Sten Mk II vs. MP-40

Sten Mk II vs. MP-40

  • Total voters
    46

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Zniperguy114

Airman
67
0
Jan 29, 2010
Pennslyvannia
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
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
The STEN looks and feels like a Piece O' Cr*p. Yes, it works, mostly but inspires no confidence. Handled both. Fired neither.

- Ivan.
 
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.....
 
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).
 
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..
 
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.
 
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.
 
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..
 
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.
 
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
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....
 
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
 
I agree, just in the show the mp40 punched more holes in the target than the Sten did,both are definitly not tack drivers.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
  • Poll
AH-4 Apache vs black hawk
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
6K
Thumpalumpacus
K
  • Poll
P-40F vs P-40M
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
  • Poll
Spitfire vs Hurricane
Replies
1
Views
2K
pbehn
P
  • Poll
Spitfire MK-IX vs Messerchmitt Me109G-6
Replies
2
Views
1K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
Menu
Log in
Register