Stripped 3 Coats of Paint from C&R Normandy Sten Mk-II

[SRSch]

Here is the best I can do with my old Mavica 10X floppy drive digital camera. The images are too small, but if one clicks them they will open a screen where they are larger.

 

The patina with gun in ones hand is actually brownish-gray, but in these photos it is more toward the gray.

 

Sten Mk-II after I laboriously stripped off three layers of paint.

 

 

View from the other side: Lighter shaded area on receiver near the magazine housing where the Parkerizing was worn thin due to battlefield handling, but in firing position right hand would hold the barrel nut shroud. "T" grip has light shading where right hand held the gun in firing position.

 

 

A close up of the magazine housing. Color not as brownish as it should be but close. Notice broad arrow makings and evidence of REWAT work done on rotating housing. Careful application of Oxpho Blue blended in the weld spot to the right of the hole for locking the barrel nut sleeve. Notice faint discoloration from the REWAT welding. In this photo it is more evident than if the gun were in one’s hands. (Strange how a digital camera reveals things that the eye in normal lighting miss)

 

 

Parkerized surface to the left with darker brown patina on the left toward the sight. I could not get close enough but there is one a crown proof just below the rear sight. Below it near weld spot on the receiver trigger housing is a crown proof with “42” below it. It is very clear in hand but not so in this photo.

 

 

The barrel and top of the shroud nut, broad arrow proof and .7300 mark beside it. The white worn spot on the barrel shroud is from the sling ring which I removed for this photo..

 

 

View of the magazine housing from the bottom. Original S/N was probably too faint and at the time of the REWAT the faint S/N was copied and removed by grinding to white metal. The original five digit number "36189" was then re-stamped with number dies, and "M.J.K." was stamped below it. Between the re-stamped numbers and "M.J.K" is faint “SECO” The white metal really looked bad. With Oxpho Blue I was able to blend it in with the overall appearance of the gun. BTW: does anyone on this board know what the procedure was for REWAT Stens that may have and faint S/N/s or no S/Ns? The “M.J.K” is a mystery to me as well.

 

 

View receiver from the right side. The surface has a distinct brownish grey patina.

 

 

View of receiver from the left side showing wear spot where this gun was carried in battle. This gun was obviously painted over shortly after it was brought back from the Normandy battlefield, REWAT sometime after the ’68 amnesty and then repainted again and a couple of times after. So I am certain that the original battlefield surface was saved by three coats of paint which I carefully removed.

 

 

So there is my Sten Mk-II Normandy C&R Sten that I bought from Irv Kahn back in 1981 for $750, plus $200 for transfer stamp. Always wondered what was under all that paint, hoping that it was not bead blasted and then painted over. Stripping those layers of paint revealed its WW2 historical trophy appearnce, all the Brit proof marks, and the expertly done REWAT after. The lower mag housing was ground to white metal and the S.N re-stamped (probably the original S/N which may have been too faint), but the "M.J.K" stamp has me mystified. I can't find any info on that mark. I suspect that it might have been added at the time of the reactivation, sometime at, or after the '68 amnesty.

 

Any ideas on that "M.J.K." mark?

 

I have fired maybe a thousand rounds through this Sten Mk-II without a glitch. It is very reliable and it is my favorite subgun. I was told by Irv Kahn that it was a war trophy captured from a German at Normady. That said, it may have been a French Resistance gun dropped to them and then taken by a German then finally taken by a U.S. GI.

 

I must get a FOIA on this gun, hoping to retrive more of its history. I am glad I stripped off all of that ugly paint so as to reveal its wartime surface, but would like to know more about the history of this particular Sten Mk-II that I now own.

 

Steve.

 

[michaelkih]

Nice looking Sten

[RoscoeTurner]

You don't want us to tell you that those were originally painted do you?

[SRSch]

You don't want us to tell you that those were originally painted do you?

Roscoe,

 

Maybe...

