By Finn Neilsen

The period between the first and Second World War was a most interesting one in the field of small arms development. This period saw the transition from the expensively made-from-solid firearm to the cheap, yet just as effective, made-from-stampings firearm. This was particularly the case with submachine guns, the German MP40 being one of the early examples. The MP40 really bridged the gap between the first and second generations of submachine guns.

The first generation of submachine guns can be characterized as weapons which used machined receivers, wood stocks (often fine walnut), and rifle-type rear sights. They include the MP18 I, MP28 II, Erma EMP, Bergmann MP35, Thompson 1921, 1928, Suomi 1926 and 1931 and a multitude of others in various European countries.

The second generation includes the MP40, various marks of Stens, Madsen 50 and 53 and the American M3, among others. The production quality of this generation is considerably lower than those of the first, although there is usually no change is reliability.

Third generation submachine guns will include any with “telescoping bolt” systems, such as the Czech Vz25/26 series and their Israeli copies; and usually incorporate the extensive use of polymers in their larger parts such as stocks (such as the Austrian Steyr MPi69).

In terms of dates we can put them approximately as follows:

•1st Generation: 1917 – 1940

•2nd Generation: 1940 – 1960

•3rd Generation: 1960 – to the present

Naturally there is some overlap with the various models in different countries and this is a rule-of-thumb only. Now that that has been put into perspective let us look at the subject of this article, the ZK383/Vz9.

The Germans annexed Czechoslovakia in 1938 as a result of the gutless caving in to Hitler’s demands by the French and British. Czechoslovakia was created out the mess following World War 1. It became a republic in 1920 and shed the authority of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The legendary Skoda works, founded in 1869 by Emil Skoda produced most of the weapons the Czechs made for own use, and export. Czech artillery and small arms were of a quality unsurpassed in the world. By the time of the annexation, a healthy export sales programme was in place. Many third world countries armies used rifles and light machineguns made in Pilsen. In fact most of the Waffen SS’s early light armament consisted of excellent Vz24 (a derivative of the ’98 Mauser), not to mention the Bren predecessor, the ZBVz26 series of light machinegun. They gave the Germans and Belgians plenty of competition in the world market of firearms.

The ZK383 is a typical second generation submachinegun. The only stampings in it are in its unique bipod which folds to fit into the forearm. Typical of this generation it was made of the finest materials with fit and finish easily rivaling some of today’s sporting rifles. It was designed by Josef and Frantisek Koucky at the Zbrojovka Brno plant, where it remained in limited production from the late 1930s until about 1948.

The example which I own is a post-war sample made for Venezuela. It is marked with that countries coat-of-arms as well as the legend “FUERZAS ARMADAS MILITARES, VENEZUELA” (Military Armed Forces of Venezuela).

It is of 9x19mm Parabellum caliber and fitted with a 30-round magazine which is housed on the left side of the receiver at a slightly upward angle. The magazine is a two-position-feed, staggered-column, detachable box-type. The magazine release lever is at the rear of the magazine-well facing the shooter. It is a sturdy lever, easily pushed to release the magazine. Overall length is 35.4 inches (875 mm), with a barrel length of 12.8 inches (325 mm). The six-groove barrel has a right-hand twist. The weight, empty is 9.37 pounds (4.25 kg) – typical of submachine guns of this era and generation. The front sight is a protected blade-type and the tangent-type rear sight features an open V-notch, which is adjustable in 100-meter increments from 100 to 800 meters.

It is a selective-fire weapon, firing from an open bolt, with the selector found at the left rear just behind the small cocking handle. The position marked “30” indicates full-auto, with “1” indicating semiautomatic. A cross bolt safety is found above the trigger which blocks its rearward travel when applied.

Its internal features are quite interesting. The return spring for the bolt is housed in the buttstock, a feature similar to the Austrian Steyr-Solothurn SMG and also the much later FN FAL and H&K G3 series of rifles.

