Printable View
I found some TMT IV marked Sten parts at a local gun show.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...T20IV202-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...T20IV201-1.jpg
There’s a small Star of David below the second T.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...T20IV203-1.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xo3KNY4A1XU
Is it a star of Davis? Looks like a 5 pointed star to me?
You’re right Peter. It’s a five pointed star.
I found a picture of one that’s in better condition.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...35250566-1.jpg
Just to the left of the 40147 is an IDF property mark.
Now you have to build one of those Vincent.
Thank you. I was trying figure that one out. I should known it’s Hebrew. :banghead:Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyc
Too many projects already and I think it would mean more to someone who is into the history of Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I might be interested. Please PM me what parts you have and what you might like for them.
The welding is far too good for it to be an English made Sten!!!!!!
The welding on the butt looks the same.
The barrel has the indexing notch and the trunnion has the pin, like the Mk5.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...n20parts-1.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by jonnyc
The cocking handle is trying to hide inside the bolt spigot.
what does the over stamped letters mean at the start of the serial number??
You need to read the Sten book . It's all in there. If I tell you, you won't read and digest it!
Do you ever do the crossword puzzle in the newspaper? What could the letters “V” and “S” on a Mk5 Sten gun stand for?
It’s not a hard one.
okay will have a read....thanks for signing my book the other day....many thanks
ok page 82
thanks
:cheers:
A nd that's why the same era Mk3 Brens all start the serial number LB.......... Lightweight Bren
The lower face of the trigger housing cover looks more angular and not a smoothly flowing radius edge as on U.K. produced covers. I wonder if it is a foreign made cover or the product of some-one's garden shed?
Yes, it was foreign made.
Quote:
Palestininian Mandate Stens
Copies of the Sten Mk II and Sten Mk V were clandestinely manufactured in Tel Aviv and on various kibbutzim in 1945-48 for use with Haganah and other Jewish paramilitary groups. According to British paratroopers who served in the Palestine Mandate in 1946-47, the Sten copies were found to be of better quality than their own issued weapons.
They made the cover from three separate parts that were welded together along the entire length on both sides. I am not sure if any were made that way in England. I am sure Peter would know.Quote:
The Sten was one of the few weapons that the State of Israel could produce domestically during the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. Even before the declaration of the State of Israel, the Yishuv had been producing Stens for the Haganah; after the declaration, Israel continued making Stens for IDF use. The opposing side also used (mostly British-made) Stens, particularly the irregular and semi-regular Arab Liberation Army.
There is a picture on page 283 of Peter’s Sten Machine Carbine book showing a cover punched out by Terry Drury. It is a single part.
Had two Israeli Stens. One TMT marked, the other in Hebrew. On one, the tube for the butt was formed and seamed - the full length seam being hand welded end to end. Hard way to get a piece of tubing.
might be a silly question, on the sten bolt, why is there large hole at the rear ? what purpose does it serve ?
Do you mean the one from the side that holds the cocking handle or the one in the rear that allows it to be lighter?Quote:
Originally Posted by philb
this..
Like I said, to lighten the whole affair.
The weight of the bolt is the critical part of the safety feature in a blow-back weapon where the breech is 'secured' (it's not locked.....) only by the weight of the bolt and the spring.
Advance Primer Ignition...which is still black magic by the way...witchcraft. A cartridge must stop to be fired...speaking in a strictly non-engineering viewpoint of course...
Being a toolmaker by trade I would say that the U.K. and Canadian made trigger housing cover is made from a single piece of steel formed into shape using a power press. There would have been tooling to produce the profile/blanks followed by tooling to form the finished shape of the cover and both tools would have been reasonably hefty lumps of metal. The nicely flowing curve to the lower edge of the British and Canadian produced covers isn't so that the covers look nice and pretty when fitted to the gun. They are shaped like that with curves to help the metal form and flow in the form tool; if it was shaped like the cover which vincent has the metal would split and crack when being formed.
If the spigot was solid it would add a lot of weight to the bolt. The added weight would slow the cyclic rate.
