Sten Rail Update

[444]

A couple months ago, I posted a thread about trying to mount a
Weaver rail on my Sten subgun without drilling holes in the reciever tube. My first impulse was to use accuglass to glue the rail onto the gun. After talking to one of the local machine gun gurus, he told me that he made a rail mount for the Sten and he would be happy to make one for me. What he did was simply get a new mag well. Or whatever you call the thing on a Sten that is part mag well part dust cover. He drills it and screws a Weaver rail onto it. On his gun, he drilled on through the tube making the mount solid. I decided against this. Installation was about as simple as could be. I knocked out the front sight and slide the mag well/dust cover off. Removed the spring loaded gizmo that holds the part in place on the gun and installed it on my new part. I then removed a Leupold/Gilmore optical sight from my Ruger PC9 and attached it to the rail.
How good is it ?
Better than before. For those that missed the first thread, my gun shot about six feet to the left using the factory sights. The front sight was mounted clear on the right side of the tube for some reason. I saw no reason to own a gun that I had to use six feet of Kentucky windage to hit anything. This mount at least allows me to have an adjustable sight. The mount moves around like crazy. But, from about 20 yards, using a rest, I can probably keep all my shots in the black of a 25 yard pistol target on semi-auto. This isn't target accuracy, but this is a short range weapon, that fires from an open bolt. Heck the bolt weighs more than the rest of the gun and it flys forward on each shot. The stock is as loose as the scope mount. But, I will now be able to compete in the local machine gun matches and at least enjoy my investment.
I will try a couple pictures although my photography is seriously lacking. The piece of paper the gun is sitting on is my tax stamp, but it didn't come out. Just wanted to let all the lurkers out there know that this is totally above board.

 

[444]

And another with the original part in the foreground.

 

[444]

Yet again.
By the way, the Crown Royal bag is my hillbilly camera case. Hillbillys can't afford Crown Royal.

 

[444]

I am sure you are tired of this now, if you were interested to begin with.

 

[MicroBalrog]

Actually we're not bored. Tactical STEN! Way to go!

 

[JJohnston015]

I want a STEN.

Oh, MP5s are cool and all, but they have no personality.

By the way - it sure is bright in Pahrump at 3:58 AM. Hope you didn't get a moonburn.

 

[444]

That is latent radiation.


My opinion is the Sten would be one of the last sub-guns I would buy again. It was a first generation subgun made at the cheapest possible price.
Today, subguns are very expensive, so you have to stick with what you can afford. And the Sten was the second cheapest subgun I could find. I could have had a MAC for less, but at the time I considered that to be an inferior gun to the Sten. However, for another thousand dollars I could have had an UZI, which I consdier to be a much better gun. MUCH better. It would have been well worth it.

 

[Johnny Guest]

444, you wrote - - -

" It was a first generation subgun made at the cheapest possible price. "

I always thought the Sten was one of the second gen SMGs, like the MP 38 and 40, the M3, and such-- Lotsa stampings and shortcuts to production. The earlier, fully machined and milled types, such as the MP 18, Thompson, and Lanchester were the Gen One types, IIRC.

Yeah, I know the Sten is a somewhat crude example of the gunmakers' art, but it is really a part of history. I became infected with the "wants" for one when watching the old WW-II movies about the Brit paras and commandos. Rent the video of "The Longest Day" or "A Bridge Too Far" and get "fired up" about your piece again.

Best,
Johnny

 

[444]

Johnny, I am not sure. I am not a big NFA expert or anything. I always considered stuff like this to be first gen. the Uzi, Mac and stuff like that being second gen and closed bolt stuff like the MP5 third.
I have no idea if this is correct or not.

 

[SDC]

The normal nomenclature goes:

1st generation - big, machined firearms lovingly built with care(built the way a gun is SUPPOSED to be built ), with a wooden stock and a bolt that ends flush at the chamber; eg. Thompson, MP18, Lanchester, Reising, etc.

2nd generation - smgs built as fast and cheap as possible, with stamped or tubular receivers; ALL of these have a fixed firing pin. eg. Sten, PPSH, PPD, Austen, Owen, etc.

3rd generation - anything with an "overhanging bolt", that places part of the mass of the bolt ahead of the breech face, to collapse the overall length into a smaller package. eg. UZI, Kommando, Ingram, etc.

Things like the MP-5 are either a "post-third" or a 4th generation design, depending on who you talk to. The real difference between the 1st and 2nd gen smgs is in ease of manufacture.

 

[444]

I stand corrected.