 

But the patina on all the parts as I see in on this one would not be evident if it was originally painted. And if it was painted over the original parkerized surface which I can now see clearly, then it must have been worn off by the time it was picked up at Normandy. The tin trigger housing cover marked "S106" was not parkerized but blued. The barrel shroud nut was parkerized like all the parts of the rest of the gun, though the original barrel may not have been parkerized and has a distinct brown patina evidence that it was exposed to the weather and handling.

 

Examining the Crown over "42" proof with a magnifying lens reveals that it may have been proofed after the receiver was parkerized as it is much sharper with raised shiny edges. But that could be due to handling as well. But it looks to my eyes like it was stamped after parkerizing.

 

It would seem strange that these Stens would be painted over after parkerizing.

 

But your point brings up some other questions.

 

1) Were all WW2 Stens grey or black parkerized?

 

2) Were parkerized guns over painted?

 

3) Were some Stens not pakerized and simply painted?

 

4) Was the parkerizing step in WW2 dropped as an extra step to aid massive production?

 

But what I can see of the surface of my gun, especially on the receiver, is that it was grey parkerized and this has a very distinct brownish-grey patina today that could not have developed if it was not exposed to the weather and handling under harsh conditions.

 

I even noticed some etching on the "T" stock where a hand would sit and has worn away the parkerized surface, and the barrel which was never parkerized that looks like what one would see if a metal surface was exposed and etched by blood. I have seen firearms that were exposed to blood and the etching stains look the same. (scary thought).

 

Except for the REWAT weld spots that I pointed out, every part shows exposure to weather and where the parkerized surface has worn thin from handling; a light brownish-gray patina. Even the less handled parkerization shows a darker shade of brownish-grey tending more toward the grey.

 

I suspect that the GI painted it when he got home. And he,or his descendants, added the other coats over the years.

 

I could repaint it with a modern flat black enamel if I wanted to, and it would look much better than the 7 decades of crappy paint that was applied and reapplied over the original parkerizing.

 

But should I?

 

Steve

Edited June 26, 2014 by SRSch

[RoscoeTurner]

You should order a copy of the book at the bottom of this link -

http://www.collectorgrade.com/bookshelf5.html


The Sten Machine Carbine by Peter Laidler will answer all your questions.

[m3bobby]

SRSch, on 26 Jun 2014 - 21:39, said:

1) Were all WW2 Stens grey or black parkerized?

 

2) Were parkerized guns over painted?

 

3) Were some Stens not pakerized and simply painted?

 

4) Was the parkerizing step in WW2 dropped as an extra step to aid massive production?

1, No, component parts could be finished in what ever finishing facility was available

 

2, not all parked guns were painted. The use of Sunchorite was introduced in 1944 (I think) so your gun being 'Out of Service' at this time would not have been painted.

 

3, No, pre 1944, no paint, post 1944, all MkV Stens were phosphated and then painted in sunchorite.

 

4, Required for MkV production but not required for earlier marks.

[SRSch]

m3bobby, on 27 Jun 2014 - 12:06, said:

 

 

SRSch, on 26 Jun 2014 - 13:47, said:

SRSch, on 26 Jun 2014 - 21:39, said:

1) Were all WW2 Stens grey or black parkerized?

 

2) Were parkerized guns over painted?

 

3) Were some Stens not pakerized and simply painted?

 

4) Was the parkerizing step in WW2 dropped as an extra step to aid massive production?

1, No, component parts could be finished in what ever finishing facility was available

 

2, not all parked guns were painted. The use of Sunchorite was introduced in 1944 (I think) so your gun being 'Out of Service' at this time would not have been painted.

 

3, No, pre 1944, no paint, post 1944, all MkV Stens were phosphated and then painted in sunchorite.

 

4, Required for MkV production but not required for earlier marks.

m3bobby,

 

Well that makes sense, supporting what I see of the gun in its current condition with all three coats of paint removed. I was told that my Sten was captured from a German soldier at Normandy. So as you state "Out of Service" British service I suppose? Stens were dropped to the French Resistance well before Normandy battles, and this must therefore be one of those resistance dropped guns. I was told that both of my Trophy guns, this Sten Mk-II and my MP-40 came from the same GI's estate.