If you are interested in understanding how machine guns work, I highly recommend reading “The Machine Gun” by George M. Chinn. Blowback operation is in volume 4.
https://www.milsurps.com/content.php...eorge-M.-Chinn)
Is this also why the rear part of the English cover is welded?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
There are different kinds of API. The key is that the bolt/breech block is moving forward when the spent casing starts moving back and arrests the forward motion of the bolt/breech block.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
In the Oerlikon cannon API is achieved by using a long chamber. The firing pin strikes the primer while the round is still moving forward in the chamber.
In blowback SMGs API is achieved by firing pin protrusion. The cartridge is stopped in the chamber when the firing pin ignites the charge, but the bolt/breech block is still moving forward when the spent case starts moving back and arrests the forward motion of the bolt/breech block. It’s just a gnat’s eyelash but that’s all it takes to get that Rolls Royce silky smoothness
Yes, I was sort of kidding...we had to learn that and teach it during my first leadership course back about '78 or '79...for assessment and later to be used when teaching the weapons. It's just that the explanation in the book varies greatly with the actual facts. But then, it WAS written by Infantry Snr NCOs. The point of the whole argument we had here a couple years back was that the cartridge must be stopped to fire, or a long chamber(excessive headspace) wouldn't matter and the SMG would still work. I know this is important because I had a '28 Thompson once with a long chamber and it wasn't working until we reduced the chamber length. Anyway, I drag us off topic...again...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
Armourers and the designers will say that there really is no such thing as API. All API is, is simply a coincidental by-product of a breech block having a fixed firing pin set within a recessed bolt-head. Nothing more or less! And you MUST have a recessed bolt head otherwise the base of the round would foul the protruding striker as it was sliding across the breech face while being centred and fed into the chamber. I wrote a long article detailing the technicalities of this for the forum several years ago.
Blow-back is a more accurate description I feel but others say that the operation of blow-back is really just another form of piston operation. The spent case operates as a piston for several milliseconds
I agree, I remember the article and that was the one I referred to...was it really SEVERAL years? How time flies. I always liked the description of the '21/'27/'28 Thompson..."Retarded" blowback...because of the Blish principle. Pretty funny, reading that when I was about 12...Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I sent the Americal Thompson Owners people copies from the late 20's/early 30's Ordnance Board proceedings relating to trials and tests on the Thompson. The experimental lab at Enfield decided that the blish lock (and the cutts compensator incidentally) was a frill if not a direct fraud!. It was nothing to with the coefficient of friction between the bronze and steel/dissimilar metals that caused the delay but just plain old friction PLUS the time it took for the H block to slide up, align and then commence to move rearwards. I seem to recall that they also argued against the notion that the initial movement of the breech block rearwards as the H block slid upwards slightly allowed primary extraction. This was on the basis that there's no requirement for P/E with a parallel case. Enfield also stated that the gun would work without the lock.
Mind you, the whole report was worded in a 'sour grapes' sort of way.
That's an interesting statement but it would mean that they made some thing to fit in between the bolt and actuator or you can't pull the bolt back to cock the gun. There were trials for the desert in which the bolt and actuator were mated by some handy armorer to eliminate the extra friction of the three parts with grit and sand present. I have no proof or pics of this trial. Just hearsay. It makes sense though, as I had one for many years and examined all these little things in detail... The Cutts may not have done much and simply directed the burned powder in front of your eyesight, but they sure look cool. A b*tch to clean sometimes too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
"Compensators" on 1911-type pistols in .45ACP are a bit of a waste of time too.
Mil-Spec ball runs at quite low pressure for a cartridge that size.
"Stiff" 9mm para, .38 Super, 9 x 23 etc are a whole different thing, especially the last two running +P loads.
LOTS of HIGH-pressure gas available at the muzzle to be deflected upwards and even rearwards to tame muzzle rise and speed of the action opening.
Given the "loaded" weight of a '21 Thompson, recoil and muzzle rise are not major issues.
The other tricky thing is "headspace".
Old John Moses designed the 1911 pistol with a chamber that effectively has NO "stepped" form at the front of the chamber. This "step" between chamber proper and the bullet leade seems to have been "optional" in several 9mm items as well.
