hi all
anyone know who is making the repro loop butts for sten guns I keep seeing on the web ?
Printable View
hi all
anyone know who is making the repro loop butts for sten guns I keep seeing on the web ?
hi
are these dimensions for the mk1 sten ?
as seems longer than the mk2
phil, there is no title to the drawing which you have posted but you have labeled your post as Sten Panels. Does the drawing relate to the trigger housing which is welded to the receiver of the Sten???
yep it does
hi all
has anyone got a pic of the sten gun mk2 front bushing rivets ?
thanks
Are you able to clarify exactly which part you are referring to please, phil? Is the part attached to the trigger housing?
The very first part of this video shows the rivets being put into the barrel bushing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAUdrKG31zE
We call them headless rivets here. They are just short sections of mild steel rod.
She does seem to look at the rivets very carefully each time as if each end of the rivet is different before putting them in the holes but as you say, Vincent, they appear short parallel sections of rod. I did wonder if one end had a small centre hole and the other end didn't in order to aid peening over which would explain the operator looking at each rivet carefully before insertion.
yes that's the ones, I assume they are welded in then smoothed off
Not welded just peened with a hammer on the outside and the inside is peened against the iron stake which you see in the film. I suspect that the inner end of the rivet is centre drilled in order to improve the internal or blind side of the peening process, as I have mentioned already. The part of the rivet which is directly hit with the hammer will tend to peen over more readily than the blind end and by centre drilling the blind end it would tend to balance out the rate of peening. You see the operator examine each rivet closely before putting it in the hole which is why I think the ends of the rivet are different.
Phil,
The drawing looks like its from the plans I posted in the Knowledge Library, just beware some measurements are not correct, it will be obvious on some parts, the barrel nut being one of them, which is in fact 37.6mm (ish) the .6 does vary as the nut does take a few knocks so you need to take a few then work on a average, I,ve made two new Mk V grip clamps for members, the problem is I had to go for an average measurement which was based on two barrel nuts I have and the average was .6
I believe the Mk2 barrel bushings were originally brazed in and the rivets just peened as Flying said. Peter would know for sure.
Look in Peter’s Sten book. IIRC, he describes the repair for loose barrel bushings. That’s the only welding of the original bushing I can think of.
I cut a scrap section of receiver away from a Mk2 bushing a while back and one of the rivets just fell out.
These days the bushings are plug welded in. The closed-bolt semi-auto builds put a lot more stress on bushing than the original FA system. The semi-auto return spring is stronger and the bolt is slammed closed with every shot fired. There’s no API and you hear the ring sound of metal hitting metal as the bolt closes after every shot.
Most of Long Branch Sten MkII (1943,44, 45) production the rear housing ring, trigger mech housing and front trunnions are spot welded rather than riveted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
I can't say on 1942's as there are soooooo few of them around. Generally the 1942's seem to reflect British production methods (ie. ugly bubbly welds holding on the trigger mech and attaching the mag housing parts).
I seam to think that the ones I took apart years back were silver soldered and the rivets were just there to locate everything and add strength.
The mk1 body side parts (or trigger mechanism housing) of the Mk1 are the same dimensions as the Mk2.
If the bushes were silver soldered/brazed as well this could have been done post production as a repair or refurbishment because the bush was loose. If it was felt necessary to silver solder/braze as well as rivet the bush at the production stage I wonder why the bush wasn't simply welded to the tube?
Maybe they wanted to be able to replace the bushing without a lot of difficulty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
The barrel bushing is welded in the Carl Gustav M45 (Swedish K) and it doesn’t come out without a fight.
If silver solder was used and not braze it would seem an odd choice of joining the 2 parts together because I would have thought it would result in a weaker joint than if brazed. If braze was not used is any-one able to offer an explanation as to why, please?
I think sometimes the wording of Silver solder is confused with silver brazing rods........ as we use solder for pipe fittings and electric work but never call it silver solder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
As for brazing think the silver gives a lower melting point than a standard brazing rod....
