WW II British tanker's assessment of the Sten and .38 Webley

Mike Irwin said:
"The recoil spring is also the main spring to ignite the cartridge, so it must be rather stout."

Actually, not really.

Most submachine guns in this class have a relatively heavy bolt. It's the bolt's inertia that helps keep the action closed until pressure in the barrel drops enough for the action to open safely.

By comparison, the main spring on most of these guns is relatively light. It really only needs to be heavy enough to arrest rearward motion of the bolt and push it forward again. It's the bolt's inertia that does the lion's share of actually firing the cartridge, not spring pressure.

Of course, you do need a certain level of spring pressure to ensure that the bolt is arrested in its rearward movement and it moves quickly enough on the forward stroke, but it's not as much as you'd really think.
Click to expand...
I see. There is perhaps another good reason to use lighter spring and longer bolt travel. To reduce cycling rate that is. All that makes this sort of unintentionally dischage more probable.

Not that it makes things any better, the discharge is most probably only one round. Hard for any one to keep the trigger pulled, while letting the bolt go rearward this far. I could be under estimating the creativity of certain kind.

Thanks for info.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
A lighter spring with longer bolt travel also gives a relatively softer feel to recoil and also makes the gun easier to cock, but it also makes the gun relatively harder to shoot accurately because the length of bolt travel tends to "walk" the gun.
 
Mike Irwin said:
"In real battle, I would have a Browning hi power or even a Walter p38."

I'd rather have a Hi Power just for the magazine capacity.

But remember, the Luger saw the German military through two world wars and through their period of Colonial expansion. It was well regarded as being reliable and accurate, even in very adverse conditions in the trenches.
Click to expand...
The Luger is not bad. But there were plenty of better, perhaps more accessible, choices in 9mm. Browning, Walter, the antiquated steyr hahn, Astra. That goes to the questionable judgement of the book's author. He was no doubt a very respected tanker. But I find his statement on small arms a bit, the way Brits like to put it, ballocky.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
They're only more accessible if you're either issued one or if you manage to capture one. Obviously, he wasn't issued one, as he talks about the .380 revolver, and almost all of the Hi Powers available to the British military were going to specialized troops, so capture is it.

Once you've captured a pistol to replace the gun you don't like, it's a lot less likely that you're going to search for a different one to replace the one you've got, especially given that the Luger was iconic and was considered to be quite the trophy.

We're looking at it from the point of view of gun guys.

He's obviously looking at it from the point of someone who has to fight, and wants better weapons, even if that means using captured weapons.
 
I suspect soldiers always complain about "lack of stopping power" to make up for inadequate training and poor marksmanship-cf. all the stories from Korea of M1 Carbine rounds failing to penetrate the Chinese padded uniforms. Though again, at 0200 in ten degrees below zero weather, howling winds, and a groggy and exhausted and sleep deprived GI or Marine. Likewise people have a "greatly exaggerated" view of fully automatic weapons, think all one has to do is "spray and pray".
 
But remember, the Luger saw the German military through two world wars and through their period of Colonial expansion. It was well regarded as being reliable and accurate, even in very adverse conditions in the trenches.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it replaced by the P-38 mostly for lower manufacturing costs (man hours)? Also, after the Walther PP came out, DA/SA was considered the modern European standard.
 
Mike Irwin said:
They're only more accessible if you're either issued one or if you manage to capture one. Obviously, he wasn't issued one, as he talks about the .380 revolver, and almost all of the Hi Powers available to the British military were going to specialized troops, so capture is it.

Once you've captured a pistol to replace the gun you don't like, it's a lot less likely that you're going to search for a different one to replace the one you've got, especially given that the Luger was iconic and was considered to be quite the trophy.

We're looking at it from the point of view of gun guys.

He's obviously looking at it from the point of someone who has to fight, and wants better weapons, even if that means using captured weapons.
Click to expand...
At least back in the day, only wealthy families could afford Sandhurst. He could buy his pistol of his choosing, as did Churchill. Some models would be more available than the other. As an officer in the tank corps, he could get an inglis hi power from Canada with no fuss, instead of shooting his revolver in a less-than-gentleman manner.