 

As I noticed after stripping this Sten Mk-II that most of the parts show parkerizing with a definite brownish grey patina.. The tube very handled, the receiver housing with a much thicker coat of phosphotizing.

 

Thus I think that this gun was never painted with black paint or sunchorite which is a tough phospor type paint developed in 1944. It was in use from the time it was dropped in France to the time that it was captured in Normandy in 1944.

 

Thanks for the info,

 

I will be ordering Laidler's book soon, as I think that will be an excellent ref for this interesting gun.

 

Steve

Edited June 29, 2014 by SRSch

[RoscoeTurner]

Buy the gun not the story. Do you have any documentation that backs up what the seller told you about the history of this Sten?

[m3bobby]

I can say with some confidence that this Sten wasn't in British service after 1944. If it had, it would have been modified with the Mk5 safety cocking handle. As for the story, there's nothing I can see that instantly disputes it (If it had a Mk5 handle then I'd be suspicious)but as Roscoe says, buy the gun not the story. But I like it!

[SRSch]

Buy the gun not the story. Do you have any documentation that backs up what the seller told you about the history of this Sten?

 

I can say with some confidence that this Sten wasn't in British service after 1944. If it had, it would have been modified with the Mk5 safety cocking handle. As for the story, there's nothing I can see that instantly disputes it (If it had a Mk5 handle then I'd be suspicious)but as Roscoe says, buy the gun not the story. But I like it!

 

Roscoe, and m3bobby,

 

Other than what Irv Kahn told me exactly 33 years ago when I acquired this gun and an MP-40, that both came from the same GI estate and were taken at Normandy. I wish I had asked him more about it, and who the GI was by name, but I doubt that if he knew that, that he would tell me as it could be a breach of contract with the GI seller or his estate. Both the Sten and the MP-40 were heavily painted over with the same type of black paint;a dull black engine enamel.. The Sten three layers, the MP-40 twice over the original surface. All I can say is what Irv Kahn back in 1981 related to me. As far as I know he was a very reputable dealer back then, so I trust the veracity of what he related to me about these two guns. The MP-40 shows extensive use as well and I will post some photos of it in the MP-40 group later.

 

As for my Mk-II Sten, it has a knurled cocking handle that has a brown patina, and no closed bolt locking hole in the tube as one would see with the para-handle on Mk-5's and others made in 1944 and later. I think that my Sten is one of the early Mk-II's.

 

So to get some sense of it's history and that of my MP-40, if they were Normandy trophies taken by one GI the only way is for me to request a complete FIOA request on this gun,

 

Though the names may be blanked out there might be in the documents some mention as to where they were acquired, and how they were imported into the U.S.

 

Steve.

 

BTW: Additional;

 

My curiosity aroused I decided to remove the blued trigger cover to see if the original surface was beneath it, whether it was painted before the cover was put on. And what I found is that the gun was heavily painted long after the cover was put on. The tube area under the cover has the same dark brownish-gray with a green cast apparently fresh parkerized surface, but no paint at all. The same evident along the trigger housing where the cover protected it from the weather or painting. Along the edge of the cover is the remains of the paint that I could not remove as a thin line that is under the trigger cover rim. And surprisingly there is also a Crown proof mark in this area not ever painted, as it was under the trigger guard tin for decades. Probably never removed since WWII.

 

Another question regarding Normandy D-Day and in the battles after the invasion. Are there any records, photo or otherwise that indicates that the Germans used captured Brit Stens?

 

Irv specifically told me that this Sten was a captured trophy from a German who used it against the Allies.

 

Steve.

Edited June 29, 2014 by SRSch

[RoscoeTurner]

All the FIOA documents even if not redacted will show you is the date and by who they were registered. No other history prior to that point.

[SRSch]

All the FIOA documents even if not redacted will show you is the date and by who they were registered. No other history prior to that point.