Silver Solder has a significantly lower melting point than brazing rod and in my experience produces a significantly weaker joint. It's my understanding that brazing was always used for steel framed bicycle joints never Silver Solder.
Some people call Silver Solder "Hard Solder" because it is harder than Soft Solder.
Look on page 292 of Peter’s Sten Machine Carbine book.
Under “Repairing Loose Barrel Seating Bushes”.
“During manufacture, the barrel seating bush was soft-soldered into place within the body casing and secured with four rivets.”
In the next paragraph, Peter goes on to describe the EMER for the repair of the loose bushing.
Attachment 74999is there anyone making these bushings in mild steel ?
It's amazing that they ever considered soft solder sufficiently strong enough to attache the end bush, even with the rivets, and no surprise that they came loose.
Yes. Misc. | StenParts.comQuote:
Originally Posted by philb
I don’t know their reasoning for using soft solder. It wouldn’t be my choice, but there was a war going on and the Sten gun was a revolutionary concept at the time. I can’t fault them for not getting everything right the first time. They got it right enough in my book. The Sten made a significant contribution in winning the war. Some intelligent people learned from the Sten and improved on it. They used stronger induction brazing on barrel support of the Mk4 Sterling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
Yep.
"Silver Solder" / Silver Braze" is wonderful, if expensive, stuff; especially the rods with 70% + silver in them.
The answer to many a "gun-plumber's" prayer; relatively low working temperatures, almost flows like water in a properly prepared join, wicking in where others won't go. VERY strong.
Also useful for joining "interesting" materials like "semi-stainless" to things like 4140, etc., without "cooking" either component.
Cleans up well for almost invisible joins.
I'd imagine it is preferable to a weld so that it doesn't disturb the barrel bushing when set in a jig. Welding could quite easily pull the bushing and thus barrel beyond the correction of the foresight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flying10uk
As Bruce points out the Silver content is what your paying for, Imagine the price of a bike...... or even the scrap value if they used Silver, then again most bikes these days are Alloy or carbon fibre, do they even sell cotter pins anymore ?
I've never heard of silver solder being used to join a steel frame bike together only braze on the joints which is the traditional method used. Steel frame bicycles are still available for those cyclists amongst us who are not too bothered about image. I purchased a new touring and mountain bike a few few years ago and insisted that the bike shops which built up the bikes used steel frames for both bikes.
Does every-one fully understand the difference between silver solder and braze?
My mistake I thought you had mentioned silver brazing rods regarding the bikes etc.
I,ve used all types from the most common brazing rod, bronze/ Brass for basic steel jobs in a worshop and the more expensive Silver rods where its needed in hard to get areas and need a better flow....
If that were the case, why does the EMER for repairing loose bushings call for welding?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brit plumber
Desperation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
Seriously though, I have no idea. There's bound to be a good reason for all this and It's not something I've thought to much about.
Perhaps hangover from the Mk1 where you couldn't weld it?
The Mk3 gun bushings were also riveted and soft soldered. It makes it fairly easy to get the bushings out if you need to. That’s the only reason I can think of for using soft solder.
One of my Lanchester magazines came apart recently. It wasn’t the usual failure where the retaining plate flies off into the grass never to be seen again… followed by the spring and platform. This time the reinforcing sheath stayed in the magazine housing and only the body came out. It turns out the reinforcing sheath was only held on with soft solder and not spot welded like others are.
For someone like myself who works in the metalworking industry the question of how the bushing was attached during manufacture when it was not done in the manner that I would have expected is very interesting. I have not been criticising the way in which the bush was originally attached but rather trying to get an understanding of why this method was chosen. I still don't understand why soft solder was used unless it was as Vincent suggests as an easy method to remove/replace.
Soft solder and rivets is quick and easy. No skills required. I think it would be strong enough to last the predicted combat life of 70 hours.
