View Full Version : Sten MKll & MKlll's . What is the difference in them?

April 28, 2000, 01:44 PM
Is one of the guns more reliable,or what is the difference?

George Stringer
April 28, 2000, 10:41 PM
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

James K
April 29, 2000, 05:02 PM
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.


4V50 Gary
April 30, 2000, 12:41 AM
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
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.