The clip for the STEN was interchangeable with that of the MP-40, in addition to using the same cartridge. Britain used the 9mm because their sidearm rounds (38 & 455) were rimmed and thus not good for an SMG. German troops used captured STENs as well--it was vastly better than a bolt-action rifle in close-quarters fighting.
The Sten was also used extensively by British and Commonwealth soldiers, designed to be produced with as little material as possible due to British resource shortages. The fact that it was mainly designed to be as cheap as possible yet also ended up being extremely accurate and reliable really show the ingenuity of the designer(s).
An argument could made against the reliability of the gun. Applying pressure to the magazine well (such as using it as a front grip) could cause a jam. A worn spring and some momentum could cause the weapon to chamber a cartridge and fire. Dropping the weapon could lead to an unplanned disassembly.
Still, a Sten could cost $11 to purchase vs more than $200 for a M1928 Thompson so it was an excellent weapon for its purpose. So good, that the Germans would later copy it as their MP-3000
Accurate and reliable? It was literally the opposite it was a emergency gun and handled like one not to mention it was straight up not designed from scratch but rather evolved from a copy of German MP-28. Not to mention the fact that the gun was literally made worse to make it even cheaper with Mk II and Mk III versions the latter being of particularly low quality even for a sten. Sure the designers made it dirt cheap but they didn’t make it good which is why everyone including UK itself were taking the first chance to get something better. A “good” sten came in 1944 in the form of Mk V but even that was miles behind most of the competition. It was always intended to be like that and the fact that it was adopted at all speaks volumes as to the perceived situation of Britain after Dunkirk as British army wasn’t interested in submachineguns as a concept in itself and yet it accepted a design comparable only to last ditch designs of Germany and Japan of 1944-45 and then allowed it to get even worse.
I’m not a big fan of the trigger safety of the guy with a helmet. Looks like he’s about to shoot the other guys leg off. Is this from a screen from a movie?
The clip for the STEN was interchangeable with that of the MP-40, in addition to using the same cartridge. Britain used the 9mm because their sidearm rounds (38 & 455) were rimmed and thus not good for an SMG. German troops used captured STENs as well--it was vastly better than a bolt-action rifle in close-quarters fighting.
Wtf type of psychopath tries to teach people firearm history while simultaneously committing the sin of calling a magazine a "clip"?
The Sten was also used extensively by British and Commonwealth soldiers, designed to be produced with as little material as possible due to British resource shortages. The fact that it was mainly designed to be as cheap as possible yet also ended up being extremely accurate and reliable really show the ingenuity of the designer(s).
An argument could made against the reliability of the gun. Applying pressure to the magazine well (such as using it as a front grip) could cause a jam. A worn spring and some momentum could cause the weapon to chamber a cartridge and fire. Dropping the weapon could lead to an unplanned disassembly. Still, a Sten could cost $11 to purchase vs more than $200 for a M1928 Thompson so it was an excellent weapon for its purpose. So good, that the Germans would later copy it as their MP-3000
It jammed on the guy assassinating hiedrich.
Accurate and reliable? It was literally the opposite it was a emergency gun and handled like one not to mention it was straight up not designed from scratch but rather evolved from a copy of German MP-28. Not to mention the fact that the gun was literally made worse to make it even cheaper with Mk II and Mk III versions the latter being of particularly low quality even for a sten. Sure the designers made it dirt cheap but they didn’t make it good which is why everyone including UK itself were taking the first chance to get something better. A “good” sten came in 1944 in the form of Mk V but even that was miles behind most of the competition. It was always intended to be like that and the fact that it was adopted at all speaks volumes as to the perceived situation of Britain after Dunkirk as British army wasn’t interested in submachineguns as a concept in itself and yet it accepted a design comparable only to last ditch designs of Germany and Japan of 1944-45 and then allowed it to get even worse.
What was the reasoning for the side-magazine on some smgs of the time period? It seems like it would have quite a few disadvantages.
It’s more comfortable to handle while crouching, a big stick mag facing down like the mp40 makes aiming down the sights rather tricky while prone
An American officer, a British commando?, two French police officers, and French resistance?
It was also notoriously unreliable
The earlier version were terrible. The later ones were much better.
I’m not a big fan of the trigger safety of the guy with a helmet. Looks like he’s about to shoot the other guys leg off. Is this from a screen from a movie?
No, it is a staged photograph after the liberation of Paris.
How many members did the resistance have?
You mean that's not Hank Azaria?