Talk:Sten

message: I've removed: although earlier versions of the STEN could be modified so as to hang the magazine vertically - ??! Only MP-3008 had vertical magazine Pibwl 12:29, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sten mark I and IIs had a sprung-loaded catch in front of the magazine housing that allowed the magazine assembly to be rotated down 90 degrees so as to close the ejection port and prevent the ingress of dirt. Ian Dunster 16:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I realize that the name is an abbrevation, but I usually see it written in lowercase.  Is the all uppercase the 'proper' name? Oberiko 13:00, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless anyone objects, I'm going to change the name back from STEN to Sten. Oberiko 12:54, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sten or STEN?

message: Normally I would just correct the anaemic See also section, but my change (addition of Submachine gun) has been reverted. I said correct not expand, because even though See also sections don't seem to have concrete rules or guidelines it is described in the manual of style (Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#See_also) as follows:
:Mostly, topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article as free links. The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links as a navigational aid.
This See also section clearly does not fulfil the only two basic purposes, because the two items listed aren't mentioned in the rest of the article (or explained with a description) and it's clearly not a ...list of internal links... (and therefore everything in a See also section is in a sense superfluous which was the reason given for removing my initial addition).
I think the following improvements would be prudent and more importantly useful:
*Existing two entries could be explained (why are they related), e.g.
**Austen MK I, Australian weapon derived from Sten.
**De Lisle carbine, similar weapon of same era.
*Adding additional related topics
**Submachine gun
*Submachine gun appears within the intro. In a general article on submachine guns, a see also to (for instance) semi-automatic pistols wold be appropiate. In a specific item article I would think it should be to related items. For sten this might be the Sterling SMG, or the BSA submachine gun that was another contender to replace it.GraemeLeggett 08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section 

message: I'm wondering if we REALLY need 10 youtube videos depicting the STEN? Can't somebody just do their own search if they're interested?  The newest one is going to be reverted because it's 2 minutes of other guns.--Asams10 15:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video overload? 

message: Hello, I too am a student of firearms and would like to start a dialog on this subject. This is why I instituted the change in the article. 
The change as made to the Sten reference because of a transcript by the co-inventor Colonel Shepherd discussing how it was named when he received an Award from the Board of the Royal Commission Awards to inventors.
Lord Cohen: " Why was it called the Sten?"
Colonel Shepard" it was called the Sten by the then  Director General of Artillery. The "S' was from my name, the "T" from Mr. Turpin who was my draughtsman and who did a very large amount of the design and the "EN" was for England. That is the origin of the name, for which I accept no responsibility."
I believe since he was the co-inventor that you would have to admit that his testimony carries considerable weight in this matter.In reference to the many other sources (including our own Ian Hogg)inthis country(as well as many others I'm sure)there is a saying that just because many people believe in something doesn't make it true. Father Christmas springs to mind. Any way I hope I've explained my change to your satisfaction. If you have any suggestions on how i might better cite this quote let me know I was considering attaching the actual quotions of the transcript to the reference ( Iwill have to muse over how to do that.
:Actually, dozens of other references could be wrong, but you'll need to outweigh it with more than a snippet from a book. He could have been mixquoted, could have misspoke, or could have been misleading.  The official word still stands.  You don't challenge dozens of sources with one that claims to have transcribed an original speech by the co-inventor.  If you plan on doing that, take it to discussion first.  I'm reverting your dubious claim until you can support it here with a concensus.--Asams10 06:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC
First all from your strong defence I assume that you are the writer of the article and i mean no disrespect you seem quite emotional on the subject, may I say that the article is very well written and obviously a labor of love so please do not assume I am attacking you personally. I am not. I consider myself well read on the Sten and I have never run across anything that has mentioned a source this close to the project. What sources are you refering to. I have read Ian Hogg and Skennerton and Frank Iannamco. I would like to here of others not just because of this debate but because off my love for historical firearms. I think there is slight fault with your logic when you say that dozens of soures say this. You would neeed to look to see that not all the sources stem from a common root. For example Ian Hogg, which as you said does not always have the best track record. Since I have presented my source I would ask two things you and I will stop changing your article a sten gun truce if you will and  please give me a list if some of the dozens of other sources to which you refer. I understand this may take time. Also if you take time to read this book and give it your opinion. In other words I'm trading my sources for yours. Maybe you will convince me. Also I'm perplexed by what you mean by the " official word" What officials are speaking of writers such as yourself or some British armory. I think rarely in this world is there an official source for much. I'm assuming that you are not saying that you are an official source since I'm assuming that you were not here at the creation of the firearm. I'm enjoying our discusion and again I apologize if I have in any way provoked you by the changin of your article. I do like having a good intellectual banter such as this. I do realize that probably 90% of the population of the planet does not give a wit about this discussion and this definition. Probably about 50% of the people don't even know what a Sten gun is and I think that is being generous. By the way I belive I am communicating with you in disscussion if I'm not please let me know and I will post this in the proper place. In a minute way I feel like Galilio trying to fight the church. So in closing I will say "It still moves" Also keep an open mind about the book, at PlEASE READ IT you may be pleasantly suprised, I will consider your sources as well. Peter Laidler The Sten Machine Carbine 
:I've partially rewritten the article, however the sources I've read are generally in agreement that while people differ, it's accepted that the EN stands for Enfield.  I've not personally interviewed but a handful of gun folks, but it's generally agreed that designers are at least as forgetful, boastful, and revisionist as their biographers often are.  I believe that it makes sense to use EN to denote Enfield, and not England, as do the vast majority of other sources.  --Asams10 09:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Laidler's Sten book is of the same quality as his Lanchester/Patchett/Sterling title, I would consider it authoritative.  Collector Grade Publications' books are uniformly high quality. D.E. Watters 22:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The 'en' in all British arms designations was derived from the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield, which is where the technical, design and initial production work on British Army guns was carried out. That's also where 'Enfield' rifling  - as opposed to Metford rifling - was devised. This 'en' derivation also applied to the ADEN and the RARDEN - all 'Enfield' - and to the Sten.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sten Change? 

