk1 to the latter models, the accuracy of these early models was no better or worse than the later Marks. The main reason I like the Mk1* design is due to the full barrel jacket the gun has instead of the Mk2, Mk5 style short hand guard, this I would have thought could effect the accuracy as the Mk1 and Mk3 have more metal for you to hold, so therefore should be easier to control, when firing full auto, not that would seriously make much difference with this type of firearm, as hitting anything much over a hundred yards away is going to be more luck than judgement. Finally though having said all of the above when I used to fire my Mk2 Blank firing Sten full auto, I used to hold the gun in a Rifle style with my right hand on the Skeleton butt, and my left hand on the actions dust cover, and certainly nowhere near the magazine or that nasty ejection port

Nige.

P.S. I'd still rather have an MP40 any day of the week, it Looks as good as it shoots.

StenMk3 · 10-09-2009, 01:57 AM

by Seanpmc1

Thanks. Since its de-milled, I didn't see any reason to hide the serial number, but I suppose there was no reason to show the full number either.

I didn't know Finland used them, but thats interesting to know. The guy I bought it from had several of them and they all looked the same. I doubt he had any idea where they came from either. Just a middle-man that probably bought a hundred of them somewhere.

As cheap as it was ($35), I would have bought more than one, but the other ones he had had not been so gently treated in the demilling process.

If I recall, the Finnish proof mark that is on the magazine stands for Suomi Army but then again, I may be wrong. Anyway, here is that proof mark on a parts kit that I have.

StenMk3 · 10-09-2009, 02:03 AM

And not to make too long a post, I will make it in 2 different ones that I hope you will find useful. Markings and Codes from the different manufacturers of Stens.