DZelenka Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 What are the pluses and minuses of the Sten Mk II vs the Mk III? Is either more desirable, collectible, valuable than the other? Also, would a Mk III with the skeleton stock be correct or would only the T stock be so? Educate me a bit. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1gewehr Posted January 20, 2018 Report Share Posted January 20, 2018 MKII - Short sight radius, horrible pyramid front sight. Easily changed barrel, magazine well can be swiveled as safety or dirt prevention method when not firing. Barrel shroud is too short to ensure you don't touch a hot barrel. MKIII - Basically a 'disposable' submachine gun. Barrel replacement involves grinding out rivets. Better sights with longer radius and long rib makes sight acquisition and accuracy very good. Barrel shroud is part of the receiver and goes to the muzzle. Not enough cooling holes to allow heat to dissipate quickly, though. Either stock is correct for either model. STEn production was cottage industry. Whichever stocks were on hand while they were assembling guns would be used. Both types were in production at the same time. As a shooter/owner, I would prefer to get a MKII as they are more versatile and easier to modify. MKIII STEns typically are not as desirable since they are even more cheaply made than a MKII and have that riveted-in barrel. Still, I enjoy shooting a MKIII simply because of that looong sight radius, rib, and blade front sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZelenka Posted January 21, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2018 MKII - Short sight radius, horrible pyramid front sight. Easily changed barrel, magazine well can be swiveled as safety or dirt prevention method when not firing. Barrel shroud is too short to ensure you don't touch a hot barrel. MKIII - Basically a 'disposable' submachine gun. Barrel replacement involves grinding out rivets. Better sights with longer radius and long rib makes sight acquisition and accuracy very good. Barrel shroud is part of the receiver and goes to the muzzle. Not enough cooling holes to allow heat to dissipate quickly, though. Either stock is correct for either model. STEn production was cottage industry. Whichever stocks were on hand while they were assembling guns would be used. Both types were in production at the same time. As a shooter/owner, I would prefer to get a MKII as they are more versatile and easier to modify. MKIII STEns typically are not as desirable since they are even more cheaply made than a MKII and have that riveted-in barrel. Still, I enjoy shooting a MKIII simply because of that looong sight radius, rib, and blade front sight.I have a line on a nice Mk III right now. I wanted a Mk II because of the easy change barrel (get a suppressed set up for a spare). I’ll probably end up with both, but the Mk III is what is currently available. I was also curious as to the correct finish. Thanks for the info. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m3bobby Posted January 21, 2018 Report Share Posted January 21, 2018 Correct finish on a Mk2 and 3 would be black suncorite paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smkummer Posted January 24, 2018 Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 I believe almost all transferable MKIII are original C&R guns. I don’t ever recall seeing a “tube” MKIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DZelenka Posted January 24, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 24, 2018 I believe almost all transferable MKIII are original C&R guns. I don’t ever recall seeing a “tube” MKIII.This would be an original gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now