# Sten Mk II vs. MP-40



## Zniperguy114 (May 13, 2010)

Well, I've looked at some of the comments in the PPSh-41 vs. the M1928 Thompson discussion and I've decided to make a poll about the Sten Mk II and the MP-40.
Here are some simple stats:

Sten Mk II

Calibre: 9mm
Weight: 7.1 lbs
Lenght: 30 inches
Number Built: 4.6 million (including all variants)

MP-40

Calibre: 9mm
Weight: 8.82 lbs
Lenght: 32.8 inches
Number Built: approx. 1 million


----------



## Airframes (May 13, 2010)

If you mean which was the better weapon, then it's no contest - the MP40 series wins hands down! Although the Sten did the job, it was a mass-produced, 'stop-gap' weapon, which was inaccurate, and, even with the much better MkV, potentially dangerous to it's user, or those close by.
The MP40, although perhaps a little complex, fitted the requirements of the time, and later, and was generally reliable and more accurate - for an SMG. I've had the opportunity to use both, and I would definitely vote for the MP40, even though the bottom feed was inconvenient at times!


----------



## bobbysocks (May 13, 2010)

MP40 without a doubt. the sten has its charm...slower rate of fire and simple construction..lighter. but as far as being reliable and dependable...durable...MP40.


----------



## Gnomey (May 13, 2010)

Terry has pretty much summed it up in my eyes. The MP-40 is the much better engineered weapon and therefore is more accurate and safer. The Sten was effective but certainly had its problems which are well documented, it was effective but not as good an overall weapon as the MP-40 in my eyes.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 13, 2010)

The STEN looks and feels like a Piece O' Cr*p. Yes, it works, mostly but inspires no confidence. Handled both. Fired neither.

- Ivan.


----------



## Naumoff427 (May 25, 2010)

I agree with Ivan


----------



## Glider (May 26, 2010)

It was common practice in the British Army to get rid of the Sten and replace them with captured MP40's which sums up the difference.


----------



## parsifal (May 29, 2010)

The STEN has just one thing going for it....ease of manufacture. The MP40 was cheap to produce as well, but I would say the STEN was even cheaper.

And that means they can be produced almost anywhere, and in g reater numbers, and in wartime its the numbers that count, nothing else. The fact that the MP40 felt and looked nice but was built at 25% the output of the STEN tells you which army is going to win. If you have four STENs firing at your one MP-40, the MP-40 guy might be happy and prooud of his beatiful weapon, in between ducking for cover.....


----------



## timshatz (May 29, 2010)

Kind of funny that the Russians did so well in producing a variety of cheap and effectve SMGs while the Brits and the Germans never developed one of the same. The Sten, it is my understanding, was based on a design the Germans rejected while the MP40 was a bit overengineered for what it was expected to do (a common problem with German Weapons).

The Russians/Soviets seemed to master the production of cheap and relatively effective SMGs like no one else. Even the US didn't do it as well (thinking the greese gun, not the thompson).


----------



## luchs (Jun 2, 2010)

in my experience sten is a better weapons of german MP 38/40..
firrst the sten had a selector to shoot in semiauto or in automatic..so you che use a sten like pistol catridge carabine and switch to full auto if needed..
second you can shoot a sten in lay down position easier the with a MP 40 that have a long vertical magazine..
third sten have a most effective sight ,sten have combat dioptre that act like modern ghost ring sight..Mp40 have classic folding ,two position sight..
the maior trouble with the ste was the magazines..there a lot of bad magazine around ..but if you check your magazine do you have a good effective SMG far more handliest and easy to operate then a MP40..


----------



## riacrato (Jun 3, 2010)

What good does you a diopter sight on a submachinegun firing from an open bolt?

Imo both were average. The MP40 was/is a great weapon to shoot, but also still too expensive due to its telescopic bolt. The Sten is a little too radical in the "simplify for manufacturing" department and is uncomfortable to hold and unreliable. I held both and shot a semi auto replica of the MP-40.