Disassembly is simple. Merely place the selector in the 90-degree position and pull it out to the left. The weapon may now be broken open and the bolt unit with its attached “rat tail” pulled back and out of the receiver. Pull back on the catch behind the rear sight and pull and turn the barrel out of the weapon. Replace in reverse order. Looking at the bolt you will note that there is a piece of metal fitted into the bolt body which can be readily removed. This is a rate of fire reducer/increaser, depending on whether or not it is installed into the bolt body. Theoretical rate of fire with the weight is 500 rpm and without it is 700 rpm, about the same as an original S & W M76.

The ZK383 was also fielded by the Waffen SS, who apparently used just about anything the Wehrmacht didn’t want! Theirs were marked “Vz9” and made under German supervision.

Given its length, weight and caliber, the ZK383 is a pleasure to shoot. I have used mine in our club shoots with some success. The bipod helps of course, but they won’t let me use it!

By Finn Nielsen

As a long-time collector and wheeler-dealer of military-type firearms, sometimes ‘interesting’ situations will occur that are not likely to be repeated ever again. Some years ago in the late evening, the ‘phone rang and the following conversation took place. “Hello”. “Is this Mister Nielsen?” says an old quavery voice. “Yes it is, what can I do for you?” Who is this I wonder. I am not buying any Girl Scout cookies. “I am told that you know about guns.” the old crone sounding voice goes on. “I have some in my chicken coop that I would like you to sell for me. I will reimburse you for your trouble of course.” A woman of character who knows which way is up, obviously. “You keep guns in a chicken coop? How many are there?” I respond, all the while wondering in what kind of shape these ‘Chicken Coop’ guns would be! “Oooh, I don’t know exactly, maybe you could come down and have a look for yourself?”

I am thinking that this is either a stroke of good fortune, and visions of stacks of minty items, albeit with the chicken droppings added, dance in my head, or it will be rusted junk laced with chicken dung. Full of altruism I agree and the woman gives me directions. It is about 100 miles away in a nice part of the province. A few days later (actually the next day, you don’t wait on these things because others are out there!) I pull up in front of a turn of the century gingerbread house. A short distance behind the house is the ‘Chicken Coop’. The chicken coop lady emerges from the house holding a flashlight. “Oooh you got here fast,” she says. “Let’s go look at the guns. There is no electricity but I have the flashlight.” She tells me that her husband passed away some years ago and was a big collector of guns. I am thinking it is a little careless to store them with the chickens, but, each to his own!

The small door to ‘The Coop”, could only be partially opened, so I stick my head in with the flashlight. I don’t know if you remember the answer to question, “What do you see?” when King Tut’s tomb was opened. The answer was “Wonderful things!” Well, I didn’t see ‘wonderful things’ but did see my favourite olive drab colours, muzzle brakes, wheels and gun shields! I saw CANNON! I pulled my head out and confronted the woman, “Madam, your coop is full of GUNS!” “Well,” she says, “I told you that, young man, when we spoke on the phone.” It wasn’t exactly a let down per se. It was just that it was not what I had expected, to say the least. When people say they have a gun at home, you usually assume it’s not equipped with those new pneumatic tires. “My husband liked to be exact in his descriptions” she says, a little snippily I thought. “He called them GUNS”. “Well, they surely are that” I think, all the while mulling over who I can coerce into helping me with this find. A few days later I am back with fanatics who will help for a brewski or two just to have a chance to look at the goodies and perhaps touch as well. So, what was in “The Coop”? Let me tell you – A Danish Model 35 37mm A/T cannon. There was no shield on it and it had suffered some transport damage in the past. This was the ‘door knocker’ of Wehrmacht fame. The breech mechanism was untouched and the sights were stored in ‘The Coop” with other spares in old dusty leather containers. There were two French ‘Cannon’, the 25mm Hotchkiss and another 25mm which I believe was the Model 1937, L/77. I am not sure if this was the ‘Puteaux’, seeming to recall that it was a larger calibre. The Hotchkiss is also called the Mle 1934. It was used with virtually no effect against the panzers in 1940 and was also used by British units that summer of 1940. Light and flimsy, it was easily damaged during towing and was ineffective against modern armour.