They might have had issues with welding to the thin casing tube. When you look at pictures of early guns the trigger mechanism housing ears are welded with two spot welds on each ear. Presumably that was done to avoid warping the tube. Later you see a “cold weld” running the length of each ear. It’s a weld that doesn’t penetrate deeply. Most of it sits above the surface and as the name implies, it’s not very hot. On the Mk5 they spot welded the ears to the casing, further reducing the chance of warping the tube or having burn through.
The Mk5 bushings were riveted and brazed in.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...busshing-1.jpg
Soft solder and rivets might have been a crap way of doing it, but the gun had a life expectancy of 70 man hours. After that it was beyond economic repair to repair it. That the last Stens in the UK Military lasted until 1972 must be testament to the crap method of manufacture and the sheer mechanical genius of Harold Turpin
Peter, the EMER which Vincent has previously mentioned on this thread called for the bush to be welded in cases where the bush had become loose. Do you know when this EMER came out, please, and by 1972 did most of the Stens still in service have the bushes welded? Were rivets and soft solder used for the reasons suggested by Vincent or was there another reason for using this method, perhaps to give the joint some flexibility?
As previously mentioned I am not criticising how the joint was made but I am very interested in why it was decided to use this method.
I remember my metalwork teacher at school once told me that, under certain circumstances/conditions, a brazed joint can be stronger than a welded joint. I can't remember his reasoning behind this assertion but that is what he said.
Welding would only be used on a repair, where applicable.
If all other guns were Servicable, & did not have a loose barrel bushing. It would have been a waste of time & manpower to recall all the Stens in service. To do any work, that did not actually need it at the time. As they were Obsolecent as the Sterling was going/ was introduced. Thus obviating the need to recall the whole 'Fleet' in Service during that time period.
yes indeed, 70 Man Hours was the 'Guesstimated' life expectancy of a Sten in wartime. BUT.......Like the jeep, it served on in a HUGE number of cases. Without the need for major repairs or overhauls. For quite some time!.........Nothing lasts forever of course, & Inspections on a quarterly or six month basis at most units. By The Unit Armourer/s Ensured that any repairs or defects. Were effected by Him/them there. Or if needing the next line of workshop repairs. With jigs or equipment, not held at first line. They would have had this welding or other Repairs & overhauls, done there. (Field Workshops) :cheers:
One other point worth remembering with this solder and then rivet method was that in REAL life, with an Advanced Primer Ignition (API) ignition cycle - as in the Sten et al, the face of the breech block will never (?) actually strike the rear face of that bushing (or the barrel of course) because the percussion cap commences detonation at .040" or less and certainly WILL have detonated the cap by .014" (or is it .017"?) before the breech block is fully forwards, in battery, against the bushing.
This means that you'll never get the shock loading of impact of the breech block on the bush because at .014" away, the now fired case is acting like a piston and starting to travel rearwards (at 60:1 against the bullet) effectively cushioning any metal to metal contact.
Clever man that Harold Turpin
Good point about API Peter.
With my Mk5 Sten, the face of the breech block strikes the bushing after the last round in the magazine has been fired and the trigger is still being squeezed. The Mk4&5 Sterlings do the same. I assume that’s normal?
That is normal for all of them without a mag HOD. It really doesn't matter at all with the Lanchester and Sterling because the barrel is screwed in with a large diameter thread that ain't going anywhere (lanchester) and with a large nosecap in the Sterling. But, Sterling nosecaps did come loose and were a bit of a pig to fix because they were copper brazed, rivetted with drive rivets and rolled.
The loose Sterling nose cap was a Base Workshop repair for the Sterling. The gun was rotated on a spit and the muzzle was heated to the melting point of the braze. In the HOPE that the braze would melt and run into itself and in effect re-braze the nose cap to the tube. The foresight protector had to be wired on tight too otherwise that'd fall off! Mind you, if oil etc etc had got between the tube and the nose cap you were really wasting your time and the gun was ZF
Is any-one aware of any problems with the Stens which had the bush welded, in accordance with the EMER, for example weld cracking which has become apparent after the gun had been used?