message: I have seen the Stens to be in service with different Indian Police Forces as recently as 2007, i.e. last year. Can anybody throw some light on that?Shovon 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are still in service in more places than India. --Asams10 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been ads in Shotgun News selling Indian Police Sten magazines.  They are unique in that they have wires welded to the inside such that cartridges feed more evenly and bits of dirt are less likely to cause a jam.  If I remember correctly, they only hold 20 rounds however, and are made from old WWII type magazines. 69.239.23.60 (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Still in service

message: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sten_(konepistooli)
Its not listed in the english article but finnish defence forces (PUOLUSTUSVOIMAT) swapped patch of "old and 'captured' ie soviet ww2" weapons with "interarms" which is / was some kind of CIA front for arms trafficing for 3rd world conflicts in "late 1950's" and got it return 75 000 Sten SMG's mostly of MK.3 type but also others each with 5 magazines, and the weapons in turn were completely overhauled in FDF arms depots and somewhat also modified to better suit local 9mm ammo. Most of them were stored for use in time of crisis, but some were used as service weapons, as the finnish language article tells, as practice weapons by combat divers, a special forces unit similar to USN SEALS. And that the weapons were issued with official army designations ie "9.00 kp Sten III" -> _9.00 (mm) "SMG" Sten III_.
Maybe somebody wants to check into it and integrate it into the article?
Cheers  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I added such info before checking on this talk page. I possess several shots that my father took during his national service in the early 1960s as a combat swimmer, in these his squad is armed with Stens (he's unwilling to publish them as such, a black-rectangle-over-the-eyes-censoring or an OTRS-like arrangement might be possible. Other sources are this page: gibberish google translation and a price list for former FDF materiél that includes deactivated Stens. 88.148.217.107 (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users 

message: My last friend that was orld War II veteran, died last week.I went to his seventh day catholic mass.While in World War II(he became general decades later), he was trained in using this weapon.He told me, that this weapon even being easily used, didn't had good quality.Well, he used the M-1 Garand in war, an amazing weapon.Agre22 (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, prior to the Sten in 1940 the British were buying Thompsons from the US at around £90 per-gun. The Sten OTOH was eventually brought down in price to around £2.7/6d.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 13:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

text: In addition, the Thompsons had to be brought over from the US by ship and at the time this was risky due to shipping losses and sometimes sailings had to be postponed or cancelled, leading to non-arrival of the guns.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Cheap, but far from the best

message: Specifically P A Luty seems to have built simple working models.Geo8rge (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Are there any objections to a section on homemade sten guns?

