|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 28, 2000, 01:44 PM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: April 27, 2000
Posts: 3
|
Is one of the guns more reliable,or what is the difference?
|
April 28, 2000, 10:41 PM | #2 |
Staff Alumnus
Join Date: October 12, 1998
Location: Earlington KY
Posts: 2,299
|
Doddle, they differ only in externals. The barrel and jacket on the Mark II are shorter, it has a different bolt handle design and a simplified buttstock. Also on the mark II the magazine housing can be turned on the axis of the receiver to act as a dust cover for the mag and ejection ports. As far as which is more reliable I have no idea. George
|
April 29, 2000, 05:02 PM | #3 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
AFAIK, there is no difference in reliability. The Mk II is more common and cheaper. The STENs aren't pretty, but they work, and parts are still cheap.
Jim |
April 30, 2000, 12:41 AM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,824
|
The Mark III Sten was a further development of the earlier Stens. Development should not be mistaken for refinement but rather simplification. As part of the simplification, the barrel jacket on the Mark III was not detachable as on the earlier Stens and was part of the actual receiver itself. The cheap just got cheaper. But hey, in wartime, who needs fancy?
|
May 7, 2000, 02:43 PM | #5 |
Junior Member
Join Date: March 4, 2000
Posts: 5
|
Only difference that really matters is that the barrel isn't removable on the MkIII. I actually like the magwell on the III a little better as the MkII tends to wobble a bit. For that alone, I would think the MkIII is slightly more reliable.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|