Bloke on the Range videos

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
I'm not speshul, so no I've never "taken one through a killing house". I did however spend my first two years as an armourer providing range cover at an Infantry Training Depot, and whenever I could had a cabby with the Sterling SMG on CQB rural and FIBUA shoots. I don't recall having any problems with firing around cover or clearing rooms with the SMG at the time. In the course of a thirty year career as an Armourer then Weapons Artificer (25 as an ARAB, 5 as a STAB) I fired an awful lot of different SMGs (including Thompson and MP5), mostly on gallery ranges, but also on more realistic set ups (CQB / FIBUA etc), and on one alarming occasion on a two-way range (when I would much, much rather have had a rifle).

As to your queries: compared to a Thompson, (M1A1, never fired the older types) the Sterling is far more controllable on auto and "handier" in close spaces (although that might be my familiarity with the Sterling biasing my perception). With an MP5, there really isn't any comparison; the MP5 is an excellent design of a different generation and it's like putting a Tesla up against a Ford Escort.

Your last post seems a little chippy; reading back over my post I think you took my last inquiry as an insult - it wasn't, but your comments sounded to me like you were not speaking from experience, and so I asked if you'd ever fired a Sten or Sterling. If you have, fair enough. That's all I was trying to establish.
 
Anyone who doesn't realise how prolific the side-mounted magazine was on subguns prior to WW2 needs to get an old copy of Jane's Guns Recognition Guide or some other simple picture book ;)
 

Chicken

Old-Salt
Anyone who doesn't realise how prolific the side-mounted magazine was on subguns prior to WW2 needs to get an old copy of Jane's Guns Recognition Guide or some other simple picture book ;)
Oh dear

This kind of simplistic shit slinging is why people like myself who have extensive experiance with alot of different firearms over thirty years of shooting in 12 countries look upon this forum as a bit of a kindergarten.


It's a shame really, but this is the way it is.JJH and Shaden faded out for this reason.

You probably know we shoot competitively with subguns in Scandinavia.

You have fired a full auto Sten,Havn't you?
 
Oh dear

This kind of simplistic shit slinging is why people like myself who have extensive experiance with alot of different firearms over thirty years of shooting in 12 countries look upon this forum as a bit of a kindergarten.


It's a shame really, but this is the way it is.JJH and Shaden faded out for this reason.

You probably know we shoot competitively with subguns in Scandinavia.

You have fired a full auto Sten,Havn't you?
Mate, this comment:

Side mounted magazines really never caught on and I think the lower profile when shooting prone was more of an accident rather than by design since pretty much every gun produced has a mag underneath?
implied strongly that you were unaware that side-mounted magazines were very common in pre-WW2 and WW2 subguns. Which deserved a slightly snippy response given that you profess to be an expert on such things ;)

And yes, I have fired a full auto sten. I own 2. I haven't done any "combat"-style shooting with one yet, unfortunately, but I have never thought the side-mounted mag would get in the way given that it overlaps your arm.
 

Chicken

Old-Salt
Mate, this comment:



implied strongly that you were unaware that side-mounted magazines were very common in pre-WW2 and WW2 subguns. Which deserved a slightly snippy response given that you profess to be an expert on such things ;)

And yes, I have fired a full auto sten. I own 2. I haven't done any "combat"-style shooting with one yet, unfortunately, but I have never thought the side-mounted mag would get in the way given that it overlaps your arm.
Fair enough.

Taken in another context I could have said

"Why did they continue with a side mounted magazine when designing the Sterling?"


I always find a Sten ungainly and the Sterling not much better.Although I find the Sterling better as the pistol grip allows one to maintain control of the gun when opening doors or moving something out of the way in a QCB scenario .

As an aside I think the very first SMG I fired was a Lancaster back home,in the days when Collectors could fire their weapons on Army ranges.

I feel that there is quite alot of "one track thinking" on here from time to time.I suppose it's because everyone except me have served in the same Army and shot the same guns?

