|
|
I started service armouring in 1961, at a time when the Sten M.C. still sat proudly on many armoury racks. Yes, the Patchett/Sterling was also there and was and is a splendid arm and was rapidly replacing the Sten but, so most definitely was the Sten, a splendid arm as well. I have always had a soft spot for these guns. I joined REME therefore with a love of Sten, Bren, Vickers (cor !), Lee Enfield (cor as well), 38" revolver No.2, 2" and 3" mortar. My first boss delighted in the fact that his leather aproned craftsman loved both the Sten and Vickers as these were his great favourites also. I (we) have listened over many years to all the rubbish talked about the Sten. Such as,
They jam.
If you wanted to clear a house, throw in a Sten. It would hit the floor, fire off its rounds as it danced around the room killing everyone.
It was made for 2/6d out of gas pipe.
If you dropped it, it would break.
If you dropped it, it would fire off a magazine full.
My mate used to make these things in his lunch break etc. etc.
Nearly always spouted by "old soldiers" who were never actually issued one or used one, just heard it from someone who repeated it from someone else. Or, enthusiasts of militaria/arms/bits who came along years later but feel it a good tale and something looking so rough can't really be any good !
Now, let me try to put some things right. When the Americans tested all allied and enemy "sub machine guns", tests that finished in early 1942, their Thompson 1928 came bottom with 57 out of 100, the Sten Mk.2 came top with 88. They went on to develop the M3 Grease Gun because of those results.
The Germans got exactly the same. They of course, not only had the "hallowed" MP38 and MP40 which had many faults but looked better than ours. They made a near perfect copy of the Mk.2 Sten for their special forces, the Potsdam Gerat, nearly 10,000 made by Mauser but, the They also made thousands of simplified Mk.2 Stens for both the army and the Volkssturm, called the Neumunster Gerat or more commonly, the MP3008.Very few survive but I owned one, made by "rde" serial No.2. Underslung magazine as per MP40 and, in spite of having a dreadful finish, worked splendidly and now lovingly owned by a very proud German !
So, back to 1961. My grand S.Sgt. boss was delighted that I loved the Sten. He looked upon any stoppages as a personal affront that he (and I) were not doing our job properly. We carried very few spares for the Stens, not because we couldn't get them but because they were never needed. In 1961, we still had Mk.2's,5's and that truly superb silenced version that has NEVER been beaten, the Mk.2(S). The Mk.3's had by then been flogged off to foriegn armies. On the Sten, spares were for return springs that had "settled" short, barrel catches,(worn ratchet teeth) magazine catches,(failure to retain magazines) pawls, trip levers and spring-triggers were about the only bits we carried. Little else that was really ever used. So, why this mythof the dreaded Sten? Well, the bad bit, THE MAGAZINES. Please forgive capitals but, these were the buggers muddle of the Sten. About 40,000,000 were made during the war. These had single position feed. They needed magazine loading tools or, a stick, big nail or a very strong hand.(only a few rounds could be loaded like this). Most modern mags have double position feed, ie. the user can push rounds straight down into the magazine and they lay left and right. Not so the Sten. I'm sure that you readers know that the Sten derives its name from Col. R.V. Shepherb, Harold J. Turpin and England.(not Enfield), Hence S,T,E,N.. Shepherb and Mr. Turpin designed the gun on Mr. Turpins dining room table, Mr. Turpin being the Chief Draughtsman at RSAF Enfield. Their prototype guns were made in the winter of 1940/41. However, from the outset, Mr. Turpin knew that he had designed a double feed magazine that would work flawlesly but the War Office insisted that he use the 50 round Lanchester magazine shortened to 32 rounds for the Sten. These had the single position feed mag. that needed a special loading tool and to give reliable results, and needed to be kept within very tight tolerances.