 

Well, after months I finally got the FIOA documents.... 5 pages of mostly redacted print. And as you mentioned gives me little idea as to the history of this gun or the fact that the original s/n was ground off and restamped to "36189 M.J.K." Why would this have been done? One would think that the original S/N was OK?

 

But here is what the FIOA revealed.

 

Page 1: Dated 11-16-68 ('68 Amnesty?) FORM 2 (Rev. Jan. 1967)

U.S. TREASURY DEPARTMENT-INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

RETURN OF FIREARMS MANUFACTURED, IMPORTED OR RECEIVED

CHAPTER 53, INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

 

And under this it lists my MK-II Sten as "36189 M.J.K." circled with handwritten word under "trans"

 

There is a big block of black toally redacted with "( (3) 26C U.S.C. 6103"

 

So from this this is the first record of this gun by the person unknown that registered it in 11-15-68. The large blacked out portain might have contained the information as to what was done with this gun as it was a DEWAT that was reactivated probalby at this time.

 

Page 2: Dated Dec. 4, 1969

This is a letter to "Director, A.T.T.D, IRS, Washington, D.C. 20224" requesing pursuant to Treasury Decision 5979. Title 26, Part 179.96; aproval to transfer the following firearms:

 

Big redacted area with three "( (3) 26C U.S.C. 6103" codes

 

My sten is listed "Sten Submachine gun, Model MK-II, serial 36189 M.J.K.(hand circled with hand written numbers T80I8001) caliber 9mm, British Manufacture"

 

Another big blacked out block with the same code notations. three in a row.

 

Several more blacked out areas where signatures were and a big stamp with APPROVED DEC 4. 1969.

 

Page 3: Dated 12-31-79

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY - bUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREAMS

APPLICATION FOR TAX EXEMPT TRANSFER OF FIREARM AND

REGISTRATION TO SPECIAL (OCCUPATIONAL) TAXPAYER.

 

This was a standard transfer to a class three dealer listing my Sten with the s/n hand circled, with hand written numbers above it as T80I10420.

 

Blacked out areas and approved 1-18-80

 

Then next page is another transfer to a class III dealer on Mar. 5th, 1980.

 

The page after is the tranfer to class III dealer Irv Kahn, on Jun 8, 1981

 

And the final page is the transfer to me through a Class III dealer that I was doing business with.

 

All this does not reveal much, other than the fact that it was held by the person that registered it in 1968 for over 10 years before turing it over to a Class III dealer for resale in 1980. And from that dealer it went to Irv Kahn who then sold it to me.

 

But what has me mistified is the first two documents. Being that this was a DEWAT did it go through a manufacturer to have it re-activated? And when that was done was a new s/n assigned? The next page is simple non-form letter asking approval of transfer of my sten and apparently several other arms.

 

Anyway, this is probalby more than you would want to read and I apologize for the tediousness of it.

 

So the qestions I have are still the sn that was re-stamped on my C&R Sten MK-II, after the original was ground off. Has anyone encountered this before? And how was that number acquired, was it given officially by the IRS, as I read somewhere that the IRS was assigning such numbers for other firearms.

 

Thanks,

Steve.

[av8tr]

My Sten Mk II has a serial number with an IRS prefix. It too, was amnesty registered, and its original serial number had been obliterated. The IRS serial number was given to it at is registration. I would guess the M.J.K. 36189 is the serial number given to it at the time of registration, and the M.J.K. has some link to the entity that did the rewatt. Just a guess.

[m3bobby]

The number stamped into the barrel is the original number of the gun that barrel was fitted to. So the number would have been a letter prefix (most likely 2 letters)followed by 7300. It is marked there to keep the barrel matched to that gun and would be fitted with the number in the 12 O'clock position, this keeps the POI the same after every disassembly/reassembly.

[m3bobby]

Oh, and SECO is Sterling Engineering Company who made the mag well.

[Barry]

I guess since this gun is a rewatt and the mag well is ground there is no way to confirm that the barrel is original.

Barry