The honking big extractor on the 1911 holds the case "close" to the breech face. The striker is "floating" and is fitted with a return spring. When smacked by the hammer, it is capable of protruding a bit more than needed and the floating striker, with its return spring, is able to ignite pretty much any cartridge held by the extractor and set things in motion. The system has worked OK for a few years now.
.38 Super is SUPPOSED to headspace on the minuscule rim. MMMmmm: the fact that one can, at a (quite expensive) pinch, run several of the "other" European 9mm rounds through a .38 Super chamber raises some questions.
The modern "classic" is .357 SiG. For those not familiar with this beast, it is essentially a .40 S&W necked down to use .355 / .356 bullets and performing sort of, like a short, fat, .357 Magnum. Based on experience with rimless rifle rounds, one would expect it to headspace on the shoulder, but, no; it is designed to "headspace" on the case mouth.
I would imagine that the point the DDE(trials) at Enfield were making (see BAR thread 34) was that even if you snipped the extending lugs off the H block, the original Thompson gun would still operate satisfactorily in a true blow-back mode. They must have produced a steel H block in order to ascertain that the delay was pure friction as opposed to increased friction between dissimilar materials. It even described the method, results and conclusions of the trial. With a bit of thought and adjustment, this is what the later M1A1 turned out to replicate.
Bruce has good points, specially about muzzle breaks on low pressure cartridges. It need to be something very snappy before they do anything. I used 9mm para in a Star "B" in Largo and it worked when fired from a loaded mag. The extractor did the job too.
Yes, Peter, I'd think they just made something to hold the two together, even just take the side lugs off and then it worked like any other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I wasn't aware that the U.K. produced cover was welded at the rear, Vincent, and I don't recall noticing any welds when I've had a cover off. I have several examples of the Sten which I can look at and so I will look in detail at the cover. If they are all welded as you say at the rear it must have been found that the metal wouldn't form into the required shape without it i.e. it cracked/split/buckled. It's possible that the profile of the blank included a couple of slits which were then welded up after forming. I also have a Canadian made Sten and would expect that cover to be produced exactly the same way as the U.K. cover.
Jim, I seem to recall. & I THINK it MIGHT have been in the Thompson Book. From the Publishers Who also Incidently. ALSO Publish superb works from a 'Well Known Author' on this Forum.....;)Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
That there was a Mod where the blish 'H' pieces were removed. & a Nut & Bolt was fitted transversely across the Bolt in the recess. Where the Blish lock sat. This gave a 'Bar' like facility, for the underside of the cocking slide. to engage & enable the bolt to be pulled to the rear. The gun then was true 'Blow back' & not 'Delayed'.
Regarding the Sten trigger mech cover. There were loads of manufacturers of this piece and there were at least 3 variants of it. Screw holes, locating dimples and screw-holes AND dimples plus the various manufacturers types. Manufacturers were given the spec and manufacturing detail. But they were allowed to make representations to the MoS for relaxations to parts of this in order to make the best use of their facilities, material in hand and costs. So there were fully pressed covers, folded and welded as shown in the Sten book, punched, folded with ears spot welded etc etc.
You could write another book on just the covers if you were a real rivet counter type. Indeed, I relate the story in the book of how one small company in Wiltshire punched them out by the thousands
That's right. I remember that pic now. I have that book...Quote:
Originally Posted by tankhunter
Vincent, does the cover which you have, that is welded, have a manufacture's mark on it and if so what is it, please? I have just taken a cover off one of my U.K. made Stens with the dimple type attachment and with the manufacturer's mark of S106 and there is certainly no welding at all on this cover. From memory I think that all my U.K. Stens have the same manufacturer of cover but the Canadian Sten is likely to be different and I haven't had that cover off yet to see if there are any welds. The thing with form tooling is that it is not an exact science as you are trying to stretch and squash the metal all at the same time, in several different directions, and one of the potential problems is that the metal will sometimes crack/split as it is being formed. From personal experience I have normally found that this problem can usually be overcome by an increase in radius of where the metal is being formed in the tool. If your cover has a different maker to the example which I have been examining I would suggest that the manufacturer had problems with cracking of the cover while being formed and the simplest solution was to introduce 2 slits/cutouts into the blank followed by welding after forming. It is surprising that if one manufacturer found it necessary to introduce several additional operations which were not required by alternative suppliers.