Back to armouring in 1961. Magazine 9mm. Sten M.C. came either 10 or 12 to a box. Not only in a box, each magazine was individually wrapped in greased paper with tie on label giving description. 10 or 12 were then packed into a strong cardboard box which was wrapped in thick brown paper which was in turn then wrapped in pitched strong paper that was dipped in molten pitch to seal all the joints. This was then overwrapped in thick brown paper with a label showing contents. This lot was W.D. standards that if said box fell into the sea, the contents must be perfectly preserved for up to 5 years. Great joy for me as a swimmer that resembled a brick made from lead. Anyhow, we unpacked these new magazines, threw all that wrapping aside and began our inspections. Each magazine was stripped and cleaned. Each mag. was inspected for any burrs on the feed lips. These were cleaned and polished. The mag. was re-assembled, filled with 10 to 15 drill rounds and tested for height of feed and 8 degree feed angle. These measurments were critical. Most out of the 10 or 12 needed adjustment. We then filled each mag. with 30 rounds prior to a range test, took ANY Sten from the rack and test fired each mag. In spite of all this, at least one out of the box full would give bother. After further adjustments, if it still gave bother, we stripped it to a casing, put it on the anvil, smacked it with a hammer and backloaded it through the QM. for a replacement. What if you didn't have a wonderful armourer who had joined RAOC in 1940 and transfered to REME in 1942 ? What if you were a Resistance fighter/Airbourne/SOE/Aux-Unit/anyone else who was issued a Sten but nobody had bothered/had time/dropped as issued magazines that you loaded, put in your Sten and pulled the trigger, to have that trouser filling clunk instead of a burst ? (2 to 3 rounds in the British Army, 32 for the Americans). Yes, you would blame that blasted Sten. Well, we almost never had a stoppage with Sten, just as we almost never had a stoppage with Sterling which has a superb, world beating double feed, roller platform curved, ribbed magazine. Why does it feed from the left ? Well, for those who have never had incoming, there is a great desire for the earth to open up and let you drop into the gap. Left hand feed not only allows you to hug mother earth but it makes feed from mag. to gun so much easier. Those foriegners who have underslung magazines like the Germans/Italians and most others are truly giving gravity a dreadful time having to push up 32 rounds or however many whilst having to lie prone above magazine, gun and eyes. Thats a lot on show. The Australian Owen has the best feed position, vertical on the top. I have taken base plate and spring out of an Owen magazine and having a mate to dribble in rounds, have sustaned automatic fire that would have done justice to a Vickers. Left mounted magazines enable the firer to cradle the mag. on the left forearm making it easier to handle.
However, although the mag. housing was fastened to the left by 4 drive rivets on the Mk.1&1* and spot welded on the Mk.3, because the Mk.2 was developed for Airbourne use, to have a captive projecting mag. housing could have produced serious injury when landing, taken valueable container space or made it harder to hide for clandestine use, this housing swung down through 90 degrees to aid compactability. It was NOTHING to do with sealing out dirt and dust, the cocking slot allowed plenty of space for that however, the Sten fared outstandingly in dust mud and grit trials, unlike Thompson and especially that tin disaster, the L85(SA80).
