Why are there no Sten-simple combat shotguns?

[cluttonfred]

When submachineguns were complex, expensive, milled-steel items, few armies issued them to many soldiers. Even a simplified WWII M1A1 Thompson was more expensive to make than an M1 Garand rifle or a Colt 1911. SMGs really took off when armies started making them cheaply - MP40, Sten, M3 Grease Gun, PPsh-41, etc.

Why is it that, while armies continue to use shotguns in secondary roles, no Sten-simple shotgun has ever been a success? A magazine-fed shotgun with buckshot, slug (maybe saboted armor-piercing?) and explosive (anti-personnel rounds for engaging targets beyond normal shotgun range, mini-HEAT type rounds for vehicles or buildings) would be a very versatile tool.

The danger of using explosive rounds up close (bad idea) could be mitigated by using a distinctive magazine (color, shape) and maybe some sort of pop-up indicator blocking the short range sights if explosive ammo is used. Firing from an open bolt (with some sort of delayed locking) would allow quick and easy changes from one ammo to another. A custom gauge with short, rimless shells and pistol-type powders would help make for a compact action and good performance with short barrels.

By the way, I have read about the AAI full-auto shotgun and FRAG-12 explosive 12 gauge rounds, so I know these are not new ideas. The cheap and rugged Saiga-12 Kalashnikov-based shotguns are a good example of what could have been developed years ago. I am just wondering what I am missing, why has such a weapon never really caught on?

 

[tallpaul]

for specialized use- ok - for general use- the ammo is bigger/heavier and the full auto guns are not usually "needed" for the work the spcialized guns are used for.... shot gun ammo does not have the range either compared to the cartridge guns either....

that be my uneducated guess...

 

[nelson133]

Shotguns require ammo that is far heavier per round than other personal arms. One of the reasons for going from the 30 caliber to the 22 caliber in military arms is that it allows the individual soldier to carry more rounds. A shotgun with a high rate of fire would require a troop of ammo carriers for each armed soldier for any extended combat. It just isn't practical.

 

[foghornl]

Shotgun ammo is waaaaay heavier per round than rifle ammo.

Short range, compared to rifle/carbine.

Shotguns certainly have applications in combat roles, but short-range up close only.

 

[ArmedBear]

The pump guns you see in sporting goods stores are pretty much Sten-simple already, and can be configured in a much wider variety of ways.

 

[REOIV]

Shotguns are only good for up close in your face work.

As we have more and more urban combat, shotgun innovations will start to show up more and more.

That and shotgun ammo takes up a ton of space and is heavy when you have to carry quite a bit of it.

 

[rcmodel]

Firing from an open-bolt, especially one heavy enough to handle 12 ga., would be an exercise in frustration if you wanted to hit anything.

And a blow-back operated open-bolt 12 ga shotgun would have to weigh about 25 pounds to handle the recoil impulse.

That's why all shotguns have to have some sort of locked breach action if you want to be able to lift it.

rcmodel

 

[RP88]

yea, shotguns are very limited. Anything past 75-80 feet is too much for a shotgun (like pistols, SMGs, and anything designed for CQC). Thats why they only see CQC-entry tactic use, use in trenches, jungle warfare, etc.

I also dont see why you'd need an automatic shotgun. If you have a semi-auto or know how to use a pump correctly, you're firing about just as much lead at the same rate as a good SMG

 

[Steve C]

If you have a semi-auto or know how to use a pump correctly, you're firing about just as much lead at the same rate as a good SMG

8 round mag x 9 pcs of 00 buckshot/round = a 72 round mag in a SMG shot in 8 bursts.

 

[gopguy]

Actually Cobray briefly made a single shot open bolt shot gun in 12 gauge called the Terminator. It had a wire telescoping butt stock and a perforated cooling jacket...they were cheap...but few were made and apparently they are quite valuable now. I had one about 15 years ago and sold it...Interesting novelty but otherwise fairly useless.

http://www.gungarage.com/cobray-terminator-shotgun-manual.jpg

 

[rcmodel]

I don't believe it is quite fair to call it an open-bolt.
Because as I recall, it doesn't have a bolt.

The firing pin was mounted in the back of the reciever, and the barrel slammed rearward to fire the shell when the trigger was pulled.