PPS-43 probably takes the cake.


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 3, 2010)

I've never shot the MP-40 replica (If I'm thinking of the same one you are referring to), but everthing that I have read indicated that the replica was notorious for stoppages.


----------



## luchs (Jun 3, 2010)

riacrato said:


> What good does you a diopter sight on a submachinegun firing from an open bolt?
> 
> Imo both were average. The MP40 was/is a great weapon to shoot, but also still too expensive due to its telescopic bolt. The Sten is a little too radical in the "simplify for manufacturing" department and is uncomfortable to hold and unreliable. I held both and shot a semi auto replica of the MP-40.
> 
> PPS-43 probably takes the cake.


if act as a ghost ring sight is good...
shoot a semiauto replica at the range do not give a right idea of the combat use of both weapons..
in germany this firm 
Sport-Systeme Dittrich Kulmbach: Produkte
make a real seamiuto copy of the Mp38 (and not a frankestein made from spare and a new lower) 
that in italy is current avaible..if you have 3000 euro to spent in it..
and work well..


----------



## Glider (Jun 3, 2010)

Digressing a little on the Sten Gun. On display in the Imperial War Museum is the King George VI Sten Gun. It was carried at all times by an aide in a specially built wooden brief case when away from a castle.

When he said that he would never leave the United Kingdom he meant it as the gun was for his personal use and a firing range was built in the Garden of Buckingham Palace. The King practiced with the Sten GUn and there is film of the Queen practicing with a revolver.


----------



## Jabberwocky (Jun 9, 2010)

timshatz said:


> The Sten, it is my understanding, was based on a design the Germans rejected while the MP40 was a bit overengineered for what it was expected to do (a common problem with German Weapons).



As I understand it, the Sten was an original design, although it borrowed bits and bobs from earlier submachine gun designs, both German and Polish, such as the blowback system and the magazine design.

The Lanchester, also a British submachine gun of WW2, was based on a German design, the M18/28. It was a very different weapon though.


----------



## timor (Jun 9, 2010)

I go for mp40


----------



## Torch (Jun 16, 2010)

I just recently saw a Military Channel episode comparing the Sten and MP40, the Sten did have an advantage when your laying down but the accuracy was miserable compared to the MP40. I can't vouch for the condition of the 2 weapons thou....


----------



## parsifal (Jun 17, 2010)

I think accuracy in SMGs is almost a contradiction of terms. Wouldnt it depend on the proficiency of the operator more than anything. 

Many centuries ago whilst undergoing small arms training, it was the ability of the firer to hold the weapon steady, using short bursts and holding the weapon so as to prevent it walking away that were the most important issues in the accuracy stakes


----------



## Torch (Jun 17, 2010)

I agree, just in the show the mp40 punched more holes in the target than the Sten did,both are definitly not tack drivers.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 17, 2010)

Correct. Although I still maintain that the MP40 is a far superior weapon compared to the Sten, which, incidentally, was intended for mass production and issue to lesser - trained users, no SMG is particularly accurate, with some modern day exceptions.
They are designed, to an extent, to give a 'spray and pray', short range coverage, such as in house clearing , and provide more fire-power than a psitol, for those users unable to have a 'full-sized' infantry wepon, rifle, carbine or assualt weapon, for example signallers, AFV crews etc.
The MP40 is likely to achieve a greater percentage of hits on the target mass due to the operation of the bolt, which caused less 'kick and climb' than that of the Sten and, with later models, the short muzzle compensator aided this.