What about "Went off when you dropped it"? Not something to own up to. In capital letters in the Sten Machine Carbine manuals it is clearly written, "This gun must NOT be carried with loaded magazine and breech block FORWARD". Before anyone mutters about the Sten, the famed so miss called "Schmeisser" MP38 & MP40 (they had nothing to do with Schmeisser) along with most other carbines had exactly the same problem. Most forces adopted some sort of modification to lock the breech block in the foreward position during the war. We introduced the push through cocking handle in 1943 to lock the foreward block. However, inertia COULD set the breech block back far enough for the block to get behind a round in the magazine, in that case, it would go forward, chamber and perhaps fire that round. Perhaps ? Certainly only one but the resulting short stroke would normally give a miss-fire, just before the RSM stuck his pace stick through one ear and out of the other before sending you on a helicopter simulation course ! This malady has always affected "blow back" guns like the Sten/Sterling/MP38 etc. The sear that holds back the breechblock is much further forward than the breechblock is blown when fired. As these guns are initially fired "off the sear", normally against a full magazine with all the pressure that results, just when a full stroke is needed, the block is driven forward a short distance off the sear, often resulting in a jam. To overcome this, on demonstrations, we pulled the cocking handle fully to the rear, pulled the trigger and let the handle go. Never a problem. However,a smack on the butt plate could do one of three things. (1) It sets back but doesn't go far enough to get behind a round, it goes forward harmlessly. (2) It goes back just far enough to get behind a round, that would perhaps chamber and perhaps fires the round but please note above. (3) It goes back too far in which case, the sear will hold it to the rear in the cocked position. The options are thus three fold but with ALL blowback guns without a breech block lock the same applies, NEVER carry such a gun with the breech block forward with a loaded magazine fitted unless a forward lock is fitted and applied. Colchester Glasshouse was full of folk who thought differently !
"Made by my mate in his lunch break". I will include other sections in this to save time. I was a regular visitor to the Pattern Room at Enfield, later Nottingham and now Leeds. I first viewed the Sten Machine Carbine drawings with Herb Woodend and I clearly remember asking him if these were PC drawings, done for post war viewers. I would not have asked PC, but for Harperson readers, it saves flak. No, they are the originals. Bugger, the tolerances were more tight than Rolls Royce's Merlin engines and these were "volume produced" guns that so many folk criticise. For example, the sear bent on the breechblock was ground to 12 degrees, 50 minutes. Tolerances ? None. That would affect the trigger pull ! The blocks were shadow viewed on a screen to check tolerance. Two tenths of a thou. here, plus or minus two thou. there ? Yes, normal. Why ? For that answer, we need to look at assembly. (not component manufacture).These guns were assembled mainly by unskilled labour, most female, many straight from the Employment Exchange. They stood or sat behind two long bench's, both facing a central conveyor belt, trays of components in front of them. They were fed bare action body/trigger mechanism assemblies that went slowly up the belt. They, working either side, took these bodies off the belt, added their component from parts delivered in metal or wooden trays before replacing on the belt for the next assembler. By the time the gun reached the far end, it was complete (in Mk.2 form) apart from the foresight. A gauge was put down the muzzle and backsight aperture and the barrel turned until "run out" was minimal whereupon the top of the barrel would be marked with either with a line or the last 4 digits of its serial number on the top of the muzzle so that the barrel could be removed and replaced without losing zero and the correct (out of a choice of 3 heights) foresights would be selected and fitted, later to be welded into position to preserve location. The lady who "adjusted" the front plate of the Stock, Butt to ensure minimal side play whilst still being easy to remove/re-fit the butt was the only person to have a special tool (a hammer!) apart from another with a heading tool to rivet the trigger stop pin in the trigger mech. housing. What can we conclude from this ? The components had to be within so tight a tolerance that nothing interfered with rapid assembly on these lines. Competition was fierce between one line and another and there was no ability to do any filing, adjusting or anything else. All the parts had to fit exactlyso there was nothing to do other than assemble those 60 odd parts. This meant not only the masses of component manufacturers had to gauge regularly their components, the viewers had to re-check them before those components were delivered to the assembly factories and they in turn had to re-check everything before trays of parts were handed to the assemblers. "We used to knock up Stens in our lunch breaks?" A very finely made gun BUT, without much care given to exterior welds and finish. However, internals were superbly made to very fine tolerance. NO. They never made these during their lunchbreaks !
By stand down, nearly all Aux-Units had replaced their Thompsons and earlier Stens with Mk.3 Machine Carbines. However, in those critical early war years, these lads had acquired Mk.1, 1*, 2 and Mk.3 guns. The "old boys network" worked as well then as it did when I was an armourer. One wag described "lend lease" as almost the same as the "old boys network" but involved far less materials ! Certainly, many units were equipt with things seldom seen anywhere else purely because, someone knew someone who knew someone !