Didn't he shoot out the street lamp with his Luger as a college boy prank (questionable judgement perhaps)? Maybe he had already gotten that Luger before going to the field. Maybe he didn't really have to do the cowboy move with his service revolver. He just saw the other guys doing that. It is still unthinkable the British army didn't teach their lads how to use their weapon properly.

-TL

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
 
Wasn't it replaced by the P-38 mostly for lower manufacturing costs (man hours)?
Click to expand...

New Luger production ended in 1942. Yes, the P.38 was intended to replace the P.08, and did, to the extent possible, as it was more modern and cheaper to make, in terms of manhours needed.

Nazi Germany was, through out its brief history, chronically short of pistols (among other things). One of the reasons was the fact that nearly every govt official was in a uniform, and most of the time, that uniform included a pistol. Full dress uniforms often included both pistol and dagger.

P.38s primarily went to ground forces (Heer) first, the navy (Kriegsmarine) and air force (Luftwaffe) had mostly P.08 Lugers throughout the war.

Every arms maker that Germany captured intact was put to work making arms (especially pistols .32acp and above). Lots of .32s were worn by political officials, 9mms generally went to combat troops.

Lugers (Parabellums to the English) were prized trophies. P.38s less so, for a trophy, a bit more so for a combat handgun.
 
"At least back in the day, only wealthy families could afford Sandhurst. He could buy his pistol of his choosing, as did Churchill. Some models would be more available than the other."

By World War II junior officers were no longer required to purchase their own sidearm. They were issued a sidearm.

"As an officer in the tank corps, he could get an inglis hi power from Canada with no fuss, instead of shooting his revolver in a less-than-gentleman manner."

Uhm... No. He couldn't.

Inglis-made Hi Powers weren't available until late 1944. ALL production was contracted to the British government (for British and Commonwealth troops) and the Nationalist Chinese government. One simply couldn't bop over (or drop a letter) and expect to get one.

One the British army started issuing the Hi Powers, they were priority issued to Airborne and Special Forces. No general issue of Hi Powers was made to regular army commands, including armor, until well after the end of World War II.

http://www.ai4fr.com/main/page_militaria__collectibles_canada_inglis.html


"Didn't he shoot out the street lamp with his Luger as a college boy prank (questionable judgement perhaps)?"

Not sure what you point is about this. I've not read the book, so I don't know what the time frame is for when he did this vs when he and his tank landed in France.


"It is still unthinkable the British army didn't teach their lads how to use their weapon properly."

As with most European military organizations, handguns were largely seen as a badge of officer's rank. There are accounts of the British and French being very surprised at how many American enlisted personnel had handguns when American troops arrived in Europe in World War I. Even more surprising to the British was that the Americans viewed handguns as legitimate fighting tools.

The British placed almost no priority on training their officers in the use of handguns. Essentially it boiled down to being shown how to load, unload, and maintain the gun and range time that MIGHT get them up to 50 rounds fired total. If they were lucky. As war time pressures of ramping up an army really hit home, it's very likely that that amount of training was cut considerably. The military needed the officers more than it needed the officers to be proficient in handgun use.

For most of the first half of the war officers were issued a total of 12 rounds of ammunition -- 6 in the gun, and 6 in load loops. Getting more ammunition required it to be requisitioned from regimental stores and likely offering justification as to why you needed to replace your ammunition.

So no. It's not surprising at all that the British didn't properly train their officers how to use the issue revolver.
 
"Wasn't it replaced by the P-38 mostly for lower manufacturing costs (man hours)?"

Luger production continued into 1943 when Mauserwerk finally ceased production. The simple fact is that the P-38 couldn't be made quickly enough to allow the Luger production to cease.

That's also why the Germans routinely took handguns (and other arms) from invaded nations into service. The Danish 1911, the French MAS 35, the Polish Radom, the Belgian High Power, all were pressed into German service.

If the gun fired a non-standard cartridge (Danish 1911, MAS 35), those weapons were generally used to arm occupation troops in the nation of origin. During the invasion of France Allied troops frequently encountered Germans armed with Betherier rifles and MAS 35 and Lebel revolvers.
 