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 18, 2010)

I'd say the Sten was better, after all it was cheap, which was needed after so many Lee-Enfields were abandoned in France.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 18, 2010)

Yes, it was cheap to produce. But it can't be compared to a rifle - totally different use, role, and effect!
There were quite a number of SMLE's left behind in France, but Britain still had many more, and the Lee Enfield No4 was about to go into full production even before the Sten was iisued, to replace/ bolster the SMLE, and was reaching service units by mid to late 1941.
If comparing a weapon's effectiveness and uae against the cost, then I'm afraid that's the wrong way to look at it. It could cost a fortune and not work, or cost very little and work well. The Sten worked, and was an effective weapon (as far as SMG's go) to a point, but the MP40, overall, was superior. Having actually had the opportunity to use both, and not just a few rounds on a firing range, I know which one I would choose!


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 18, 2010)

Airframes said:


> Yes, it was cheap to produce. But it can't be compared to a rifle - totally different use, role, and effect!
> There were quite a number of SMLE's left behind in France, but Britain still had many more, and the Lee Enfield No4 was about to go into full production even before the Sten was iisued, to replace/ bolster the SMLE, and was reaching service units by mid to late 1941.
> If comparing a weapon's effectiveness and uae against the cost, then I'm afraid that's the wrong way to look at it. It could cost a fortune and not work, or cost very little and work well. The Sten worked, and was an effective weapon (as far as SMG's go) to a point, but the MP40, overall, was superior. Having actually had the opportunity to use both, and not just a few rounds on a firing range, I know which one I would choose!



True, but it was because so many rifles where lost it would cost too much shaping and treating the wood for replacements, which is why a cheap, easy-to make, all-metal SMG was made.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 18, 2010)

Sorry, but that is _not_ why the Sten was produced!!
The need for a suitable sub-machine gun was firast seriously addressed in the summer of 1940, and plans put in hand to produce a weapon based on the design of the German MP28. Although this eventually surfaced as the Lanchester, it was relatively complex to manufacture, and somewhat costly, with acceptance trial being undertaken in November 1940.
Up to that point, the only readily available, suitable SMG had been the American Thompson, a heavy, relatively complex, and expensive weapon, which, of course, had to be imported, along with the ammunition. (Britain had virtually no capacity for the production of .45 ACP, and little capacity for 9mm, the first110 million rounds of which were again a US import).
By early 1941, the situation had changed, and a weapon of simple construction had been designed and proposed by Major R.V. Shepherd, and Mr.H.J. Turpin, the latter Chief of the Design Dept, R.A., Enfield. (hence the name, ST for Shepherd and Turpin, EN for Enfield.)
The first production of the Sten Mk1, a very simple weapon, but acceptable for the then present need, was completed in June 1941. Production was simplified even further and, by mid 1942, the most common variant, the Sten Mk2, was in production, first being used in action during the Dieppe raid in August 1942.
By that time, the first Lee Enfield No4 rifles had already been issued long before, being available in 1939, but not in full service use until late 1941. The No4 rifle simplified the production of the time consuming and costly SMLE, which had been virtually hand-built, and there was no shortage of these, especially as they were also produced in Canada as the No4Mk1*, and also in the USA. Additionally, Britain had a large 'War Reserve' stock of P14 rifles, mainly issued to second-line units and the 'Home Guard'.
Apart from the No4 being much easier, quicker and cheaper to produce than its predecessor the SMLE, the need for, and equiping with, a SMG had no relationship whatsoever to the production of, and use of a rifle!
They are two distinctly different weapons, designed for very different purposes. In general, the SMG (any SMG) was virtually replaced, Worldwide, in average infantry use, by the advent of the so-called 'Assault Rifle', with the MP44 being the first real weapon in widespread use, and still in use today in various 'spin offs', and of course, the AK range, the M16 etc etc.
Yes, there are still SMG's in use today, some being excellent (H&K MP5 range for example), but these are mainly used in specialised roles, such as CT, and for Policing work.
The often common popular belief that soldiers went into battle all armed with SMGs is nonsense, and the rifle, eventually the Assault rifle, was and is the mainstay of the infantryman's arsenal, and is likely to remain so as long as humans fight humans on the ground.
Incidentally, a great percentage of Stens were never used by regular forces, being dropped to Resistance and Partisan groups across Europe and the Balkans, for use as a suitable (and cheap) weapon in guerilla warfare. Many of these were lost before reaching the recipients.
Just as soon as Britain was able to, after WW2, the original Lanchester design was reviewed, and a replacement for the Sten requested as soon as practicably possible.This used features from the MP28, and the MP40, and was eventually to see the light of day as the L2, commonly called the Sterling SMG.


