Bloke on the Range videos

A Sig pistol jams?o_O

Use a Browning.:)

Nice to see a newcomer to pistol shooting, hope that he enjoys it and stays, which shouldn't be too difficult in France.
To be honest, most handgun .22 conversion kits are a bit on the iffy side, reliability-wise. Irrespective of it being 0°C!

The only really reliable .22's are top-end ones built as-such.
 
Missed opportunity for a vic-Tim pun at the beginning there.
 
I have a FN-49 in 8x57JS.

Its nicer to shoot than a Garand,my mate has one that is select-fire.

Feels a bit "clubby" and the sight radius is not the best. But all in all its ok.
 
Labial problems perchance..?

When you think they were knocked out at 7/6 a pop (today's value about £20) an absolute bargain!
 
Labial problems perchance..?

When you think they were knocked out at 7/6 a pop (today's value about £20) an absolute bargain!
They were not 7/6 a pop... That's one of the myths from the era. They were around £5 at the time.

Average factory worker wage in 1940 was 248/5/6 per year. Let's be generous and say there were 220 working days a year. That's £1.13 per 8 hour day.

A Mk.1 STEN took 12 man hours to produce, so £1.69 in labour alone. The Mk.2 took less man hours to produce - haven't got the figure at my fingertips. But you can't produce a gat for 7/6 (37.5p) when there's more than that going into it in labour alone ;)
 
They were not 7/6 a pop... That's one of the myths from the era. They were around £5 at the time.

Average factory worker wage in 1940 was 248/5/6 per year. Let's be generous and say there were 220 working days a year. That's £1.13 per 8 hour day.

A Mk.1 STEN took 12 man hours to produce, so £1.69 in labour alone. The Mk.2 took less man hours to produce - haven't got the figure at my fingertips. But you can't produce a gat for 7/6 (37.5p) when there's more than that going into it in labour alone ;)
The average worker at the time was entitled to just one week of paid holiday a year, and that was only introduced in 1938 (I think). The working day was longer and Saturday working was also more common. However you general point on costing is still valid.
 
Ok Ok can't a chap indulge in a bit of hyperbole...? Compared to the Thompson, which was produced by naked virgins rubbing a block of steel with toothpaste coated fingers.. (allegedly..!) it was a triumph in value engineering!
 
Ok Ok can't a chap indulge in a bit of hyperbole...? Compared to the Thompson, which was produced by naked virgins rubbing a block of steel with toothpaste coated fingers.. (allegedly..!) it was a triumph in value engineering!
...and then sold to the British for IIRC between £45 and £55 a pop, which was really rather a lot of cast!
 
...and then sold to the British for IIRC between £45 and £55 a pop, which was really rather a lot of cast!
Were the M1A1 (if I recall the model name correctly) versions, without the drum magazine capability and no Cutt's Compensator, any cheaper than the original version?
 
They were not 7/6 a pop... That's one of the myths from the era. They were around £5 at the time.

Average factory worker wage in 1940 was 248/5/6 per year. Let's be generous and say there were 220 working days a year. That's £1.13 per 8 hour day.

A Mk.1 STEN took 12 man hours to produce, so £1.69 in labour alone. The Mk.2 took less man hours to produce - haven't got the figure at my fingertips. But you can't produce a gat for 7/6 (37.5p) when there's more than that going into it in labour alone ;)


I'm guessing the "low price" anecdotes derive from the MkIII, as this Lines Brothers Ltd version is supposed to have slashed the production time and cost cf the MkII. I imagine that, if you took an isolated specimen cost sample from full production period - ie rather than the averaged production run costs - then it would be very low indeed.


I've fired a few MkII Stens, and found some of them surprisingly well made and finished - far, far better than the contemporary Soviet PPsh41, for example.
 
This Royal Armouries curator puts the price of a MkII Sten at £2, and the price of a Thompson at £45. He said that £2 then works out to £100 in today's money.

These are likely very round numbers, but if we use them we can see that for the cost of 1 Thompson you could get 22 Stens. It is important to realise that when we are talking about cost we aren't just talking about money. We are talking about labour, raw materials, and production machinery, all of which would have been scarce commodities at the time. When you make something less expensive, you are allowing more of them to be made for the same resources.

The Thompson was ridiculously expensive for the time, and the company was going out of business due to lack of sales until they were bailed out by WWII when British purchasing agents showed up in the US and were buying anything that would go "bang" when you pulled the trigger.

The reason that the Thompson was so expensive was that it was not really designed for mass production. There were a lot of machining operations involved, and while costs were reduced through simplification, there was no way to get costs down to a reasonable level without a complete redesign. Do a complete redesign and you end up with a Sten. You need to replace the machining of large lumps of metal as is done with the Thompson with bending and welding of sheet metal and a minimum of machined parts as is done with the Sten.

Nearly everyone else went the same route, with expensively machined designs being replaced by sheet metal and welding as armies went from needing thousands of submachine guns to needing millions.

Interestingly, the curator in the above video says that they believe the "en" in "Sten" does not stand for Enfield. They aren't entirely certain what it does stand for, but they think the most likely possibility is "England".

Also interestingly, the main Sten he talks about happens to be a very rare MkII variant, nearly all of the originals which were destroyed. It was found in the museum being used as a deactivated display piece when it happened to be noticed that it was a bit different from normal MkII Stens.

It also has an interesting history, having been make in the UK, sent to South Africa, and somehow eventually ended up being used by Cypriot Greeks in the 1970s before ending up back in the museum.
 
Last edited:
I had an Uncle that had been in the RAF who said they called it the 'Half Crown Gun' so that's errr (quick google) errr Two Shillings & Six Pence which still sounds like a foreign language to me.

Anyhow, a fiver seems far more accurate to me for making a Mk.II Sten.
 
I had an Uncle that had been in the RAF who said they called it the 'Half Crown Gun' so that's errr (quick google) errr Two Shillings & Six Pence which still sounds like a foreign language to me.

Anyhow, a fiver seems far more accurate to me for making a Mk.II Sten.

I have a feeling that the whole "half crown" monicker - that has in turn fed the Sten's low price mythology - is actually derived from a contemporary Woolworths(?) marketing model. I'm pretty sure that Woolies was known as the "half crown" store because of their then product range and pricing, and that it was a 1930s catchphrase for anything that was cheap and/or good value.

If the Sten were in production today, perhaps the equivalent would be calling it a "Poundshop gun", and that there would be a thriving squaddie mythology that the gun only cost one pound to manufacture.
 
Interestingly, the curator in the above video says that they believe the "en" in "Sten" does not stand for Enfield. They aren't entirely certain what it does stand for, but they think the most likely possibility is "England".
Col. Shepherd ("S") says it's "England", which pretty much settles it.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top