message: The Sten Mark II had seperate and distinct receiver, magazine housing and barrel shroud assemblies.
The Sten Mark III had a unitized receiver-magazine housing-barrel shroud in one piece and was a lot cheaper to make.
However, the Sten Mark II stayed in production after the Mark III was introduced and the Sten Mark V was based on the Mark II and not on the Mark III.
The few discussions I know about claim that it was more economical to maintain the Mark II than to maintain the Mark III. If you had a pile of damaged Stens recovered after-action, an armourer could mate good receivers, magazine housings and barrel assemblies from Mark IIs to assemble useful weapons. If a Mark III unitized construction was damaged, there was not much that could be done to salvage it. Naaman Brown (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from the points mentioned above, the Mark II also had the advantage of being easily knock-downable, i.e., it could be dismantled without tools so that it would fit into a bag or holdall. The butt stock can be removed by pressing the button in the top of the main tube against the pressure of the mainspring, and sliding the stock downwards, and the barrel assembly can be unscrewed and removed using just the hand. This makes the Sten Mk II easily carried and concealed, a distinct advantage for many of its users. There were several Marks of Sten developed after the Mk II, but none bettered it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.254.32 (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

text: A Sten Mk II being fired and stripped on YouTube here:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  side issue: why Mark II outlasted Mark III 

message: It says place of origin as Britain? Did Scotland or Wales have any input in the design and development or was it just in England?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.8.42 (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of origin 

message: This help request has been answered. If you need more help, please place a new  request on this page followed by your questions, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page.
Can someone sort out the massive flag that's near the foot of the article please?  Jon
:Removed, no need for it.  Ta for pointing it out.  Geoff B (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted the broken redirect template thing too. :) [stwalkerster|talk] 23:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be in there w/ no flag; someone apparently tried to add one here but did it wrong. I've reinstated the 'no flag' version. The broken thing was Template:Country_data_Commonwealth_of_Nations by the way (thanks for deleting, Stwalkerster).  Chzz  ►  23:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. Geoff B / whoever, if it really doesn't belong in the list at all, feel free to remove it again, of course; I was just going back to the 'working' version, as it were.  Chzz  ►  23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive flag on article

message: The Sten was a British weapon that was also produced in Canada.
Neither Britain nor Canada supplied weapons to the Philippine resistance.  Nor did the US acquire Stens for any such purpose.
No reputable sources are presented for the claim that the Filipinos used Stens.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.99.241 (talk) 05:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A ship carrying a cargo of among other things, Stens, and Universal Carriers, was trapped in Hong Kong by the Japanese invasion of 1941-2 and so some guns may have made their way by a roundabout route to the Philippines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stens were not used by Philippine resistance in WW II 

message: The lead picture is IMHO perhaps not the most awesome, showing an example with a fairly obvious missing part and an apparently broken trigger mechanism.  Shouldn't we use one of the other photos?  Personally I'd go for the one of the factory worker, partly because it gives a good view of an actually intact gun, and subjectively just because I like it!
Though some may argue that the current possibly broken example with bits missing is in the spirit of the Sten! --Vometia (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main picture 

message: there is a pictuere on this article wich consists of a sten like gun with the magazine rotated down,like the mp 3008.So,wich one is it? A bored editor (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sten with magazine rotated down or mp3008? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Britain, along with the rest of the world, is considered an off-shore foreign something by US-centric Ikipedia.
Dollars? Isn't that what everyone used? 109.144.28.119 (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The context is a comparison with the Thompson submachine gun, which were purchased by the UK in the US. Presumably, US dollars are what are used in the cited sources, which are American. If you want to do something productive instead of adding snarky comments on the talk page, you can look up sources that use British currency, and add them to the article. BilCat (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  British gun, costs given in dollars