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 18, 2010)

Who cares? It was cheap and did the job it was meant for, enough for me


----------



## Glider (Jun 18, 2010)

You would care if you had to go into combat with one. As I mentioned earlier there was a reason why a lot of British soldiers threw their Stens away at the first opportunity and used captured MP40's.


----------



## Airframes (Jun 18, 2010)

Agreed. And if you don't care, then at least get the facts, reasons and usage correct before jumping in with off-hand statements about how a weapon came about.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jun 19, 2010)

I have an off topic question

The Sten and Type 100 are virtually the same gun...who copied who....or was it pure coincidence? (I doubt that since the type 96 or 99, not good with Japanese guns, is the same as the Bren...)


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 20, 2010)

B-17engineer said:


> I have an off topic question
> 
> The Sten and Type 100 are virtually the same gun...who copied who....or was it pure coincidence? (I doubt that since the type 96 or 99, not good with Japanese guns, is the same as the Bren...)



Probably coincidence as wikipedia says "Japan was suprisingly late to introduce the sub-machine gun to its armed forces , a few models of the SIG Bergman 1920 (a licenced version of the German MP 18 ) was purchased from Switzerland in the 20s".

It then goes straight on about 1942 and who served with.


----------



## Zniperguy114 (Jun 20, 2010)

The Type 100 was horrible. Lacked stopping power and jammed excessively in combat. I wonder just how many more casualties the Japanese could have inflicted if they had fielded SMGs like Russia or at least self-loading rifles like the US.


----------



## timshatz (Jun 21, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> I wonder just how many more casualties the Japanese could have inflicted if they had fielded SMGs like Russia or at least self-loading rifles like the US.



Especially in a jungle environment like NG or the Solomons.


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 21, 2010)

Zniperguy114 said:


> The Type 100 was horrible. Lacked stopping power and jammed excessively in combat. I wonder just how many more casualties the Japanese could have inflicted if they had fielded SMGs like Russia or at least self-loading rifles like the US.



That's exactly what it was, a good gun just poorly made (it was the same case with the Arisaka in 1945)


----------



## Doughboy (Jun 22, 2010)

I will choose the MP-40 because it was a more dependable and durable sub-machinegun.




> That's exactly what it was, a good gun just poorly made (it was the same case with the Arisaka in 1945)




They were poorly made for two totally different reasons... The Sten was poorly made because the British were making a cheap submachinegun, so that they could mass produce it. The "Last Ditch Arisaka" was poorly made because Japan was running out of raw materials and they needed to keep producing rifles.


----------



## razor1uk (Jun 23, 2010)

Mmm, I went for the Sten; incedently AFAIK, the Germans were in the process of manufacturing distributing their own copies of the Mk2/Mk3 to the home defence troops when the European War ended, because it was quicker, cheaper and used less strategic materials to make than the mp40, the difference helping in the production of other equipments inc the SG44.

Also the stens magazine mouth/lock was designed to able to use the mp40/41-II mags. Apparently the sten mags were inferior copies of the mp40 mag, and that the mags feed ramps/lips were prone to bending causing jams, while the mp's were similarlytroubled, but of better design and/or material.


----------



## Tomahawk101 (Jun 23, 2010)

Doughboy said:


> I will choose the MP-40 because it was a more dependable and durable sub-machinegun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Errr I already knew why the Arisakas where being poorly made in 1945


----------



## stug3 (Aug 9, 2012)

I thought this was interesting and hopefully you will too. In 1942 Eric Blair (Orwell) was working for the BBC doing what he considered useless propaganda work. He was also a member of the Home Guard and in August wrote in his diary his impressions of the Sten in two entries dated August 7 9.