Looking at the cover in detail I have to say that whoever the Toolmaker was for J. W. Spear & Son Ltd (S106) he/she made an excellent job of the tool. The tool has produced a very smoothly formed cover with very few ripples and bend marks etc which are sometimes seen on formed parts.
wasn't the trigger cover stamped out in one piece and then formed in a butterfly press and the curved section brazed together onto the central section ??
Yep, that's right. Thousands were done this way PhilB. And this was an unfoolded plate example shown in the book The question raised by F10 (thread 42, para 1, last sentence) is that more than likely, that contractor was making the same piece but using the simple fly-press in a small garage in Maidenhead as opposed to a large hydraulic press in a well equipped fabrication shop in Bloxwich.
Different manufacturers used different methods. Just so long as a) they were sanctioned to do so and b) the product functioned as it was intended
It would have been a power press with a large flywheel on the side of the press as apposed to a hydraulic press which doesn't have a flywheel, I suspect. This would have been in the days before guards were required by law to be used on power presses in the U.K. and accidents were relatively common such as the loss of finger/s or even a hand.
Ok....... Hydraulic press, power press..... The point I was making was that different contractors were using whatever machinery they had. But no doubt, with 4.2 million covers being produced somewhere, someone will have been using each sort. They certainly were because I spoke to someone who personally punched out the return spring caps and cups
another on the sten bolt....was the firing pin machined on the bolt face or a hole drilled and an insert put in ???
Same again. Different manufacturers, different methods. Those made at Sterling were machined from solid. Some bronze ones a steel stud was an interference fit
Peter, what I would be interested in is if some-one could produce a cover stamped with S106 as I referred to above (post 42) but made in the way you describe which I call the knife and fork method. You sometimes see the "knife and fork" method used early on in the production of a metal part before proper "hard tooling" has been made. It is quite possible that there are covers made the way you describe with the S106 mark but just haven't surfaced yet. The other advantage which you have also stated is that it doesn't require a large press but the disadvantage is that the "knife and fork" method is more labor/time intensive. I will try to get round to having a look at my Canadian Sten and seeing how the cover on that was produced.
There are no manufacturer’s markings on the cover. There is what looks like an index mark on the left side, but I don’t know why it’s there. Maybe it was used in manufacturing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
The only markings I have found so far are on the magazine housing, “TMT IV”, “40147” and the Israeli IDF property mark.
I understand your interest as a toolmaker in how these covers were made. I don’t know much about stamping parts, so it’s interesting for me learn from someone who does. I do know a little about welding and whoever welded this Haganah cover was very good. Remember, this was done before TIG welding was widely available. The steel is only 0.036” thick.
Here are some pictures of the Haganah cover and a MK3 Sten cover made by Lines Bros Ltd.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cover201-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cover202-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cover203-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cover204-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cover205-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cover206-1.jpg
As you can see, the Lines Bros cover was made with rear welded. That’s interesting to me because they were very good at stamping.
The Canadians seemed to be quite advanced at stamping parts back then. Their version of the Mk4 Sterling, the C1 SMG, also used a lot of stamped parts. I have been able to duplicate most of the parts I was missing using my small 50 ton hydraulic shop press. The bayonet attachment is beyond my ability to press, so I am making it from two parts and welding them together. Then I will machine it to look like it was stamped.
Here are some pictures of three covers that are in my Sten parts bin.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cover207-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cover208-1.jpg
The top one is marked “S68”, the center one has a C with a broad arrow inside and the bottom one is “S106.”