Also English is not the language I speak or think in any longer so that's not going to help brevity or composition.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Fair enough.

Taken in another context I could have said

"Why did they continue with a side mounted magazine when designing the Sterling?"
Because it worked. Over half a million have been made (including Indian, Canadian and Chilean copies). It's a remarkably successful design.

I always find a Sten ungainly and the Sterling not much better.Although I find the Sterling better as the pistol grip allows one to maintain control of the gun when opening doors or moving something out of the way in a QCB scenario .
The Sten was a wartime expedient, and ergonomically isn't wonderful. The Sterling however is excellently balanced around the pistol grip when the butt is extended, and a full mag fitted does not overbalance the weapon even in one hand.

I feel that there is quite alot of "one track thinking" on here from time to time.I suppose it's because everyone except me have served in the same Army and shot the same guns?
Thank you for sharing your "alternate" point of view to the "one track thinking". All I would say is that there's a wide range of posters on here, with a far wider range of experience than you credit, and anyone claiming Arrse speaks with one voice on ANYTHING, really hasn't been paying attention. In fact, much of what I've been posting on this thread has been an attempt to debunk widely accepted squaddie myths about the SMG. Hardly "One track thinking".
 
Sterling claim 2 million L2A3's made in their 1984 manual, adopted by the police or military of over 90 countries, FWIW.

But as to the side-mounted mag thing, it worked, nobody seems to have complained about it, development started during WW2 already, and it allows the magazine to be placed over the trigger rather than in front, potentially giving a shorter overall length. Honestly, the balance on them is excellent, as is the folding stock, which attaches just behind the pistol grip without getting in the way. Move to a mag on the bottom and you'd lose all that.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Sterling claim 2 million L2A3's made in their 1984 manual, adopted by the police or military of over 90 countries, FWIW.

But as to the side-mounted mag thing, it worked, nobody seems to have complained about it, development started during WW2 already, and it allows the magazine to be placed over the trigger rather than in front, potentially giving a shorter overall length. Honestly, the balance on them is excellent, as is the folding stock, which attaches just behind the pistol grip without getting in the way. Move to a mag on the bottom and you'd lose all that.
F**king Wikipedia, that'll teach me.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
When Bill Slim became CIGS he attended a trial at Bisley with WSC to watch the rifle No9 before a final decision was made on adoption or abandonment and on watching the full auto being used declared it was wasteful which committed us to an SMG for another 50 years
IMHO, Uncle Bill had it right on this, if only by accident. Trying to control a FN FAL on full auto is beyond the vast majority of firers; certainly it's beyond me, although it was always fun trying. Going ratatatat with a 7.62 NATO FN is not a practical act of war. 280", I have no experience of firing but as it came to naught well done Bill....

*Starts digging fire trench with overhead cover, awaits incoming*
 
I like the SMG. It was easy to use, my first go was as a 14 year old cadet. Up to 100m it was accurate and of all the weapons I fired in the many competitions I entered (being quite good at shooting) I won the most plaudits with the SMG. Easy to clean and rarely malfunctioned. There is no such thing as a perfect weapon but the SMG was good enough for what it was intended for.
 
IMHO, Uncle Bill had it right on this, if only by accident. Trying to control a FN FAL on full auto is beyond the vast majority of firers; certainly it's beyond me, although it was always fun trying. Going ratatatat with a 7.62 NATO FN is not a practical act of war. 280", I have no experience of firing but as it came to naught well done Bill....

*Starts digging fire trench with overhead cover, awaits incoming*
Suck less :p My 5'4" Mrs fired one from the shoulder. She didn't much enjoy the experience, but she handled it well enough. In the up close and personal role, there's nothing wrong with a giggle switch on a 7.62x51. I would posit that it's a training and practice issue.

