MK3 STEN Photographic Profile

Here are some pictures of my MK3 STEN (U.K. deactivated). This SMG differs considerably from it's older MK2 brother in the way in which it is constructed and is often referred to by some as a "throw away" gun. While I can quite understand why this may be stated perhaps some of the interesting and original design features are not fully understood. This would have been done in this way for ease/cost-reduction of production in time and materials.

Much thought must have gone into the design of this gun by the Engineering team at Lines Brothers for example the very simple yet brilliant idea of putting an external flange along the top edge of the receiver. This doesn't just serve the purposes of providing an easy to reach and convenient area to spot weld but also in doing this it also pulls the tube (receiver) in together tight along the join. The design of the trigger housing and guard, 2 pieces of metal, is also another well thought out design. The way in which it is bent up and includes an upper ring which slips over the receiver and strengthens the rear of the receiver. It also acts to retain the top of the stock mounting. When the trigger guard is welded in place this strengthens and completes the trigger housing assembly. The apertures in the receiver appear to have been punched out when the receiver was in the flat, as would be expected, thus saving valuable machine time.

Thanks for sharing, some interesting construction details among your pics there.:cheers:

Very nice pictures. Thank you for posting them.

It looks like a couple of the front busing rivets have been removed and the busing welded in. Is that part of the deactivation or a repair?

The hand guard is interesting too. I don’t remember seeing one like it before.

They had to remove the barrel in order to cut a slot up most of it's length which isn't normally possible on a MK3 and so I guess the front bush was removed for this reason. The rivets were then replaced with weld to make it difficult to remove the barrel again and also simpler than using rivets for the firm doing the deactivation work. The long slot which was part of the U.K. deactivation process and permanently "killed" the barrel has now been replaced by a series of 5 or 6 holes because the European Union said so. There are some additional "viewing" holes in the underside of the receiver so that the slotted barrel can be seen if required.

The hand-guard over the ejection point appears professionally made and fitted with rivets. However. I have to ask why rivets and not spot welds were used to attach it to the receiver. The most obvious explanation is that it was done by some-one other than Lines Brothers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

...snip...
The hand-guard over the ejection point appears professionally made and fitted with rivets. However. I have to ask why rivets and not spot welds were used to attach it to the receiver. The most obvious explanation is that it was done by some-one other than Lines Brothers.

---

All MkIII Stens which I've seen have rivets holding the finger guard on, the easiest answer seems to be that they do double duty as part of the barrel support ring rivets.

Lee Enfield is correct. They are helical cut, one-way trip drive rivets

Is it known if the ejection port guard is factory fitted at production or a post production mod.?

Standard factory fit for all Mk 3's. Your Mk3 doesn't have the all important UK safety mod but it does have the associated cocking handle. It doesn't have the modified rib either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Your Mk3 doesn't have the all important UK safety mod but it does have the associated cocking handle. It doesn't have the modified rib either

---

Since it doesn’t have the hole in the body for the Mk5 Safety cocking handle, I would replace it with the original type.

I don't think many people know that the first Mk3 gun butts used the cast abutment/locking plate from the Mk1 butts. If I remember I'll get some photos.

On the subject seen this while looking for something on a WD bike, finish looks worn and not just the ridder and bike..... probably due to the way it was slung.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...w8qj6za8-1.jpg

And a bullet hole in the toolbox

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

I don't think many people know that the first Mk3 gun butts used the cast abutment/locking plate from the Mk1 butts. If I remember I'll get some photos.

---

As Peter had just pointed out, these butts may not be original to the guns they were found on and my statement was by observation only not based upon documentation.

My suggestion was only based on the fact that there were only two outside suppliers to Lines Brothers. Accles and Pollock and Glover and Main. While looking through some of the papers from Lines, it looks suspiciously like - and I feel it in my bones - that it was Lines that designed the cheap, rolled/pressed 2 piece skeletonised butts.