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cover209-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2010-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2011-1.jpg
The S68 (Lines Bros Ltd) is welded at the back. The outside was linished, making the join hard to see. It looks smoother than the LB marked cover.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2012-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2013-1.jpg
I believe the "C broad arrow" is the Canadian Government property mark. It is welded at the back.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2014-1.jpg
The S106 (Spear & Son) is like the ones you have, stamped only.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2015-1.jpg
All three are slightly different. The S106 is closest in the picture. It has a larger radius at the back than the others.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2016-1.jpg
The LB marked cover.
Compare it with the S68 marked cover, and you can see there is variation at the same manufacturer.
Thanks for the pictures vincent. Although I don't have any spare covers I do have around 5 Stens, at the last count, and so can examine the covers from those guns. I take it that your last post is a 4th cover by Lines Brothers and not the Canadian cover (Long Branch)? I've got a feeling that the cover on my Canadian Sten has been made differently to your example but can't be sure until I get it out and have a detailed look.
Yes, it’s a fourth cover. It’s also in post #50.
Lines Brothers used their initials or their manufacturer’s code, S68.
People often mistakenly think the LB stands for Long Branch.
Lines Brothers was the only manufacturer of the Mk3 Sten. The LB cover belongs to a semi-auto Mk3 I am working on. I have two other semi-auto Mk3 guns and their covers are also LB marked and made the same way.
Here are some pictures of my Mk5 cover. It has been refinished but you can still see the S106 (Spear & Son) code. It is made like their Mk2 gun cover, stamped only, no welding.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2017-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2018-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2019-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2020-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...over2021-1.jpg
Sorry vincent, I completely missed post 50. So looking at the picture of the Lines Brothers cover in post 50 I would say that the tooling to produce this cover would be a relatively simple affair. The top tool or punch, to some, would have it's lower edge/surface which hit the blank (cover) either completely flat or flat with a small rad at one end. The bottom tool or die would have been 2 parallel blocks of metal secured to a base with screws and dowels. The distance between the 2 parallel blocks would have been the width of the cover. Almost certainly there would have been a spring loaded pressure pad between the blocks to eject the cover from the tool after forming. The die blocks probably also incorporated perhaps 6 location pins for the blank. This type of tool could easily be operated in a Fly Press (hand press). Its when you try to start forming the radius that you would need a power press.
With regards gas welding, years ago welders were much more skilled in the use of Oxyacetylene (gas) welding than they are today. There was none of this fancy Tig and Mig equipment.
Thanks for describing the tooling. It sounds very similar to what I use for pressing AK47 receivers.
What causes the galling you see on the Lines Brothers cover?
I take it that by "galling" you mean deep scratches/grooves? On the edges of the die blocks it is normal practice in toolmaking to radius these corners off so that as the metal is pushed down into the die it flows over the edge without digging in too much. With the Lines Brothers cover these rads either require increasing slightly or, through use, the tool edge has "fired up". This is where tiny amounts of the metal being worked has transferred itself to the tooling causing a rough surface to build up on the tool which in turn then scratches/marks the metal being worked. Normally this can be removed and the surface cleaned up by the use of an oil stone and emery cloth but not with power tools. It is normally advantageous to use an oil or thick cutting liquid as a lubricant when working with form tools in order to help the metal slide over the tool without binding.
Thanks. I would never have guessed it was caused be metal being deposited on the tool.
It surprises me that the Lines Brothers cover isn't made the same way as the Spear & Son cover i.e. in a single hit, or perhaps they did? They were obviously reasonably skilled in the art of sheet metalwork to be able to produce the MK3 Sten.
That surprises me too. Lines Brothers might have gotten around to stamping them at a single hit at some point. I haven’t seen one of their covers made that way, but there is variation in the ones I have. So it’s quite possible they could have made some that way.
It’s also surprising to me that the Long Branch cover is not made from a single stamping. Though we must consider how new this type of production was for guns at the time. Before the Sten guns were made the traditional way. The Sten was a totally new way to produce guns. Like any new production method there’s always a learning curve.
Parts of the Haganah cover are stamped. That makes me wonder why they didn’t make them like the others, with only the back welded.
Was it your toolmaker background that got you interested in the Sten?