Logic dictates that the Mk.1 Sten M.C. came first, around March 1941. This was the gun designed for ground troops, its combined action body tube and barrel jacket made it quite long. No bother as it was initially designed for RAF ground troops to fire at German Paratroopers who would no doubt precede the sea bourne attack. The Mk.1* was a Mk.1 without flash eliminator and the wooden forend replaced by the commonly encountered pressed steel trigger mechanism cover. Made by Singer Manufacturing Co. in Scotland, a total of 300,149 Mk.1&1* guns were made.
However, the war was changing. We developed the Airbourne Forces that demanded a shorter gun. Not only for cannister packing but also for stuffing under parachute harness straps so as to be assembled when landed to quickly enable the user to fight from second one. This required a gun that could be stripped to shorter length so as not to impede hands and arms to adjust rigging lines and canopies. Thus, the Mk.2 was manufactured, one week after the Mk.1 production began. Without doubt, the most favourite, 2,600,000 plus Mk.2's were madeout of a total of around 4,100,000 Stens made during the war.
The Mk.2 was complicated and for those who didn't need a removeable barrel and jacket, welcome the Mk.3. Made by Lines Bros Ltd., Merton, London, before and aftrer the war, they made Meccano and Triang toys. Expert in pressed steel, they looked at the Mk.1 & 1*, thought it overly complicated and developed the Mk.3 Ideal for such as Home Guard, Aux-Units and all ground troops. They made 876,886 and once issued to these folk, the remainder were issued to front line troops and it is indeed rare to find any photograph of 1944/1945 British and Allied forces that don't carry the Mk.3. This was mainly made from pressings, even the barrel was pressed onto a rifled mandrel giving a work hardened tube that only needed the chamber reamed for completion. With a top flange incorporating the foresight and a handy aiming rib along the top of the gun, rivetted on ejection port stop to prevent fingers straying into the port with eye watering results, the Mk.3 was a user delight. From the REME standpoint, the non removeable barrel meant that barrel casing dents couldn't be removed and a worn or damaged barrel meant scrapping the gun.
The Mk.4 Stens were experimental and not issued whilst the Mk.5 was really a Mk.2 with No.4 Lee Enfield barrel muzzle profile and sight. It could be fitted with the No.4 bayonet. This plus wooden butt, pistol grip and early foregrip added 1'5 lbs. without addressing the big problem, un-inspected and adjusted magazines.
Apart from the Mk.5, all Stens within a week or two were made "side by side" The marks didn't follow on, one mark to another. They were made for different roles. The Mk.1,1* & 3 were "ground" guns, infantry/RAF ground troops etc. The Mk.2 was initially airbourne/resistance,(600,000 were dropped into France alone), then infantry and the Mk.5 was developed as a gun having superior finish to previous marks but really, just heavier with few mechanical improvements and took the same magazines as all the rest, including the Lanchester which went much better with a 32 rd. mag. than the 50 rd. which was a devil to load, often burst the bottom plate off and put much strain on the return spring in the gun.
The wonderful Mk.2(S) silenced Sten has really, yet to be beaten both in noise or lack of it and as a very fine gun. It grieves me to listen to "experts" firing a Mk.2(S) that has patently been shot out or at worst, fired full auto, a sure way to totally damage the baffles.
This then is my introduction on one of the finest machine carbines made. When the Americans were asked to name the three war winning devices they chose, DC3 Dacota, Jeep and the Sten. Praise indeed especially from another country. The Germans felt the same way. So. Please think carefully before you knock the Sten, Mr. Turpin and Col. Shepherb will be up there listening and no doubt, taking a very dim view of the rubbish being said ! We need to think that we, (us British)don't do success very well, we prefer failures, the Sten certainly wasn't one of them.
Thank you for getting this far.
Richard Ashley.
|
Locked