The Germans welded the bushing on the Gerät Neumünster. They also pinned the barrel, like an AK.
I don’t understand why they were all so set on having a removable barrel. If they were really disposable guns, why not do away with the bushing altogether? Just make the barrel collar bigger and weld it into the casing.
The Mk2 was made that way so that it could be stripped down and put into a foolscap paper size cardboard box, complete with a basic cleaning kit, magazine loader and 3 (or 4?) magazines, Then 60 put into a container and air dropped
I don't know if many others have tried to weld metal together that has previously been soft soldered together but I have found that unless you remove all traces of the solder first it is very difficult to achieve a good weld. I have only ever tried this with MIG welding and so don't know how other forms of welding would result if contaminated with solder. I became aware of this problem from welding car bodywork that had previously been lead-loaded.
MIG is not the best choice if you can’t get the surfaces 100% clean. Oxyacetylene or TIG are better when there’s some contamination of soft solder or lead. They let you get the part much hotter than the melting point and soft solder or lead will flow like water, making it easy to remove. With TIG it gets mixed in… or splatters all over the place because you don’t have the ability to get the parts really hot before you weld them.
100% clean is always best. But sometimes you have to live with what you get. Occasionally I get some contamination from braze on Sterling parts. I think most of it floats to the top of the pool, like dross when you’re melting lead. A quick pass with a flap wheel and it gone.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6/08/cpg-1.jpg
I am guessing the pistol grip is one of the 600 Canada had made from butt stocks as described in Peter’s Sten book?
Otto Skorzeny's favorite, the Mk6S.
I used to work on the rolls Royce, and we always had to heat panels to remove any lead as it would go BANG when tried to be mig welded
Did you replace it with lead or body filler after welding?
I believe these rusted up air dropped WW2 containers still occasionally come to light in the wide expanses of Norway, complete with heavily corroded contents!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
only lead filler used on rolls Royce / Bentleys etc
Were Mk3’s not air dropped then?
I didn't say that Vince. I just said what the spec for the mass produced gun was to be - and Turpin responded with the Mk2!
I got that Peter. Just wondering if Mk3’s were also air dropped or only Mk2’s because they were more suited to it?
Yes, Mk3's were air dropped. We know that for certain because they have been photographed with Dutch resistance parties. The Mk3 design was nothing to do with Shepherd and Turpin of course. It was all down to Jacob Lines.
Incidentally, Lines's grandson and wife live in Oxford, very close to me and are good friends of my daughter. It was only 2 years or so ago that daughter told me that John's family made toys, cycles mecanno etc etc that the penny dropped. Now another member of the family has added a Mk3 gun to their family archives. What goes round, comes around as they say......
Thanks Peter. We don’t hear much about the Mk3 over here.
Meccano! Wow, that takes me back a few years.
Considering the wartime expedient and very clever design of the Mk3 (it's got to be a simple as it's possible to go from a manufacturing perspective) I am surprised that Finland not only bought them, but refurbished them too.
I wonder if the contract was "X number of Sten Carbines" and they just got what came out of store, so an assortment of Mk2 and Mk3's?
I'm quite sure that's exactly what would happen. There's no differentiation in the military when it comes to weapons, just fill the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Do you own a MK3 Sten of your own Vincent? If not I'll take a few pictures of mine (U.K. deac, of course) sometime and post them, now that I've figured out how to use a digital camera.
No, I do not have a real original working Mk3 Sten. I have only ever seen one for sale here and my pockets weren’t deep enough to win the auction.
I would love to see some pictures.
I don't think the Finns STEN guns were issued out of military stock. They were surplus so probably the crap we wanted to get rid of. They were in poor state so the Finns refurbed the majority and canabalised those beyond repair.