Not the toolmaker background that got me interested in Stens. I tend to be interested in 20th century weapons especially WW2 and Cold War from any nation but also have a handful of older ones. When I look at any metal object I automatically visualise in my mind how the item has been made.
Other possible causes for the marks on the Lines Brothers cover could be that the die blocks aren't sufficiently hard enough or haven't been hardened at all which they should have been. Also with a form tool of this type there needs to be a tiny amount of clearance built into the design and so, for example, the Lines simple form tool should have clearance of around .003" per side in addition to the metal thickness. To figure out the width of the punch/top tool of the Lines tool we take the width of the die (=width of cover) minus 2X metal thickness minus 2X clearance (2X.003=.006) = punch/top tool width.
This Sten cover could only really be formed up in a channel type form tool even the type with the welded back as I think the cover is too deep and narrow for normal "off the shelf" bending tools. However, a way round this would be to bend just one side and the base part of the cover with "off the shel" bending tools then weld the other side of the cover on followed by welding the rear part of the cover.
Speaking of manufacturing processes, has anyone ever seen photos or descriptions of how the Long Branch one piece Mk. II magazine housings were formed?
David S. Findlay's book "The Sten Submachine Gun" is an interesting example of reverse engineering.
Remembering how it looked, I would imagine that the LB magazine you speak of started its life as a tube that was pressed into its oblong shape. Then shaped top and bottom. After that the feed lips were formed and a mandril of sorts placed inside whereupon the bottom sections were rolled/pressed over to form the base
Peter - I am referring to the one piece magazine housing used during the last couple of years of production at Long Branch, not the Canadian seamless, formed magazine body. The Cdn. mags are stamped "KC". Kelvinator Canada? As mentioned, no doubt started as a tube, then rolled and pressed into the trapezoidal section. As far as magazine bodies go, there are quite a variety. Seamless body; one piece, overlapped in rear groove right over left; the same, left over right; welded seam along the front; separate back piece spot welded to the u shaped front piece. Maybe others. No doubt the variations were acceptable as long as the magazines worked.
Oh yes, sorry......... But the answer to your question is that they were punched pressed out in the same way as old bicycle handlebar heads (the bit where the round handlebar joins the round upright) were formed. Pressed from round tubular steel. Have a look and you'll see the similarities
vincent, I've now looked at the covers on my Stens to compare with yours. Starting with the Canadian cover I don't believe that your cover has been welded on the back; the weld which you can see on the inside of the cover is what we call "burn through". As the name suggests the weld has got a little too hot and has started to burn through and any hotter may have resulted in a hole. The cover on my Long Branch Sten has been made exactly the same way but the welding is much neater and has clearly been welded by a different welder. There is only a tiny amount of burn through in a couple of places and it is difficult to tell that it has even been welded; it is almost as well produced/tidy as the Spear & Son cover. I have removed a one piece formed (no welding) cover from my Mk3 Sten which would appear to be made by some-one other than Spear & Son because there are small differences in details such as the small forms on the sides of the cover and other small differences. I haven't been able to find any maker's mark on it yet and it is painted which I am reluctant to remove. I would speculate it being a Lines Brother's cover purely because it was off a MK3 but it may not be as it could be a replacement.
Do you have any pictures of your Mk3? Does it have the SA property mark on the magazine housing?
I don't have any pictures at the moment but I will have a look at the mag housing to see if there is a S.A. mark.
I have just had a good look at the mag housing, Vincent, but can't see a S.A. marking. It just has Sten M.C. MKIII on the top and L.B. & the serial on the lower face. Were the S.A. markings normally on the upper or lower face? The overall finish is a good painted surface although part of the rear receiver has rusted in the past but appears to have been treated and the whole Sten then repainted. I can't see any other markings visible.
heres another ive been wondering on the sten, on the chamber of the barrel, what is the throat ? angle and depth ? is there to aid feeding ?
phillb, are you asking, is the taper at the start of the chamber to aid feeding or are you asking for the sizes angles etc and other dimensions? If it's the former the answer is yes.
With 9x19mm the throat is the unrifled part of the barrel bore directly in front of mouth of the case. It is where the bullet sits. Another name for the throat is freebore. The tapered part of the barrel directly in front of the throat is called the lead.
