Printable View
Attachment 74158Attachment 74157Attachment 74156Attachment 74159
Hello all. I'm in the throes of negotiating this Sten as newest addition to my collection. I only have these pictures to go on, and would sincerely value any feedback as to what I may be dealing with here. I am particularly intrigued by the lack of visible welds. I have been reading my Sten bible by Mr. Laidler but have not unearthed any leads thus far. Any identification info would be fascinating and helpful. Thanks, Mike.
The magazine housing was made by S106; WJ Spear, now part of Spear and Jackson Ltd. The tube looks like it has been made up due to the lack of 'ears' where the trigger mechanism housing joins the main body.
It looks like the ones we see here that have detachable trigger mechanism housings. Could you post some pictures with the cover off?
Is this an earlier magazine housing? Pre April 1942? Attachment 74160
Has not the mag housing in post 1 been refinished with the welds linished/ground off smooth but the mag housing in post 4 has not been refinished?
To start a new thread go back to the forum page and click on, + Post New Thread It’s near the top of the page.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsimmons
In addition to the trigger box missing its ears, the bottom of the magazine housing collar has markings "ES1(?) 2016, caliber mark, and proof marks. Country of proof? Who is ES1?
I am pretty sure that parts of an original were used along with a new main tube to assemble a gun. If this is the case, I can't see it having much value to a collector.
Sorry, I didn't mean to highjack the thread.
I didn't think you had hijacked the thread Gary......... We were talking about a Spear and Son mag housing (thread 2) as are you now. Am I missing something?
Regardless of the later US Markings, that is definately a UK Made mag housing I can assure you!
Just had to stop and get binoculars out to watch a Dakota flying low overhead. Now that IS hijacking the thread!
I guess I should've been clearer in my wording(or lack of it). I was trying illustrate the differences in the types of welds used, and can it be used to date a mag. housing? The example used in the book (Sten Machine Carbine) on page 49 is an Elkington made one, does the same apply to the OP's and mine?
Thanks for the feedback guys. Not sure if I see a consensus here but is there a doubt then as to the originality of this piece? Do the lack of welds indicate a fake i.e. "made up" if that's what you mean Mr. Laidler? The seller is asking a pretty penny for the weapon owing to its condition and swears it is all original, but original can be interpreted in many ways.
Side note. I have another Sten in my collection, this one ex the Finns, replete with weld marks etc. I recently replaced the bulbous and aesthetically unpleasing - to me - winter cocking handle with a smaller locking model, put on a Mk5 shroud and also installed a collar on the recoil spring to secure the cocking knob on the bolt. She's fully functional and I reload many rounds per month to keep her well fed. Amazingly accurate and reliable, it vies strongly for range popularity with a younger Uzi and an AKSU. Attachment 74181
Thanks Vincent. You asked for a pic with dust cover off. . This is all I can get from the guy. Hate buying remotely but in this case I have no other viable option.
very nice mate
As Peter pointed out, the ears are missing. If you look at what is left of them under magnification you can see they have been milled off and do not contact the tube. So the trigger mechanism housing has to be attached to the tube some other way.
The ones I have seen that look like this have a block welded to the tube that aligns with the front of the trigger mechanism housing. There’s a screw through the block that threads into the front of the trigger mechanism housing. When the screw is removed the tube can be pulled forward and removed from the trigger mechanism housing. (That’s why I wanted to see under the cover)
I have never heard of an original Sten made this way.
*
Except for the barrel nut and magazine housing, the gun looks very clean. It looks like the other parts have been refinished or made new. The tube doesn’t have a mark on it.
*
If I didn’t know you were Switzerland, I would say it might be what we call a “Post Dealer Sample.” Those are guns only licensed dealers here can own. If they give up the license, the gun has to be sold to another “dealer” or destroyed. So the value of these “dealer samples” is a lot less than Transferables. A “dealer sample” Sten might cost around $1,500 and a Transferable around $7,000 to $8,000.
*
The tube has been reamed on the inside, like a Sterling. I don’t recall if any Stens were made that way. Mine has a new tube/receiver. Maybe Peter can tell us, or someone who has an original body tube, if the tubes were reamed?
*
If it was me looking to buy this Sten, I would ask for pictures with the cover removed. And I would tell the seller why?
I often find people selling guns who don’t know what they have. They nearly always appreciate getting more information.