Thanks for the info :cheers: They are quite the mixed bag that's for sure, ex Fin British / Longbranch Mk2's and Mk3's can be encountered, I bet they paid little more than scrap value, probably bought by the Ton!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brit plumber
I will do some pictures of my MK3 Sten and Post. My example has clearly been refinished but I'm not certain if it was done during it's military service or by a keen collector/owner since deactivation. There is a small area of the receiver that has, at one time, been badly corroded because deep pitting can be seen. The rust must then have been removed/treated and the whole gun repainted.
I look forward to seeing it, I have had a few Mk3's over the years and will try to find the pics on my office system, trouble is after so many system upgrades over the years the "migrated data" isn't always where you think it should be..
Found one of them, sold it some years back.
I bought it in a rather tatty condition and refurbished her. She had the bolt safety slot mod, (two tabs welded onto the tube, above and below the the bolt handle slot, top tab also has a clearance slot cut through the spine, so the bolt could be physically held away from the breech face via a thin piece of sprung steel fed through them). I have seen a couple of others modified in this way over the years.
I don't know who modified them this way, I guess some foreign operator for safe vehicle transport, seems the most logical reason to me.
I'd like to see a close up of this spring loaded safety mod Clarkie. To be honest I see no point in 'improving' on the A class safety modification whereby the cocking handle is pushed through the casing. That way, the bolt is locked (forwards) and the gun is safe and cannot be jolted to fire it. Whether the bolt is held slightly rearwards makes no difference whatever.
You COULD argue that by being slightly to the rear you could look and see that the chamber was empty. Yes, you could...... But if the bolt was fully forwards and locked, then by default, the chamber MUST be empty, simply because as the bolt goes forwards, the gun fires. And if it ain't fired then locking it slightly rearwards doesn't solve nor prove anything.
I always remember those words '.......very little was expected of the Mk3 Sten. But of that very little, it gave quite a lot'
Morning Peter,
I will try to find some more pics, but don't hold out much hope, these were buried way, way back in my achieved files. I never really understood the reason for the mod ether, but I have seen a couple of others modified this very way over the last 10 years and just can't fathom a good reason for it.
I just came to the conclusion it was a "foreign minded" modification..
Why don't we keep these things, I really wish I kept a nice example of a Mk3 for my own collection. I think they are quite brilliant pieces of austere design and prove what can be done when the pressure is really applied!
I will attempt to find more pics later today.
ps, should have said three tabs brazed on not two
Thanks for posting the pictures. I enlarged the safety mod so Peter could get a better look while you’re searching.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d20right-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d20right-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...od20left-1.jpg
It looks like it’s intended to keep the breech block forward. Is it possible it was done before the safety cocking handle mod?
First Mk3 I've seen in some time. I agree that the safety that engages the bolt handle would be the best. The idea of holing the bolt back will allow garbage to collect inside.
Thanks for that Vincent, I can't find the other pics anywhere, I do have pics from two other examples I have owned in the past (when I can find them), one was ex Finnish the other a standard issue example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:34 PM ----------
Now that's a very possible solution to the conundrum! :thup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
Thanks Vince but I can't actually decipher whatrand how that system works. Can anyone else?
Interesting to see the standardised trigger mech cover with dimples and holes. Made to fit whatever trigger mech you have. The stripping screw threads were always a bit of a problem on the early Mk2 guns so a drawing was produced so you could drill out holes to match the dimple type cover. The trouble was that there were sooooo many slight variations that the drawings/modification just fell into disrepute and everyone reverted to the well used but not officially recognised method of repair. Drill out the threads to o/d and put a nut and bolt through!