The L/77 (Puteaux?) fell into the same category as the Hotchkiss. They were used for defensive purposes in France and some were issued to third echelon units who were unlikely to see actual combat. There were more. The most interesting one was probably the Austrian Bohler. It was produced from 1935 onward and was in the more powerful 47mm calibre. It was sold all over the world, and captured Dutch guns were adopted by the Japanese for use in their sphere of influence. Its wheels were removable and this gave it a very low silhouette, a good thing too, if you are popping away at a T.34 or a Panther. Yes, both the Russkies and the Krauts used them. The Krauts got theirs from the Austrians, the Russkies seized theirs from Lithuania, who had purchased them from Austria in the thirties when they were buddies. In addition there were a few yellow painted metal boxes with French writing on them. We opened one, and lo and behold there were eight gleaming like-new 25mm shells for the Hotckiss Gun! Sixty plus years and they looked like they were made yesterday. The French never did get to unpack a lot of ammo. Oh yes, and there were the mortars. One was a German 81mm complete with the T/E mechanism and base plate, ditto for a Russian 120mm. All of these items were covered with dust and dirt, and some chicken droppings, but who cares, because underneath it all they were mostly all there and in pretty good shape, as you can see from the photographs whose quality I apologize for. I have no idea where the guns had come from. Probably from south of us during the ‘good old days’ when you could get a Lahti 20mm, with ‘the coffin’ and tools, for $99 murican dollars, not to mention a ‘doorknocker’ for not a lot more. You won’t see those days again, Boys. As we all know there are only a limited number of individuals interested in this type of thing and most others would probably not think such a ‘find’ of interest at all. I can imagine the headlines today if the Press had glommed onto it. ‘BARN ‘O DEATH’ or ‘COOP ‘O DOOM’ etc, coupled with photographs of grim faced Police Officers who are sure that certain death in a ‘hail of shells’ has just been averted, and, “see what we are up against out there” folks looks on their faces! The word ‘cache’ will occur somewhere in the write-up as well. Well, that didn’t happen, and while the drive home was ‘interesting’ no problems were encountered. Did I buy them? You bet! Selling them was much easier than I had thought it would be. I still know where the Hotchkiss is. It’s nicely restored, although I believe he is looking for tires for it. I don’t know what he did with the ‘shells’. It’s difficult to find isolated areas where the sound of a 25mm ‘Canon leger de Antichar SA-L mle. 1934.L/72’ would not be noticed and cause vehicle mounted flashing lights to approach. So, the next time the telephone rings, it might just be a person who has a ‘Chicken Coop’ with STUFF in it! Go for it.

By Finn Nielsen

The introduction of the machinegun in the late 1880s revolutionized warfare to some extent. Once it was realized that these guns were not to be handled or expected to perform as artillery their use brought about trench warfare, by necessity. The war between Japan and Russia in 1905 saw troops bogged down in deep trenches, as any movement on a large scale caused terrible losses from dug in machineguns. A light, man- portable, rifle-calibered machinegun was available in 1905. This was the Danish Madsen, which saw some use in that conflict, although mostly by Russian cavalry.

The idea of a high volume of fire in a pistol-calibered weapon had been approached somewhat in the development of the Ml896 Mauser ‘Broomhandle’, but this weapon was not to be produced in selective-fire, large capacity magazine versions until the l920s. Its complexity and cost ruled out issue of these on a large scale.

Thus when World War 1 broke out in Europe in August of l914 the submachinegun, as we know it today, did not exist.