I would also want to know about the “2016” marking on the magazine housing.
gsimmons, I think that the reason your mag housing, which you posted pictures of in post 4, looks different to 5 Cammando's in post 1 is because it has not been refinished. I would suggest that the mag housing in post 1 has simply had the welds ground down to produce a smoother surface as part of a refurbishment. I was hoping for some confirmation or correction of this following my post 5.
I couldn’t find a picture of attachment block I was talking about. I did find a slightly different one. It will give you an idea of how it works.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...block201-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...block202-1.jpg
It’s a semi-auto version. The slot in the block prevents the tripping lever from being moved into the automatic position. The round hole is for the pin that holds the trigger mechanism housing in place. Anyhow, you can see how the housing is attached and why the ears are not needed.
5 Commando, if I was in your position I would ask the vendor for pictures with the trigger housing cover off, as Vincent suggest, and without giving a reason. If buying remotely as in this case it is reasonable to ask for plenty of pictures; if the vendor refuses, personally, I would steer well clear.
I can't add anything more except that while the remainder of the gun is definately a Sten, albeit filed and linished to make the thing look good, the main casing is 'wrong'. A bit like a VW Beetle made into a dune-buggy. It might sound like a VW and run like a VW and be basically a VW floor pan.......... it ain't a VW Beetle!
But on the other hand, if your in a country that you can own and use it and the price is right..... then I'd buy it.
A picture says a thousand words indeed, and is probably what's been done here, thanks. The reluctance of the seller to provide further info or pics raised the final flag for me and I've declined the purchase gracefully. On a side note. Here on the continent we're still spoiled for choices when it comes to deactivated Stens and the like. New 2016 EU rules which dictate deacts to be welded up are now being legally circumvented. Vendors now provide - quite lawfully - deacts that are sold as "parts", without barrel or bolt and trigger mechanism. For many this is ideal - simple enough to source the rest and reassemble into a perfect and unaltered piece. Not quite what the draconian framers of the new guidelines had in mind. Another example of the idiocy that is hurled in bucket-loads from the ivory towers of Brussels. Leave.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent
---------- Post added at 09:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------
Touché. It's a dung beetle!Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
I would question how lawful it is to assemble even deactivated parts into a complete item as logic would suggest that it would then need to go through a proof house and meet the current E.U. deac specs in order to get a certificate???
Yes indeed! The 'Idiocy' of the EU is breathtakingly stupid & unessacary most of the time! When we are finally 'extracted' from it's web. We in the UK must start all over again, to attempt to reverse the idiotic, unfair & unnesacary EU directive on deactivation. After all, the problem they had in france was NOT from here. it does NOTHING to prevent terrorists from achieving what they want to do/obtain. & ONLY serves to penalise Lawful collectors, reenactors, Etc. It is UNJUST & UNFAIR on us to bear the brunt & expense. For something that was NOTHING to do with the UK. & was able to happen due to the Shengen Agreement, which was initiated by Adolf Merkel. Dropping cross border vehicle checks & searches. That if left in place, would indeed have stopped this sort of thing happening! The EU Committee & NABIS or Balistics & Intel Agency here in the UK. Have already previously stated our specs are the tightest in Europe! all that was needed, was for other member states to bring their specs up to our level. That would have been fine!....
I couldn't agree more Mike, chances are though that as the new deac specs slowly conger line their way onto the statute books, they will more than likely stay there, no matter what side of the EU Iron Curtain we happen to be on.
With a very few exceptions, most of our firearms law is added to ... then set in stone, no matter how futile and ineffective the dreamt up sheeple appeasing amendment of the time happens to be ...
We will just have to see how things pan out I guess and hope this refreshing new wave of common sense we are enjoying here in Great Britain, slowly works its way down through our legal system and unties 40 years of unwelcome EU intervention that's invaded every aspect of our lives.
The EU and politics aside, it is always worth bearing in mind that it is the courts that decide whether a thing is deactivated sufficient to fall outside the legal and lawful definition of 'a firearm'. And in any case, the deactivation certification only applies to those that have been submitted. And those deactivation rules are/were not retrospective. So the old welded-up Chinese rifle that your dad brought back from Korea is still a welded-up dewat! The case of the DP L1A1 rifle (an L60A1) proves how sensible the rules can be when interpreted sensibly by prosecutors.