I mean..... everyone MUST have wondered how you could cheapen or simplify the, er....., cheap and simple 5-piece 'T' butt. But Lines did.... 2 pieces of flat steel!

Loads of Mk III's with early butts here.
Attachment 75516

My Long Branch Sten has a skeletonised stock would this be of their manufacture or was it only the U.K. who produced it? I haven't noticed any markings on it but it's painted and so may not be able to see them.

The long branch guns have a similar skeleton stock but all the Long Branch examples I've seen have each end welded directly to the plate whereas the Lines versions have been welded into a complete loop and welded to the plate if that makes sense.

Canadian Sten 'Looped' Butts are easy to ID. As they have rivet holes in the botton 'Run' .
They were for a pair of small spring steel 'Terry Clips'. These held an 'L' shaped cleaning rod.

My Long Branch doesn't have clips but it has a single hole which I think was a mod to drain liquid from the u shaped channel of the butt when stored upright.

Anyone else notice how the rider has those jerry-cans finely balanced on his boot (thread 11).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Anyone else notice how the rider has those jerry-cans finely balanced on his boot (thread 11).

---

All that and enjoying a Hamlet moment...... ( looks like a cigar between his fingers)

No, but someone once told me, a long time ago, that a jerry can with 4 gallons of petrol in it will float on water. I've never actually put the theory to the test; has anyone else? Theoretically it should work with 4 gallons of petrol in it but possibly not the cans maximum capacity of around 4 1/2 gallons???

whatever fluid there was in the can would be academic because it'd be the weight of the liquid, temperature, SG of the saline or fresh water and volume of air that would dictate the degree of buoyancy. But if it was full, it'd go straight down! There is probably a basic mathematical or physics formula out there somewhere. And guess what...., someone on the forum will have it handy!

The story goes that on D Day and following some of the Jerry cans of petrol was deliberately chucked over the side of the supply ships at anchor and allowed to make there own way to dry land. How much truth there is in this story I've no idea???

Well, gasoline does have a specific density that is less than water, (~0.75kg/l vs ~1.0kg/l) so it will float on it's own, the old "oil floats on water". If enclosed in a Jerry Can I imagine it would resist sinking, but not float as though the Jerry can were empty of fuel and filled entirely air (~0.001kg/L).

Some amount of air in the can would improve buoyancy to offset the fuel.

That is as far as my memories of high school sciences take me on this topic, and I could have missed something. Only reason I recall this much is from troubleshooting water in fuel issues with a vehicle. Given a bottom sump in a fuel tank, water will be displaced into the pickup and be a right miserable bastard until the water is drained off, consumed by the engine, or bonded with methyl hydrate and more effectively consumed by the engine.

I think that the 1/2 gallon of air in the jerry can is needed to provide the buoyancy for the weight of the steel can. I did have a problem with a car some years ago which I very strongly suspected was water in the petrol and to prove the point/fix the problem I had to remove all the petrol from the tank. I then tested some samples of the petrol by putting samples in a clear glass jar. The water contaminant could clearly be seen to have settled on the bottom of the jar showing that water is heavier than petrol or putting it another way petrol floats on water. Another aspect to this could be that sea water which is, as we all know, salty. Humans are said to be more buoyant in water of a high saline content and perhaps the same is also true of jerry cans petrol???

A side note to this matter, several years ago my brother got told to stop using the term "Jerry Can" as it was now considered to be politically incorrect and disrespectful to Germans. I haven't heard of anyone else being reprimanded for using this term in recent years apart from the one incident involving my brother. Perhaps not everyone realises that it was the Germans who invented it and we recognised the fact in the name we chose to give it when we copied the design. The British jerry can is a close copy of the original German version but the the WW2 U.S. version differed somewhat especially with the cap. Was/is it still known as a jerry can in the States or is it mainly the U.K. that uses the term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

A side note to this matter, several years ago my brother got told to stop using the term "Jerry Can" as it was now considered to be politically incorrect and disrespectful to Germans

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Was/is it still known as a jerry can in the States or is it mainly the U.K. that uses the term.