For most of the first half of the war officers were issued a total of 12 rounds of ammunition -- 6 in the gun, and 6 in load loops. Getting more ammunition required it to be requisitioned from regimental stores and likely offering justification as to why you needed to replace your ammunition.
Click to expand...

Probably why, in the Golden Age of surplus guns, there were plenty of British revolvers but little surplus ammo. Leading to .455s being (unwisely) cut for .45 and S&Ws being reamed to accept .38 Special. The .38 Webleys and Enfields just kind of languished. Although if you were an Englishman with a revolver on your license, Webley sold front sight blades to correct elevation for commercial 146 grain .38 S&W.
 
"The .38 Webleys and Enfields just kind of languished."

Which is kind of silly when you consider that the .38 S&W round was still readily available, and S&W was still making revolvers for it (I improved, J, and K frames), into the 1960s.

Western was even loading a 200-gr. load that matched the original British load (which had apparently been patterened on the Western load to begin with).
 
In a book entitled If Britain had fallen the author tells of a maintenance unit, the men's rifle were taken away and even the lieutenant had to hand over his rifle for use elsewhere. Charlie Askins said when he was held up the staging area before D-Day he tried to teach as many officers as possible to shoot, he noted that few had handled a handgun before. We often forget that few soldiers -in any army-are gun people.
 
Which is kind of silly when you consider that the .38 S&W round was still readily available,
Click to expand...

There is still resistance to the .38 S&W. Ask on the S&W board about your old .38 and somebody will surely say: "They still make ammo for it but it is expensive and hard to find."
 
"There is still resistance to the .38 S&W. Ask on the S&W board about your old .38 and somebody will surely say: "They still make ammo for it but it is expensive and hard to find."

And today, that's true. It CAN be expensive and hard to find because it's not nearly as popular as it once was.

The reason for that is that S&W brought out the J frame in .38 Special, displacing the .38 S&W as the small snub caliber.

The entire Wonder 9 stampede that started in the late 1970s also didn't help the cartridge one bit, either.

But in the 1950s and 1960s, the heyday of the surplus era, .38 S&W was available just about anywhere that sold ammunition and/or firearms.
 
Thanks Mike. My grandfather bought a 38 S&W Special for the gang wars of his time. He used to go to Fremont, CA to practice. It was all farmland back in the '30s.
 
In Germany in 1955, Royal Signals, 2-year conscription, I witnessed an accidental discharge from a .38 revolver.
On guard duty at night, was something you got called to do. With a .303 Enfield rifle. No ammunition! Just a spike bayonet.
The Guard commander was supposed to be an Officer? But normally a Sgt. This night it was a Lance Corporal.
It was cold! The Guard Commander was wearing an Enfield. The 38 short version. His holster was hanging below his web belt, some jerry-rigged way?
The guard on post had just been relieved, and he was in the process of drinking a hot chocolate (Coco) dressed in a thick Great Coat, sweater, jacket, vest.
And a cross strapped ammo pouch.
The Guard Commander was the only person with ammo. He was doing some quick draw? BANG! Cup dropped! Corporal ran into the cell, closed the gate behind him, the key was on the outside, so not locked.
The squaddie who was shot in the back, with fixed bayonet on his Rifle, was trying to stab the corporal with it, through the bars. Could not reach him, but kept trying. Me and the other off-duty chap grabbed the Guard, took the rifle off him. Big wrestling match.

The bullet had hit him exactly at the crossed centre of the pouch straps.
We tried to undress this Guard in a panic, to get at the wound! The potbellied stove made the room hot. We found no blood! Just a quickly growing bruise!
Black and blue, huge!
So much for the power of that 600 fps 200g RN lead bullet.
 
All you guys sounding all knowledgeable and blaming it on bad training and stuff and saying his impressions were wrong are ignoring things.
He used a Luger and said it got the job done. What's the explanation there for why that suddenly worked for him and others?
Maybe you are saying a .38 Webley really is a fantastic gun only if properly trained but a Luger is a great gun with no training?
Same comment with the Sten.
He and many others had to use and kill lots of people with these things. He wasn't alone in mass practical use and coming up with the same replacement solution. Maybe hundreds of soldiers that had to kill lots of people know better than an armchair quarterback.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top