Skofnung
Member
Could one of you please tell me why the English (and their Commonwealth) decided upon guns with funky magazine locations?
I mean, why did the STEN and Sterling (Patchett) guns have right angle mounted magazines when a bottom fed gun would balance better? I know they kind of stole the 90 degree idea from the Bergman SMG, but why would they keep this feature?
Also, why did the BREN and the Owen guns have top mounted magazines? Why go to the trouble of offsetting sights when you can feed from the bottom? I can't imagine offset sights being very accurate. I might be able to understand the BREN magazine being top mounted for ground clearance in prone, but wouldn't the offset sights mess up long range accuracy?
I guess these guns worked well for what they were intended for, but was there some sort of reasoning applied to the odd magazine locations?
I mean, why did the STEN and Sterling (Patchett) guns have right angle mounted magazines when a bottom fed gun would balance better? I know they kind of stole the 90 degree idea from the Bergman SMG, but why would they keep this feature?
Also, why did the BREN and the Owen guns have top mounted magazines? Why go to the trouble of offsetting sights when you can feed from the bottom? I can't imagine offset sights being very accurate. I might be able to understand the BREN magazine being top mounted for ground clearance in prone, but wouldn't the offset sights mess up long range accuracy?
I guess these guns worked well for what they were intended for, but was there some sort of reasoning applied to the odd magazine locations?