More like an "Open-Chamber" then an open-bolt design.

rcmodel

 

[gopguy]

Well Cobray called it open bolt in their marketing campaign at the time, but technically you are correct. It did as I recall have what they called a barrel lock and it did grab it so the gun would not recock itself...

 

[zinj]

yea, shotguns are very limited. Anything past 75-80 feet is too much for a shotgun

Shotguns can be effective out to 100 yards with slugs, and around 60 with a tight choke and plated buckshot.

 

[Jack2427]

Couple of thoughts; the M1 and M1A1 Thompson(althought they were not really Thompsons at that point) were not all that expensive to make, yeah they were more expensive than the grease gun and did require forging and milling, but no more than building a M1 or a carbine. But they were not the cheapest gun on the block as the Brits proved with the ultra cheap Sten gun. Getting a shotty to perform like SMG would just not be feasible, as mentioned above the ammo would be too heavy, and the weapon would be not quite controlable.
A SMG and a shotgun just have different missions, each one performs its mission well within its parameters(if it works). But each has its limitations, which is why the M4 is such a good all around weapon, most of the range of a battle rifle, and most of the compactness and close in ability of the SMG.

 

[Jim Watson]

Winchester had a bumper jack simple military shotgun, the Defender, in the Viet Nam era. Four barrels, few moving parts.

 

[cluttonfred]

I did some Google searching...it was the Winchester Liberator, Colt Defender...wow!

http://tml.travellercentral.com/hillberg/index.html

 

[cluttonfred]

Looking over that link to the Robert Hillberg Winchester Liberator and Cold Defender designs has my imagination in top gear. With modern materials, maybe light stainless steel barrels and mechanism in a cast polymer shell, it ought to be possible to design an updated version that would be light and cheap to manufacture. I particularly like the idea of four .410 bore barrels loaded with 3" 000 buck (5 pellets) for a compact, lightweight home defense weapon. A revolver-type speedloader or a big "speed strip" would speed up reloads if necessary, but in most situations 20 .30 caliber balls going downrange at 1100 fps as fast as you can pull the trigger would be the end of the disagreement.

 

[Ash]

Still, it looks more expensive to produce than most current pumps.

Ash

 

[Dave McCracken]

The Sten, based on an even older Czech subgun, was an attempt to produce a usable weapon for close combat that could be made in a small shop, often a converted bicycle shop. Later, Uzi Galil, IDF, used the idea and created the better subgun. Modern ones are made in factories, not bike shops.

A simple fighting shotgun that is reliable, sturdy and effective has already been made. It's called the Pumpgun. Pick your flavor and BA/UU/R.....

 

[Owen]

A blowback subgun is much simpler to make than a shotgun that requires a locking mechanism.

 

[Ash]

Imagine, though, firing a 12ga full auto with a comparatively low number of rounds through a shotgun with a wire stock and welded-on barrel.

In reality, nobody uses Sten or M3 quality subguns today. The entire concept of a cheap subgun is a thing of the past. Even the Uzi is falling off the hill it was once king of. I cannot think of a single outfit that still uses cheap subguns.

And, since pump-actions can be had so cheaply already, who would be willing to tool up and produce a blow-back auto? It might take decades to recoup design and tooling costs.

Ash

 

[ArmedBear]

As far as getting rounds downrange fast, an 870 loaded with seven 2 3/4" 00 Buck shells puts about as many projectiles on target as an M-16 emptying two 30-round magazines.

A shotgun doesn't need to be full-auto. It's a liability, not an asset.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Looking over that link to the Robert Hillberg Winchester Liberator and Cold Defender designs has my imagination in top gear. With modern materials, maybe light stainless steel barrels and mechanism in a cast polymer shell, it ought to be possible to design an updated version that would be light and cheap to manufacture. I particularly like the idea of four .410 bore barrels loaded with 3" 000 buck (5 pellets) for a compact, lightweight home defense weapon. A revolver-type speedloader or a big "speed strip" would speed up reloads if necessary, but in most situations 20 .30 caliber balls going downrange at 1100 fps as fast as you can pull the trigger would be the end of the disagreement.

A 16 or 20 gauge version of the Defender would be sweet.

 

[bwavec]

The simple fact is that the military does not consider the shotgun round to be a viable primary weapon (a weapon that can be used effectively in a wide variety of roles and ranges).