---

In Canadian Army speak they are still called Jerry Cans, despite being made of plastic and only rough facsimiles of their WW2 cousins, and the spout is still called a "horsec**k" because it's thick, flexible, and the length of a man's forearm, which is about the same as a...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

In Canadian Army speak they are still called Jerry Cans, despite being made of plastic and only rough facsimiles of their WW2 cousins, and the spout is still called a "horsec**k" because it's thick, flexible, and the length of a man's forearm, which is about the same as a...

---

You sir made me spit my breakfast out with laughter this morning, horse's C**k, hilarious!

everyone I know over here calls them jerry cans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

You sir made me spit my breakfast out with laughter this morning, horse's C**k, hilarious!

---

Item in question:

Old and best version:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...as_spout-1.jpg

New and less reliable version:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5meOqA7Q-1.jpg

We never denoted them by a Mark or Series number, there was not a HC Mk1 or HC Mk1* etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

Old and best version

---

Mine's even earlier...WW2 I think.

Hope this isn't going to turn into a spout waving contest.[emoji1]

Presumably your spout is intended for the U.S. type of jerry can, Jim?

Back in the 1980s my uncle was working in west Africa for a long period and did manage, totally by chance, to pick up an original WW2 German made jerry can. This can did come back with him when he finished working out there and should, hopefully, still be in my garage because he gave it to me on his return. It required a repaint and so I decided to go for the Africa Korps colour scheme because of where it was discovered. If it is still where I think it is I will see about taking a picture of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsimmons

Hope this isn't going to turn into a spout waving contest.[emoji1]

---

You beat me to it Gary

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Presumably your spout is intended for the U.S. type of jerry can, Jim?

---

As far as I know, yes. There should have been a cap for the large threads and a small cap for the tube. WW2 US issue...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gsimmons

Hope this isn't going to turn into a spout waving contest.[emoji1]

---

Yes indeed! We really DONT Want to be seen waving 'Nozzles' about. Do We Chaps?..........:ugh:

Guess I pulled us off topic again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Guess I pulled us off topic again...

---

I think Peter did it two pages ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vincent

Peter did it

---

That makes me feel better. Perhaps I didn't even know what this thread was about then...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Perhaps I didn't even know what this thread was about then...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Here are some pictures of my MK3 STEN (U.K. deactivated). This SMG differs considerably from it's older MK2 brother in the way in which it is constructed and is often referred to by some as a "throw away" gun. While I can quite understand why this may be stated perhaps some of the interesting and original design features are not fully understood. This would have been done in this way for ease/cost-reduction of production in time and materials.

Much thought must have gone into the design of this gun by the Engineering team at Lines Brothers for example the very simple yet brilliant idea of putting an external flange along the top edge of the receiver. This doesn't just serve the purposes of providing an easy to reach and convenient area to spot weld but also in doing this it also pulls the tube (receiver) in together tight along the join. The design of the trigger housing and guard, 2 pieces of metal, is also another well thought out design. The way in which it is bent up and includes an upper ring which slips over the receiver and strengthens the rear of the receiver. It also acts to retain the top of the stock mounting. When the trigger guard is welded in place this strengthens and completes the trigger housing assembly. The apertures in the receiver appear to have been punched out when the receiver was in the flat, as would be expected, thus saving valuable machine time.

---

We were on about this stuff to start.

Sorry Jim, just trying to be funny, you know with all this talk of horsec*ck and spouts and such. By the way, I thought horsec*ck was lunch meat or deli meat. I don't actually mind when threads go off topic.

Here is the WW2 German Jerry can that my Uncle found in West Africa while he was working out there during the mid 1980s. Shortly after receiving it I repainted it in Africa Korps colour scheme and their motif was added as a bit of artistic license by myself. I hope that the image of the Swastika doesn't offend anyone and in the context that it is shown I would hope that it doesn't.