7.8.42 | Orwell Diaries 1938-1942


...Last night for the first time took a Sten gun to pieces. [4] There is almost nothing to learn in it. [No spare parts. If the gun goes seriously wrong you simply chuck it away and get another.] Weight of the gun without magazine is 5 ½ pounds – [weight of the Tommy gun would be 12-15 lb. Estimated price is not 50/- as I had imagined, but 18/-.] I can see a million or two million of these things, each with 500 cartridges and a book of instructions, floating down all over Europe on little parachutes. If the Government had the guts to do that they would really have burned their boats

9.8.42 | Orwell Diaries 1938-1942


Fired the Sten gun for the first time today. No kick, no vibration, very little noise, and reasonable accuracy. Out of about 2500 rounds fired, 2 stoppages, in each case due to a dud cartridge – treatment, simply to work the bolt by hand.


----------



## parsifal (Aug 10, 2012)

The main problem for Japanese SMGs was the round they fired more than anything.

Stens acquired a bad reputation in the jungle, as they were not sufficiently resistant to mud and moisture. they jammed a lot. Same applied to the US "Grease Gun"

The favoured weapons in the Jungle were the Thompson and the owen gun. Both could put up with a LOT of abuse. That was critical in the jungle

MP40 never fought in the jungle, but it did fight in the mud and snow of russia. it acquired a good reputation there, the only real criticism being the small ammunition supply. A wartime expedient was to put two mags side by side, leaving one exposed t the elements. This immediately damned the MP 40 from being a totally reliable weapon to being a totally unrelaible one.

I consider the best all round SMG of the war to be the Owen, followed by the PPSH series


----------



## stug3 (Sep 24, 2012)

22.9.42 | Orwell Diaries 1938-1942

22.9.42
Most of the ammunition for our Sten gun is Italian, or rather made in Germany for Italy. I fancy this must be the first weapon the British army has had whose bore was measured in the millimetres instead of inches. They were going to make a new cheap automatic weapon, and having the vast stocks of ammunition captured in Abyssinia handy, manufactured the guns to fit the cartridges instead of the other way about. The advantage is that the ammunition of almost any continental submachine gun will fit it. It will be interesting to see whether the Germans or Japanese come out with a .303 weapon to git captured British ammunition.


----------



## yulzari (Oct 6, 2012)

One reason the Sten magazine had a reputation for bent magazine lips was the practice of the 'rude and licentious' to use them to open beer bottles. I found myself still trying to stamp this practice out on the L2A3 SMG in the 1980's. Fortunately their magazines were made of stiffer steel. They then started using the cocking handle of SLRs. I made them wear a lanyard of a spare bootlace with a stamped canopener/bottle opener on the end in their top pocket.

My SMG choice (away from the poll) would be the Lanchester, as long as I had the webbing pouches to take the 50 round magazines.


----------



## ShVAK (Oct 7, 2012)

MP40 easily over the Sten, but my pick of subgun during WWII would either be PPsh-41, KP-31 or Beretta Model 38.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 17, 2012)

Problem with the Beretta was its expense. Basically handmade, using traditional machining and turning made it expensive to produce, both in terms of labour and materials. 

PPsh-41 was a much better proposition, basically built from srcaps and rejected materials. 

My father fought on the Eastern Front, in the heer, and is scathing in his criticism of the MP-40. It was okay when using the single feed 20 round magazine, although that single column feed was a nightmare because of susceptability to damage. The dual magazine system....introduced as a counter to the 60 round (I think it was 60) drum feed of the PPsh - was a total disaster in his estimation. Stoppages and failures were constant and fatal to the design.

The Erma was one of the most overrated designs for the eastern front of the entire war.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 17, 2012)

This one.....


----------