Interestingly, the least controllable full auto I've ever fired is an AK47 with an underfolding wire butt. Climbs like a bugger and there's no good way to hold it. Way less controllable than a FAL or G3.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Your own fault for marrying a "sturdy" woman with a low centre of gravity... :cool:

I'm surprised with your view on the AK, I have fired them a fair amount over the years, and can't honestly say I had a control problem with any variant set on "A" (lots of other problems though!).

Firing standing unsupported (IMHO the likeliest situation for wanting to spray the Queen's enemies with HOT LEAD) I found FNs just naturally leapt about to the point that anything much further than social distancing would be deaf but unperforated, including with an L1A1 I once doctored (filing a chunk off the safety catch and cutting a notch in the thumb lever to allow it to rotate far enough round - you do stupid things when you're young and have tools). Bracing in the prone was manageable, but more a party trick than an act of war.

G3s are tonk, action like a combine harvester.
 
IMHO, Uncle Bill had it right on this, if only by accident. Trying to control a FN FAL on full auto is beyond the vast majority of firers; certainly it's beyond me, although it was always fun trying. Going ratatatat with a 7.62 NATO FN is not a practical act of war. 280", I have no experience of firing but as it came to naught well done Bill....

*Starts digging fire trench with overhead cover, awaits incoming*
The gun Jesus says pretty much the same about firing the .280 on full auto, ie it's overpowered for it. But on semi, it was a good choice for a less than full powered bullet and that the EM2 would have been a fine rifle in service, for the period:

 
Your own fault for marrying a "sturdy" woman with a low centre of gravity... :cool:

I'm surprised with your view on the AK, I have fired them a fair amount over the years, and can't honestly say I had a control problem with any variant set on "A" (lots of other problems though!).

Firing standing unsupported (IMHO the likeliest situation for wanting to spray the Queen's enemies with HOT LEAD) I found FNs just naturally leapt about to the point that anything much further than social distancing would be deaf but unperforated, including with an L1A1 I once doctored (filing a chunk off the safety catch and cutting a notch in the thumb lever to allow it to rotate far enough round - you do stupid things when you're young and have tools). Bracing in the prone was manageable, but more a party trick than an act of war.

G3s are tonk, action like a combine harvester.
It's mostly the blerdy wire butt that made it uncontrollable. I've shot fixed stock ones which have been much more stable. AK74's, on the other hand, are effing amazing on full auto.

Can't say I ever experienced control problems with FAL's on full auto. They're lively, yes, but controllable. Best 7.52x51 on full auto is the Beretta BM59 though. That's amazing.

G3's are agricultural machinery, although apparently the modern ones with all the Spuhr upgrades are better. M16's of both A1 and later varieties are pretty nice on full.
 

Chicken

Old-Salt
25 years ago I used to shoot Service Rifle in the central North Island of New Zealand.At my home range in Taupo there was a Elderly English chap that had been on the trials team for the EM2.

I wish I could remember his name,he was pretty old in the late 90's.Most of us shot with L1A1's or "SLR's" as we called them.His full bore shooting days were over but he would offer us advice and was very interesting to talk to.

I remember a dit he told me about two Soldiers tasked with field stripping a EM2 and a L1 in a demonstration for the top Brass.The EM2 was faster to strip but alot slower to reassemble?

Wether thats the case or not I have no idea having never seen a real EM2.
 
 

4(T)

LE

Did you think about doing it this way?

You do need two of each sight to make it easy, but otherwise just put the sights onto a common axis pin/rod. This gives you your datum level between the models of sight.

With a micrometer/ laser/ good eyes and a ruler, you can directly find the heights of the centres of the leaf/battle apertures about the datum point - and the relationship between battle and leaf on the same sight.

I did comparisons of most of the sights. Can't find the photos now, but IIRC No5 battles are set to 300, and No4s mostly to 400.

There is very little design info about the sights, and I did wonder whether the "400" chosen for the No4 was because they found soldiers shot low in poor light or under stress (better view of the target, etc).


 

Latest Threads

Top