Is any-one able to help translate the text on the can, please, because my German is fairly limited. Is this can intended for Petrol or another type of fuel.

Interestingly, I have seen an immediate post war British jerry can but made by the same German maker as this example and with the same company stamp.

Kraftstoff is = Petrol. & Fuergefarlich is = Flamable. Whermacht is = German Armed Forces. The date of manufacture is obvious.
And 27 is the pressmould number.

Having owned a few German WWII vehicles over the years. I also obtained some variously dated Jerrycans as well. It is a little Pecadillo with Whermacht Vehicle collectors. To TRY to obtain a Jerrycan of each year of Manufacture. The earliest one I had, was dated 1938!
The early variants also has a simple 'X' pressed into each side. Rather than the later improved models, with a centre square. And the 'X' pressing.

The Rarest variant to find, was the SS Issue Can. I have one in my collection at present. An interesting point on the SS cans, was the fact. That ONLY One firm made them = Sandrik.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tankhunter

An interesting point on the SS cans, was the fact. That ONLY One firm made them = Sandrik.

---

I find interesting that they needed their own cans, marked for them...

Does any-one know why the SS had their own cans? Could it have been to indicate that the fuel was only to be used by the SS, perhaps, or was there some other reason???

I think it's one of those seven deadly sins. It's called conceit. I mean....., could you imagine an Army where certain units wan their own special weapons? Or regiments that want their own special uniforms - , or still want horses........... I mean......... Today you'd define it as being up their own, er........, backsides. Just my view

The SS were looked at sideways by the Old School ARMY Generals, who mistrusted them. & thought them 'Criminals' & not 'Gentlemen'. To that end, weapons & supplies requests from the SS Supply chain through the Whermacht. Always went to the bottom of the pile in the 'In Tray'!.....

So....The SS procured/ Adopted/Stole/Captured/Liberated whatever equipment they could get their hands on. This is evidenced by the Miryad of different types of weaponry from all the countries that were conquerd/ occupied.

if you look closely at inspection marks on some K98k Rifles. You may be lucky enough to observe SS inspection stamps. They are rare! I cannot state for certain, but this MAY be due. To them being removed in postwar Workshop refurbs & the like. Or possibly destroyed by the thousands after capture? The rarest of all, are the Totenkopf K98s. They have a small Skull & Crossbones distinctive stamp. These were issued to Concentration Camp Personel as well as those in the Field.

Jerry cans were a different matter. A Humble but brilliant design, that was in demand in HUGE numbers in the Whermact three Armed Services. So they couldn't be spared. Remember, the Whermacht was Infamous for its Blitzkreig Tactics, of VERY rapid advancement & crushing the opposition. This meant as a consequence, FUEL was needed in large quantities. For the Armour & Supporting Transporation. So Jerry cans were used constantly, & the turn over must have been MASSIVE!

So, the SS Quartermasters turned to Sandrik, who were well versed in Machine Pressing Manufacture. & contracted them to manufacture exlusively for the SS itself.

There are a few instances of small arms being adopted by The SS & Police units. That the Army didn't want/Rejected. IE: The Schnellfuer Machine Pistol, The MP41 Smg, ZB26 & 30 LMG, Etc. A Myriad of pistols (Also pistols were used like this with the army) to supplement the demand for Handguns.

And yes, the Sten was adopted also! So much admired for it's simplicity. The Germans even manufactured their own version of it. Albiet they changed the magazine mounting from the side, to the Vertical underneath! It was named the MP3008 I Believe?

I have an ex SS double decal hemet that's been repainted post war and used by Norway. However, you are still able to see the remains of the original SS decal underneath the Norway markings. Is there likely to be anything special/different about this helmet other than the markings because it's ex SS? Thank-you for the information, tankhunter, which is most interesting.

