![sten mark 2 vs mark 5 sten mark 2 vs mark 5](https://2img.net/r/hpimg11/pics/967076IMG5448.jpg)
#STEN MARK 2 VS MARK 5 FREE#
Below left: Free French soldier in training with Sten Mark 2. Perhaps appropriately this type was first used in action on the ill-fated Dieppe raid of 19 August, 1942 in which the Canadian Army fought gallantly. It also has a bayonet, details of which are clearly shown in the illustration, and examples of this are now very rare. Although made to similar specifications to the British version, it is of somewhat better finish, with a more robust skeleton butt. Much help was given by some of the Dominions, notably Canada, and the weapon illustrated is an example of the type made there at the famous Long Branch factory. All that could be done was to pare and reduce and simplify so that three weapons could be produced with the same effort and little more than the same matériel, that had produced two previously. however, an equal need for other weapons too. Despite these drawbacks, the Mark 2 was an important weapon.Īccordingly. In particular the lips were very susceptible to damage, which had a serious effect on the feed and led to endless stoppages It was also found that the dirt and dust inseparable from the fighting in the Western desert, tended to clog the magazine, and although careful attention to cleanliness helped in this respect the problem was never really solved with this particular weapon. Perhaps one of the most persistent weaknesses in the make-up of the wartime Sten gun was in the relatively poor quality of its magazine, although in the circumstances of hasty construction with poor metal this is not altogether to be wondered at. Although the British Army, accustomed to its high quality Short Magazine Lee Enfield rifles and handsomely finished Bren light machine guns, joked about their tin Tommy-gun' they got good value out of it.
![sten mark 2 vs mark 5 sten mark 2 vs mark 5](https://hatchfive.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/sten-gunner-44.jpg)
This was a most useful refinement at a time when the British Army was engaged in large-scale fighting in North Africa. Nevertheless it worked, and not only worked but managed to incorporate one or two improvements, notably by attaching the magazine housing to a rotatable sleeve, held by a spring, so that in bad conditions it could be turned upwards through 90° thus acting as a dust cover for the ejection opening. It looked cheap because it was cheap, with its great unfiled blobs of crude welding metal, its general appearance of scrap-iron, and its tendency to fall to pieces if dropped onto a hard surface. This resulted in the Sten gun Mark 2, the ugliest, nastiest weapon ever used by the British Army. Nevertheless Great Britain was by this time fighting very literally for her existence and had therefore reached the inevitable conclusion that in emergencies, appearance was not important, only effectiveness, which set a fashion particularly in world sub-machine guns, for many years afterwards. The British gun trade had always prided itself on the finish of its weapons almost as much as on their effectiveness, and the tradition of machined and blued metal allied with polished walnut was a strong one. the intention being to simplify manufacturing processes wherever possible. The Mark 2 was basically a somewhat stripped-down version of the Mark I.
#STEN MARK 2 VS MARK 5 SERIES#
this being the first of a long series of changes in the general design of the weapon. Towards the end of 1941 a modified version of the Sten Mark I appeared in the form of the Mark 2. 303" SAA Ball Great Britain STEN aim MARX 8