John, its because we sell them to buy other things.........Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
It’s the same concept as the safety on some of the Gnome et Rhône R5 Stens. A piece of steel wraps around the body to block the cocking slot.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...gr20safe-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fety20gr-1.jpg
Gnome et Rhône R5
While it technically works, you have no idea how much this technique frustrates me when you discover it's been done while trying to separate a transmission from an engine still installed in the vehicle. Usually some hamfisted moron has cross threaded the engine block while trying to use the transmission bolts to draw in the input shaft, after ruining the block they drill out the thread and run a backing nut on, typically just under an exhaust manifold or some other wrench labyrinth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Peter, my blood pressure is suddenly up for some reason...
Ah, yes Sentry duty, but in the case of the Sten, the 1.5" or so long 2BA bolt just goes in through the TMH cover, through the TMH side plate, through the mechanism, out through the other side side plate and cover. Put a shakeproof washer on, the the nut and the job's done! Doesn't interfere with the trigger mech nor any hidden nasties for later!
I do appreciate the effectiveness on a Sten, no arguments there, and it makes perfect sense, It's better than drilling out and having some pop-rivets rammed in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
With the eye for limiting snagging protrusions (on a service firearm) I would select a Chicago screw, and a dab of thread locking compound, it would have the same effect and be a slick repair.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...08/CS102-1.jpg
Of course now we are venturing into the theoretical of how to make substandard repair less bad, on a gun that is no longer in production, well, thinking exercises are never a bad thing.
How true Geoff, I suppose once I figured out a direction of travel regarding my collection (all things L1A1) I stated selling other pieces off, I would love to have a really good Sten reference collection again though, I've got the mk2, but would love a replacement LB example and a good Mk3, now an early fully stripperble Mk5 would be the icing on the cake, oh well...
Have you had your L42 out again since its inaugural shoot mate?
---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:47 PM ----------
I had to do a quick Google for that maker Vince, very interesting, I wonder if its possible that these Stens saw French post war service and had a similar (but slightly Heath Robinson ) retrofit in their service ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
Thought it was a little Foreign Minded...
I've started a new thread with a generous quantity of pictures of my MK3 STEN which doesn't seem to have any sort of locking forward provision for the bolt such as a hole in the receiver.
Seeing the the previous posts mention drilling the trigger housing/cover for attaching with screws etc reminds me of an incident some years ago which seems funny now but not at the time. I'd decided that I needed/required a top quality custom touring bicycle which I commissioned a cycle shop to organise and put together for me, as you do. I'd just handed over a truly ridiculous amount of money to the shop when they decided that the bike wasn't quite legal for use in the U.K.- it didn't have a reflector attached to the rear mudguard. Imagine my horror when the bike "mechanic" produced the most enormous, largest hand held electric drill that I've ever seen in my life, just to drill a 4mm hole through a bit of plastic. I asked him if he didn't have a hand powered hand drill, he said no, then insisted that he get on with the job of making my new bike "legal".
Yes, it’s most likely a foreign modification. My guess is it was done before the gun was modified with that Mk5 Safety Cocking Handle. The return spring is only collared at one end, so that might help date the modification.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Not yet, still needs work but will be on the range I guess in September........Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Direction of travel....... well I,ve gone full circle while also going off in tangents regarding collecting, but the L42 was the icing on the cake...... As for Sten's well they have certainly tested me in the last few weeks, Although I had offered to help out a forum member or two with the pistol grips they had purchased, never thought it would give such a run around, all will be revealed in due course.....
John, I had one of these a couple of years back let it go also!Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
A THIN blued steel bad goes around the reciever & through those two 'Top Hat' mounts. It had a 'L' shaped tab for finger & thumb gripping. To enable the band to rotated slightly.
The band was NOT the same size as the entire circumference of the Reciever. it was approx. 1 Inch shorter. This enabled it to be 'fed' through the two top hat mounting points. & also under the Trig Mech cover. The top hat mounts were BRAZED onto the receiver, not welded.