Very interesting stuff Mike, regarding firearms they also had the majority of CZ Mauser production too I think, most of the G24T's went to the SS I believe.

I had an SS issue G24T a few years ago (SS runes hand cut into the butt and a single ownership stamp) and without getting political, after researching the main users of these rifles in the Ukraine, had no interest in keeping it, so moved it on again.

I will look out the pics, still have them on my computer somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

I have an ex SS double decal hemet that's been repainted post war and used by Norway. However, you are still able to see the remains of the original SS decal underneath the Norway markings. Is there likely to be anything special/different about this helmet other than the markings because it's ex SS? Thank-you for the information, tankhunter, which is most interesting.

---

I think helmets was one item that they never appointed a manufacture for, regarding the Norway refinish, I had a M35 helmet (long gone now) which I bought on ebay, it was painted gloss black with a brush, but still had the Norway decals on..... never thought about the decals till later on as I bought it from a Guy in Scotland just assumed it was a Scottish thing..... and proceeded to remove the paint and the decals.....

At the Birminghanm international was talking to one of the dealers some time back, who said the helmets in good condition with Norway decals are worth more than a German double decal helmet.......we live and learn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tankhunter

The SS were looked at sideways by the Old School ARMY Generals, who mistrusted them. & thought them 'Criminals' & not 'Gentlemen'.

---

They had good reason to believe the SS were criminals. The SS ran all the concentration camps after ’43. “Totenkopf” is short for SS-Totenkopfverbände. In English it means SS Death's-Head Units. They ran and guarded the death camps. I am sure the Old School ARMY Generals knew about the camps. Even my mother, who worked in a U-boat factory, knew about the death camps.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8/Belsen-1.jpg

A soldier with a Mk3 Sten and a death camp survivor. British 11th Armoured Division at Bergen-Belsen I believe.

I have visited Belsen on three spate occasions, each time I was on Exercise. & had my Own Land rover to roam Freely! There is absolutely NOTHING left of any original structures. It was all burnt to the ground by Flamethrower Mounted Bren Gun Carriers by the British Army. You see Typhoid was Rife & needed to be eradicated! There are Many cairned 'Pits' with wording on them. Stating how many People are buried in that particular mass grave.

It is a very moving & Emotional feeling when you are there. Deathly quiet & the hair on the back of your neck, REALLY prickles!......

So, the Totenkopf Verband marked Weapons are very scarce to find! After these 'Peoples' involvement at the camps. it is perfectly understandable, If the markings were erased Post war, during refurb Programes!......

Just My thoughts on this Subject. :(

I believe that it is very important that people are educated on exactly what "what went on" in these camps as there appears to be a growing ignorance among the the the general population of what did and of the SS involvement's in these camps.

3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the history of

I have managed to find an early type of cocking handle without the turned down end to retro fit to the MK3 Sten that began this thread. I was also lucky enough to be able to get a Lines Brothers marked trigger housing cover from the same vendor. Hopefully the cocking handle is correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Hopefully the cocking handle is correct?

---

Good question. It’s certainly a step in the right direction I would say. They sell them over here as “MK3 cocking handles.”

Have a look at the pictures on page 61 of Peter’s Sten book. It looks like it doesn’t have the hole in casing for a safety cocking handle. Hard to say for sure, but to me it looks like the cocking handle is the earlier MK2.

I see what you mea, Vincent, but unfortunately it was the only cocking handle that I could find without the turned down/reduced end for the safety locking of the bolt. To be fair to the vendor it was described as an early type cocking handle but the description was not specific as to which mark of Sten it was intended. I think that I was fairly lucky to find any cocking handle without the reduced end and it will be a useful spare to have if nothing else. I will most likely use it, assuming it fits, until a more correct example crops up.

I agree. It’s a good find no matter what.