On 23 May of 1915, Italy entered the war against the central powers. While the Italians outnumbered their Austrian opponents by a comfortable margin, the terrain in which they had to fight was totally against them. The expression ‘uphill battle’ was completely true here. From June to December that year the Italians lost over 278 000 men in what were mostly fruitless attacks. Despite the fact that the terrain favoured artillery and long range machinegun fire to cover or defend against attacks, a man portable, pistol caliber ‘submachinegun’ still made its appearance in 1915. It was the Villar-Perosa.

Designed by Revelli, who was also responsible for other interesting machinegun designs, it became known as the ‘V.P. 1915’ and also the ‘Fiat’, after one of the factories which made it. It is alleged that it was also manufactured here in Toronto in l917 and 18, however, I have never seen any (having seen only three!) with markings which might indicate that was the case.

The terrain described above was mountainous. The Carnic and Julian Alps provided ideal defensive positions and a man-portable, rifle-caliber, light machinegun was what was needed. The poor 9mm pistol-caliber V.P was thrust into the light machinegun role for which it was totally unsuited because of the lack of power of its cartridge.

It took some time but the Italians finally realized that the long-range machinegun role was not for the V.P. The V.P. was then used in the assault role that it did a little better at due to its reasonable portability and very high rate of fire. The V.P. was actually two guns in one. They were mounted side by side (side by each?) with spade grips and two buttons/triggers, similar to heavy machineguns. Some were equipped with a bipod and others with an attached square shield.

The system of operation has been described as delayed blowback, but more accurately might be described as ‘advanced primer ignition’. The cartridge is fired before it is fully chambered and thus has to overcome the forward motion of the bolt before it can begin to push it back. The simplest of systems, you can find variations of it in most of your low -powered cartridge semi-autos.

The V.P. I had the opportunity to examine was the version with the bipod and no shield. It is actually a very short unit, 21 inches in overall length, and weighs in at some 16 pounds with two loaded 25 round magazines in place.

They were supposed to be chambered for 9mm parabellum cartridges, but given the age of the weapon, and the fact it might have been meant to shoot the lower powered Glisenti round, the owner used lead projectile handloads loaded below 1000 f.p.s. They worked just fine.

Control of your fire is something else. There is no selector, it is full auto only. A twenty-five round magazine coupled with a rate of fire of well over 1000 rpms just doesn’t last long!

The magazines are easy to charge being a staggered row, a design which I could never understand why other nations early on did not copy. Sub machineguns such as the MP28 and its copies, and other foreign weapons went with the single row feed and the attendant pain of having to use a loader to fill them. I always thought that the Chinese conversion of the Sten MK II using the easy-to-load PPS 43 magazine made a lot of sense. Of course a Swedish K is only a Sten with a good magazine in it at a different angle!

So the little Villar really pounded out the projectiles, but in the version we had it must have been really cumbersome to run with , set up, and then use it effectively. For sure, ammo carriers would have to have been close behind you.

The Villar Perosa was never a success tactically because of all the limitations that its caliber imposed upon it, but it did serve as the basis for a more effective firearm. The O.V.P., for all intents and purposes is merely a single-barreled V.P. It still has the top mounted magazines, off-set sights and the high rate of fire. Cocking is accomplished by the use of a knurled sleeve around the receiver which must be pulled back and pushed forward to make it ready for firing. Apparently most of the V.P. units were converted to this version and thus the one that I fired is uncommon.

The club that I belong to has demonstrated weapons such as the V.P. and more current small arms to selected groups of The Canadian Armed Forces.

By Finn Nielsen

When World War II broke out in September 1939 for The British Commonwealth, most of the member countries were totally unprepared for the conflict.

Equipment was still of World War I vintage, especially small arms. One country, Australia, had few up to date weapons. One woeful shortcoming was the absence of sub machineguns. Most of the coming fighting would be in terrain which would be ideally suited to this type of weapons’ short range firepower.

The idea of purchases from abroad was dropped immediately. Nothing was available, with the exception of a limited number of Thompson Guns used in the North African campaigns. Australians had to rely on their own resources.