If they did, we would already have full auto, magazine fed, shoulder fired, optics equipped shotguns (with metal cased ammo) deployed with most armed forces.

Shotguns do some things well, but do a lot of things only marginally well (especially since we are talking man sized targets). They seem more viable now in places like Iraq where we are often fighting in a close quarters urban situation. If we were only fighting in Afganistan, you would almost never see a shotgun in a soldier/marines paws on the battlefield.

As far as a cheap to make, but ugly weapon......the Ithaca M37 had a reputation of being very simple (and trouble free to operate).....and they look way more "finished" than a Sten gun.

I think the Sten is what you get when the government designs a weapon, and then expects soldiers/users to be able to build them themselves during training. (One of the likely uses for the Sten was going to be to equip British civilians to fight a Nazi invasion-hence the Churchill: "we will fight them in the streets, we fight them....")

The closest thing that the US had was maybe the M3 "grease gun", but even that looked way more "finished" than a Sten. Just because something is simple and easy to build, doesn't mean it has to look crappy.....I think a soldier has more confidence in a weapon that looks nice and looks "finished".

That's my opinion any way.....take that for what it's worth.

 

[Zoogster]

Shotguns are simply not a primary combat weapon as others have said. Submachineguns no longer are with body armor as standard issue for most armies now either. So they have likely approached thier design peak as well.

A shotgun has limited range and heavy bulky ammunition.
The roles of a military arm are far different than a civilian or militia arm.
For every shot a rifleman fires in combat they will likely travel miles.
They need to be able to carry a lot of ammunition long distances to engage in lengthy engagements if necessary.
That is a big reason a fast .22 has become the standard. Not because it is a superior cartridge, but because it is a superior cartridge in that role. The old ~ .30 caliber battle rifle rounds were superior in terminal performance, especialy if using expanding ammunition (which the military does not), AP rounds or various hybrids.
However in an engagement ammunition runs out far sooner when it weighs significantly more because it means less was carried to the firefight. It also costs more to produce, which means it costs more to equip and train infantry with when every round is larger and takes more raw materials.

It also takes less skill to shoot a fast lower recoiling .22 partialy because the trajectory at distance is so simple and small, and by being so fast it is less effected by crosswind as well.
An important feature when many in the military have little or no prior experience with firearms, and are young guys. You can reserve that specialized training for a limited number of individuals, and issue most a weapon platform where most of those factors are hardly an issue.


So for the same reasons the shotgun is even worse. It takes very heavy bulky ammunition, and the few roles it is great for are now limited.
In some of those roles they already have a suitable weapon that does double duty, the various grenade launchers that fire explosive projectiles and can fire shot.
So it really is unnecessary as many grenade launchers employed by the military are essentialy powerful shotguns firing explosive projectiles even larger than a 12 gauge. So they already have them, they are just not civilian legal, and wouldn't be even in semi auto versions because they have a bore larger than .50 and are not "sporting".

Further some of the few combat platform only shotgun designs, which would obviously have limited numbers of sales to the military were legislated out of the civilian market. Things like the Striker/street sweeper had legislation passed against them turning them into NFA weapons. That means from a production point of view, the market for a weapon that will have limited military sales, and likely be banned in the civilian market has been shown to be a bad idea. Why bother when you can simply use designs you can sell to both markets with slight modifications?

The main usefulness of a shotgun in a military world where most adversaries in modern times will be wearing body armor is in door breaching, and guard duty in places like prisons where what the potential targets are wearing is controlled and limited and the increased short range effectiveness is the primary concern.
If you use anything besides shot in a shotgun, then a rifle does the job better. Most shot does a poor job against soft body armor as employed by most militaries in the world now. You don't arm an army to be good at bullying civilians, you arm them to be good at defeating other militaries if necessary. So a shotgun is a poor weapon for most roles.

You went a step further and asked why there is none that are as simple as a sten? Simple, weapons such as that were designed in very difficult times due to lack of materials and production equipment during war times. A lack of materials and production equipment has never been an issue in a high capacity shotgun design because shotguns have never been a primary weapon in a blockaded country when supplies where low, and speed of production was important.
So the variables at work for an extremely simple submachinegun have not existed for a shotgun.