Here’s a picture from a vendor here in the US.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...es20Sten-1.jpg

As you can see the earlier Mk2 handle has a turned down/reduced end. But it’s not a safety for locking the bolt.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2020Copy-1.jpg

The Mk3 handle works the same as the Mk2. Removing the turned down/reduced end just simplified it, as Peter says in his book. The turned down/reduced end on the Mk2 handle can’t reach the casing. If the casing had a hole, it wouldn’t go through it.

just traded for these pretty sure they are genuine mk3 ?

Going by the manufacturers codes the one on the left was made by The University of Sheffield and the other 2 by John Chatfield.

Vincent, in your descriptions of the cocking handles, are the MK numbers which you have attributed to them referring to the MK of the gun or is it the MK of the cocking handle? For example, in your first picture of post 58, the top cocking handle which you have labeled as a MK5. Does this mean that the cocking handle is a MK5 cocking handle or was the cocking handle originally designed/intended for the MK5 Sten? Of course this handle has now found it's way onto many/most other MKs of Sten.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Vincent, in your descriptions of the cocking handles, are the MK numbers which you have attributed to them referring to the MK of the gun or is it the MK of the cocking handle?

---

They are cocking handle MK numbers.

There’s a drawing on page 248 of Peter’s Sten book that shows the five cocking handle MK’s.

The MK4 and MK5 safety cocking handles are covered in detail on pages 294 & 295 and there are diagrams, they also show the spring collar that was part of the safety modification.

Looking through some WW2 pictures I see Mk2 guns with Mk2 or Mk5 cocking handles. All the WW2 pictures I have of Mk3 guns have the Mk5 safety cocking handle. The only picture of an unmodified Mk3 gun I have seen is the one on page 61 and it looks like a MK2 cocking handle to me.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...le20sten-1.jpg

It came as part of a Mk3 gun parts kit. :dunno: :confused:

That's a version of the Mk3 handle used on the Mk3 gun. I have the same on mine.

Vincent, the part in your post 63 wouldn't just happen to be someone's idea of a custom fire control lever would it, by any chance???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brit plumber

That's a version of the Mk3 handle used on the Mk3 gun. I have the same on mine.

---

Thanks, BP. I was thinking it might be.

There are no markings on the one I have. Does yours have markings?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Vincent, the part in your post 63 wouldn't just happen to be someone's idea of a custom fire control lever would it, by any chance???

---

No. It’s a cocking handle.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo..._kit_640-1.jpg

The cocking handle in thread 63 definitely isn't an official UK made/spec cocking handle for reasons explained in the book. I would say that it is a locally made variant, made to give a greater degree of grip to the user.

On the introduction of the Mk5 class 'A' safety modification handle, the others were declared obsolete. Not obsolescent, but unsafe and therefore obsolete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

The cocking handle in thread 63 definitely isn't an official UK made/spec cocking handle for reasons explained in the book. I would say that it is a locally made variant, made to give a greater degree of grip to the user.

---

Thanks Peter. There’s a boxes “SA” mark on the magazine housing, so maybe the Finns made it.

In this thread Stencollector posted the picture below.

https://www.milsurps.com/attachment....1&d=1395087031



https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ndles202-1.jpg

The one on the left is a Mk2 handle. What’s the simplified one on the right? Were manufacturers allowed that much deviation or is it a transitional handle, before the Mk3 handle?

The cocking handles without the small diameter were superseded by the ones WITH the smaller diameter to give the cocking handle a bit more support in the b-block. Notice that they all have a larger diameter where they protrude out from the cocking handle slot. Main photo, thread 68, handles 3,4,5,6,7 from left show this. This is to cover the possible sharp punched edge of the cocking handle slot and prevent fore-finger being sliced on sharp edge while cocking gun. Not necessary on Mk4 type because finger too far from sharp edge.

As an afterthought, the vast amount of Mk5 cocking handles were made in and around the Reading area by small machine shops on sub contract to ROF Theale in order to speedily implement the A class modification and also supply Theale of course

...........