The first submachine gun was the Mark I Austen. This design relied on the features of two proven designs, the MP 40 and the Sten Gun. Both excellent designs in their own right, with the exception of their egregious single row feed magazine designs.

Although the Australians had encountered the Beretta Modelo 38 in the desert, there were no efforts made to copy this fine sub machineguns’ magazine design.

The Austen used the receiver and magazine housing of the Sten and the internal parts were pure MP 40, notably the telescoping return spring whose dirt proof design increased the reliability immensely. The folding stock was also MP-40. Those of you who have handled the Austen will note that the stock is longer than an MP- 40 which makes it a little nicer to handle on deliberate semi-auto fire from the shoulder if you are six one and overweight like myself. It’s probably too long for shorter shooters. The reason for the length was to enable it to fold under the forward pistol grip. The purely Australian feature is the two pistol grips. Well slanted back, they are ergonomically pleasing and do resemble MP-40 pistol grips, in fact the panels may interchange! Available literature indicates that only about 20,000 were made during the period 1942 – 1945.

The system of operation is of course blow back and it fires from an open bolt. Rate of fire was normal for the type, about 500 – 550 rounds per minute. Easily controllable for single shots, as well as bursts, by the experienced user, it did have a Sten type push through selector though.

The next Australian development is one which is much better known than the Austen (The name is an acronym formed by AUS and STEN, Australian Sten) and this one was named after its designer Lt. E.E. Owen. This design did not exhibit any plagiarism of existing designs, other than firing from an open bolt. The rest of the features were Lt. Owen’s own brainchild. The most readily noticeable feature was the top mounted magazine (just as on the Villar-Perosa) It held 33 cartridges, 9mm Parabellum of course just as the Austen, and was of the lovely easy-to-load double row feed type. The most interesting feature of the magazine is that each magazine has the ejector as an integral part of its box. At the rear of the magazine a small square stub protrudes downward. The base of the cartridge case strikes this protrusion when it is pulled out of the chamber by the extractor and is hurled downward through the ejection port. The Owen is probably the only sub machinegun with this interesting design feature.

The bolt system of the Owen is completely enclosed and prevents the ingress of unwanted dirt. It is this feature which caused its almost legendary reliability during savage fighting in some of the most inhospitable jungle territory on earth.

Because the magazine is mounted directly in the line of sight the peep rear sight is off set, as is the front sight, a la the Bren Gun. As with the Bren this is not a problem. Another advantage of the top mounted magazine is that at close range while firing instinctively it can be used as a rough sight. Some jokes have been made to the effect that because Australia is down under the force of gravity will aid the cartridge advance!

The selector is mounted on the left directly above your thumb (if you are a right handed shooter) all the way back is SAFE, center position is SEMI and all the way forward is FULL AUTO. The rate of fire is a little higher than the Austen at about 600 rpm.

The weight of the weapon, its good balance and the two pistol grips make it eminently controllable and a lot of fun to shoot. The magazine release is paddle-like directly behind the mag so there is no fumbling if you are changing them in the dark while terrified! (well, not much)

I obtained an Owen Gun from The Australian Government some years ago when such a thing was not unthinkable, and is probably impossible to-day. It came with seven magazines, a magazine brush, square to fit the mags and a knife bayonet. Post war the Owens were modified in this manner, the finish was a dark Parkerizing and the buttstock was wood. The barrel also had compensatory slots at the muzzle in addition to the bayonet lug..

I believe that bayonet would probably also fit the Australian version of the FAL, but never did try it. Many of the Owen Guns used in WW 2 were painted with gaudy colour schemes to fit them into the environment they were used in. Another feature of this fine gun was the quick release barrel. Probably not intended for quickchange replacement with a cool one, it did make transport in my brief case practicable, as the buttstock also removed with a pressure on its retaining lever.

I never had a stoppage with my Owen, it wasn’t pretty, but it always worked.