Tankhunter and Peter are you able to confirm, please, if I have understood the new E.U. de.ac specs for rifles correctly. That is only the chamber has to be slotted (and pinned) and 6 holes drilled through the barrel near the chamber but the barrel no longer has to be slotted along most of it's length as was the case in the U.K. until recently when the new E.U. specs came out??? Thanks
bit like they do in germany
Peter hasn't got a clue about the latest deact rules....... or even the previous ones now that I think about it! Tankie........?
If it's just 6 holes in the barrel near the receiver that would leave the remainder of the barrel intact with potential for possible future abuse and by the very people the new E.U. deac laws were aimed at in the first place.
I should imagine it's the previous weld everything solid rules on SMG's etc, but with the addition of welding gutted mags in place.
Pistol slides being welded to prevent stripping and revolvers having their cylinders encapsulated to prevent access in addition to the previous mandatory work.
But dealers are still selling old spec deacs and I have a feeling this will continue...
Apparently, rifles can have doctored removable mags but the rifle mustn't be capable of accepting a standard mag, if my understanding is correct?
It would be interesting to see some images of these new EU spec deactivations, especially these adapted magazines you mentioned.
In the Latest report from the HBSA, page 9 regarding Deactivated weapons, I won't type the whole thing but one part may be of interest,
Quote; At present there is much confusion since there is no information from Brussels and, in the UK, the penalties are in the Policing and Crime Bill which will probably not become law until Easter 2017, It should be assumed, however, that any deactivated firearm which is not done to the EU Regulation specification would now be regarded as a Section 5 item if " Placed on the Market" or taken across a border between Member States .
Slightly of the subject but, I'm led to believe that there are planned changes to be written in our law regarding "lever release" firearms such as the ones produced by Southern Gun..... don't know the whole story but just a snippet I was told yesterday, but something like "No bolt disrupting device" ........or words to that affect.
Anyone planning or looking at such weapons I would hold on to your hard earned cash till or all the proposed EU Weapons Directive has been Ironed out and the dust settles.......
Interesting stuff Geoff, it's all very confusing at the moment. Regarding banning bolt interrupt mechanism designs... what good does that possibility serve (what's the issue exactly), have these people in the corridors of power really got nothing better to do??
Is it all academic and a bit premature at the moment. Surely, if nothing has been enacted into law at the moment, the old rules must by definition still apply. The only laws that apply and are enforceable are statute laws. Indeed, any new EU lead legislation awaiting might/could be put on ice. But I won't be holding my breath on the last bit
The bit about the removable mag came from World Wide Arm's website but only refers to rifles deactivated to the new E.U. spec and is assuming that I have understood what I have read correctly.
John, I,m not sure what it will serve but its a way of saying they don't want lever release anymore, this is the Home office and not the EU... my mate knows more about it, will ask when I see him, where he got it from etc, he has his hands full at present.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
heres a german deact sten
Sten MKII, T-stock, deactivated MP (WWII) - zib-militaria.de
From what I understand, the mag is modified with say a slot in it and the mag housing on the gun has a corresponding block in it so that a non modified mag will not fit the gun.
My understanding from reading W.W. Arm's web site is that it's a hardened dowel pin that is fitted into the mag aperture in the receiver and then welded into place; a bit like the pin in the chamber/barrel.
Yes that sounds right. And the mag has a corresponding slot to allow that mag to fit.
Yes, I think that's the idea but I don't know if it will be the same for smgs and mgs.
ive looked though the sten book but cant find out who made this, any help anyone ?
also when a sten was issued to a soldier how many mags went with it ??
cheers
Why not wipe the mag housing over with some 4X2 soaked in oil and then wipe over again with a dry cloth which may reveal some further markings. Then perhaps take some further pictures "square on" and of both sides of the mag housing, then repost. The problem you have here, I believe, is that you haven't given people much to go on with just one angled picture.
All I can say is, it looks to be Brit Mk2. You ask who made it but the problem there is that STEN parts were made all over the UK in small workshops upto huge factories. So there may be a manufactures code marked on it but it could have been assembled at any of the ordnance factories. The serial number should help.
The serial number will only tell you who assembled the gun because the serial numbers were allocated to the assembly factories and not the makers of the part - in this case, the mag housing
You could remove the magazine catch and plunger assembly. The makers mark might be under one of them.
On the other hand, I'm bound to ask, but what does it matter..........?
here are some more pics, not actually got it yet
Was it a U.K. vendor or did you purchase from an overseas seller, philb? There seems to be a few overseas traders selling Sten odds and ends etc on eBay.