I heard it was an INDIAN Army Mod, though I cannot confirm this. It seems an overly complicated 'solution' when you see the, 'Simplicity Itself'. British Mod of a replacement bolt handle, & a hole in the Reciever!.....:confused:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tankhunter
If it’s an Indian Army mod, why does it also have the British Mk5 Safety Cocking Handle mod?
When did the British Mk5 Safety Cocking Handle mod come out, 1944? Maybe the other safety mod preceded the Mk5 Safety Cocking Handle mod and was later abandoned?
Evening Vincent, the mk5 cocking handle was probably added at some point after this mod was added, or when it was a pile of deactivated mk3 sten parts in bins!
It's a strange old mod, but I would say Mike's guess is about on the money, Indian, or perhaps French.
I don’t know about India. They don’t strike me as being overly concerned about safety. The mod also looks like a trap for mud and dirt. I can’t see the Indians doing something like that…. but the French!
As far as I'm aware the Indian Mk2 and 3 guns got the British mk5 safety as they were still under British control until 1947. I don't see why they would change ideas in 47 and most in service guns had probably already converted by then.
Well, I would agree Vince, a decidedly French type mod!Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
DONT Mention anything FRENCH!!!!!!! :madsmile: Peter would be able to tell you the exact date of the introduction. For the through the receiver side, cocking handle Mod. It is all in His book on the Sten!.......;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
It MIGHT well be the case, the Cocking handle mod that pushed through. MAY have been done at a later stage of this guns life perhaps? & the overly complicated 'Band Safety', was removed. & the hole in the receiver drilled & the new pattern handle fitted. I have seen a few done like this myself.
The two 'Top Hat' mounts would be left in place I guess. As heat would damage the blued finish & leave some unsightly mess on the receiver externally. As there mounts were Brazed on, rather than welded.
Oh yes, as a parallel point of interest. I have (As my others on here) Seen MANY Stens, that have had NO cocking handle modifications done whatsoever! I would presume these went to overseas Aid. To Foreign Armies, as in UK Service. This mod would have been implemented to our own in Service guns. As part of the Workshops Work Programe's. If however, the guns were going to be withdrawn due to the Implimentation of the then new L2A1 Sterling SMG. Then obviously this work was unnessacary & would incur unwarranted manpower hours at Workshop Level. The Stens would be returned to Ordanance Depots to be 'Cast' from Service.
Just my own thoughts on this. It WOULD be interesting to know though, where this modification actually originated from? :cheers:
The cocking handle modification was a mid war class 'A' modification in the UK Military. Immediate. Introduced as a UK Military modification in April '44 but incorporated into series/new production in Jan '44. We had loads of UK Military Stens and all had been modified. Indeed, I even had to retro modify one by tig welding over the hole etc and making good just so we had a representative example in the archive. There was even a little sequel to that event too*. ALL Mk 5 guns and late Mk2 guns were modified from new
The cocking handle safety modification is, in my humble opinion, a classic example of K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid. Simplicity itself, designed by a mechanical arch genius that made the Sten into one of the safest SMG's (or at least as safe) as the others of the era. The breech block is locked forwards or rearwards. And he didn't get even 1 penny for his efforts
* Off at a tangent, so look away now if you are one who keeps telling me to stick to the point...... A group of Officers from the newly Free Poland Army were looking around the Workshops at Aldershot when they saw this Sten gun plus another couple, hanging from wires after having gone through the workshop phosphating /paint programme. One of them looked aghast, looked over to Maj Keith Axxxxx (also a Polish speaker) who was shepherding them around and asked '.....are you still using these.....?'. A quick explanation quickly explained the situation.
Now days there's a financial reward for coming up with safety or service suggestions...Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
GEMS, don't ask me what it stands for but this is the MODs scheme for new ideas, and by ideas I mean a way of saving money. If it's a fantastic idea but cost money....they have no interest.
Those programs are well intended, but can turn ugly as others seek to take your stuff away so they can get a reward. I remember one we called the “4-F program”, F--- a Friend For a Flashlight.