They were in use for many years following the Second War, notably in the vicious Malayan conflict against the communists. This campaign was one of the few successful repressions of these agrarian reformers, and the Owen was the weapon of choice, if it could be gotten. They were also present in Viet-Nam with the Australian contingent who were no doubt bemused to be using the sub machinegun their fathers had talked of. Certainly it performed then as it always did, just great!

The passage of time dictated that superior designs were in the offing, and the Owen faded away into long term ‘emergency storage’, the fate of many fine weapons.

The next sub machinegun on the scene was the F1. Still in 9mm Parabellum and blow back operated it retained the top mounted magazine feature of the Owen. This time that magazine was the lovely Sterling design and that magazine will of course interchange with all the other Sterling magazines, even the Canadian simplified design without the rollers.34 round capacity, it is a proven design still in use to-day. The F1 itself looks

Like a marriage between a Sterling sub machinegun and an L1A1 rifle. It has the barrel jacket of the Sterling wedded to the pistol grip assembly of the L1A1.

This simplifies training somewhat. During my military adventure the training with the FAL (or C1A1 or SLR) emphasized that all movements such as cocking and loading the rifle, applying the safety and mounting or removing the magazines must be done with the left hand. Thus control is maintained of the weapon. So the next time you change the safety on your FAL with the right thumb there is some Guards Regiment Corporal/Instructor ready to give you some new names and he may speak harshly of your beloved parents. Been there, done it, no T-shirt. Use the left hand, there was a good reason for it.

The one feature I did not like was the folding sheet metal rear sight, When not in use it folds down on both sides of the receiver, but when raised is vulnerable and prone to damage. In addition, there is no fire selector, a light pressure on the trigger (after it has been moved down from the safe position with the left thumb) causes single shots, heavier pressure, bursts. No problem.

While not as charismatic or historical as its predecessors, the F1 is a fine design as well. They have probably mostly been relegated to the same resting places as the earlier guns and have now been replaced by the AustAug, which fills all the functions of sub machinegun and rifle for the current Australian Forces.

We are but custodians, and I am glad I had the opportunity to own and shoot them.

The period between the two World Wars was a very interesting one in terms of submachine gun design.

Beginning with the impossible Italian Villar-Perosa early in the First World War, the submachine gun as a weapon type was refined and improved by the Germans with their introduction of the drum-fed MP 18 late in that conflict. Their use by the so-called ‘Stosstruppen’ was a quantum leap forward in the tactical employment of this radical new weapon.

The Nineteen-Twenties saw the development and use of several other designs such as the Thompson, the Suomi and the MP28 variations of the MP18 WWI predecessor.

Although there were small wars going on in the Twenties, the use of the submachine gun received little coverage. The Marines used the Thompson in Nicaragua and it also saw employment in Ireland of course, but other than that there was little military use of European sub gun designs. That changed in the thirties. The Gran Chaco war in South America virtually decimated Paraguay and Bolivia. Despite League of Nations embargoes modern weapons were obtained. The submachine guns noted were the MP28II and the Austrian MP34. Denmark and Czechoslovakia added to the arsenals by sales of Madsen and Brno light machineguns. This little conflict was merely a sideshow, compared with the Spanish Civil War, which raged from 1936 to 1939. Once again, weapon embargoes were attempted with little success. Here for four years both sides used all the submachine gun designs extant, not to mention new designs created by various Spanish manufacturers during that conflict. Whether or not early Russian designs such as the PPD-34 were used I don’t know. Perusal of photographs of troops of the period hasn’t turned any up. The Russians were ‘generous’ with other equipment, but perhaps they did not have an excess of submachine guns to supply. It should be noted that the entire Spanish gold reserve had been transferred to Russia when the conflict loomed, for ‘safekeeping’. No doubt their control of this hoard helped their ‘generosity’. By the time this nasty conflict was over, there was little of the reserves left.

One thing which all these early subs had in common was their quality. Receivers were machined from the solid, furniture, which was usually walnut and the finish of the metal surfaces would rival some of todays sporting rifles.