Not quite F-10 (thread 10). The taper or shallow lead-in you show is deliberate recess for the extractor so that the barrel can be inserted in any rotary position without it needing a separate extractor slot or fouling the extractor. In a Sten, the bullet is 'aimed' or directed at 8 degrees right from horizontal where it will (hopefully, with a non drooping mag housing etc etc) enter the chamber. The round nose assists this, not(?) that chamfer.
I completely forgot about the need for recess for an extractor, thanks Peter. pilb, are you able to give us some clarification as to exactly what the question was that you were asking in post 70, please?
i was just wondering why there is a recess , ive now found out after a fair bit of trawling through usa sites that its 120 degrees ..thanks all
I seem to have collected a few sten mags, various markings
l/h side.....SA N45 X2, N45 MB1..................
R/H SIDE....M/13 ,S/14 ( ARROW ) , N93, E&Co, I.C.R.1, S68, L, SA S18, STAR OF DAVID *
any rare ones ?
The examples with the viewing holes in the side are mk1 mags (un modified) and without holes mk2. mk1 mags are said to be rarer than mk2 although there does seem to be a few turning up on the surplus market. Looks like you have 3 modified mk1s with the viewing holes filled up with solder/braze. The mag 3rd from right and the far right mag in 2nd picture look like Indian reduced capacity mags (19rnds?).
Nothing unusual that I can see.
There’s a chapter on magazines in Peter’s excellent Sten carbine book.
The number of books available is getting low, so if you want one… His Sterling book has been sold out for a while and the prices have tripled.. if you can find one.
5 sten trigger mech covers, 3 x mk 2, 2 x mk 5
only one marked is the L.B. one.....second from left is brazed the entire length both sides, field repair ??
yes ive got peters book
There was/is another TM cover variant of the shorter Mk5 gun type. It is a conversion/modifiied longer Mk2 type whereby the sides at the front end have been 'docked' and rounded then the underside has been rounded to suit the new curvature. Then gas welded to suit.
Someone with a bit of time on their hands should write a book solely about the variables of the parts. Especially the magazines where some 68,000,000 were made
It looks like the cover that came with my Haganah parts. (Pictures in post #50.)Quote:
Originally Posted by philb
Did you ever hear who made the Star of David marked magazines?Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
nope no idea
I seem to recall Liebentruth(?) mags were marked with FL and/or the six pointed star. They were one of the first contractors too.
Surely after 9 pages this thread has wandered far enough to cease and re-start as something to do with parts
Attachment 74371was the rear housing made in 2 parts or more ?, if yes why was that when I could of been done in 1 part ?
Your drawing shows 2 parts, the end cap which is a formed sheet metal part and the rear housing bush which is a turned/milled/machined part. Your drawing would appear to show that both parts are made from a single piece of metal.
cheers the lower one, yes that's what I thought
The recoil spring guide on that sheet is incorrect. The drawing set from which that drawing came incorporates a number of errors.
The return spring cup and the related return spring cap were both one-hit pressings. I mention these specifically in the Sten book.
But once again.................... SURELY, Isn't it long overdue time for this long winded, 9 page thread, that's morphed into the manufacture of parts, be closed and a new relevant thread just about parts started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Most of the threads here wander off topic. It might be that some of us don’t know how to start a new thread and just hit reply on a thread that is about the same type of gun? Or it could be a cultural thing?
A moderator can split threads easily. The Vb software is very simple to use.
I'm fine with starting new threads but you believe the problems which I had last weekend setting up a printer to work with my lap top or the amount swearing required to complete the task. Some of us have limited I.T. skills, me included.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....4,203,200_.jpg
is this book any good ?
Why not just get the real McCoy.............. Most of these are just plagerised re-writes worded in a different way. Just my opinion of course
philb, you already have Peter's book, as do I, which you be hard pressed to find anything else to rival.
Findlay's book contains reverse engineered dimensioned mechanical drawings of every part. Plus a lot of calculations and theory that most readers are going to skim over. So, the focus is quite limited.