The stocks were of the rifle type, sights were graduated to impossible distances for the cartridges they were chambered for. Most were fairly heavy, ten pounds loaded was not unusual.

In 1938 that pattern began to be broken in Germany. The introduction of the MP38 by the ERMA firm changed the traditional manufacturing processes. Although the MP38 still had a fairly heavy machined receiver, albeit with lightning cuts, it now introduced synthetics into firearms manufacture for the body of the weapon. The stock now folded making it compact and handy, just the size to fit in a panzer or to be carried by a paratrooper.

The revolutionary weapon was made for over two years with little modification. Advances in metal stamping techniques resulted in the introduction of the lighter and cheaper MP40.

At that point in time it would not be inaccurate to say that Germany was the leader in submachine gun design in the world.

It was now 1941 and the Second World War had been raging in Europe for two years. That year brought the introduction by the Haenel firm of the MP41 submachine gun. There was absolutely nothing new or even unique about this weapon. To put it simply, at first light it is merely a marriage of the MP40 and the MP28II. This combination can only be called interesting when one considers that at one fell swoop many of the nice things about the new MP40 had been cancelled out. We are back to a Thirties SMG. The ‘new’ weapon still took MP40 magazines although they were marked ‘MP41’. The premise that conservative elements in the military may have been interested in it was not an unreasonable one, but such was not to be. Less than 5000 were reputed to have been made with the output going to lesser SS formations and the Police units in the field.

Unfortunately, there are no issue marks on it, which might pin it down to a specific unit or formation. Closer comparison of my specimen with an MP40 does reveal a number of differences between the two.

They are as follows:

1. The method of attaching the barrels to the receivers differ. The MP40 has the familiar outside nut, the MP41 is inside.

2. There is no ‘rest’ bar on the MP41 barrel.

3. The MP41 is selective fire in the same manner as the MP28II.

4. The MP41 wooden stock is its most salient recognition feature couple with the MP40 magazine housing.

5. The take-down is different. The cap at the end of the MP41 receiver unlocks and can be removed to take out the bolt and return spring. That’s about all the disassembly required.

Fifty odd years later we can only speculate as to what exactly possessed Haenel to introduce the weapon at a time when such a fine weapon as the MP40 was already accepted by the troops and used relatively widely even at this early date. Still, it’s not a ‘bad’ submachine gun, there certainly isn’t the ‘wobble’ you get with many of the stocks of MP40’s, but you have lost the compactness of that design.

For more information on the MP41 submachinegun, read The MP40 by Frank Iannamico, available from SAR.- Dan

Some time ago I had the opportunity to examine a submachine gun held in a private collection. Having owned or operated most of the common mass produced versions of these wonderful firearms for over thirty-five years, this one was not familiar at all. The ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘S’ markings on the left side of the receiver obviously indicated German or Austrian origins. The wood furniture and quality of workmanship strongly suggested a time period between World War I and World War II. In other words, a second generation firearm. Unfortunately, the magazine and the recoil/return spring were missing which negated test firing, however, the following could be deduced from the available physical evidence the firearm itself:

It was 9mm Parabellum caliber, no surprise there. It fired from an open bolt. The magazine appeared to have been the type used in an MP-34 or 53 submachine gun, judging by the shape of the magazine well.
The receiver was slotted for re-filling the magazine with a stripper clip. Its barrel moved back slightly upon firing to unlock the bolt, extracting and ejecting the fired cartridge case. Barrel length 12 1/2”, overall length 30 1/2”. The rear sight was very similar to an MP-28 sight

This system of recoil operation will certainly help keep the weight of the moving parts down, but one can only wonder how long fragile parts such as an extractor will last. The rate of fire must have been fairly high, but without knowing the strength of the barrel spring, and the recoil/return spring not the weight of the bolt I wouldn’t even hazard a guess. This firearm may well have been designed as a ‘project’ by an employee of a German /Austrian arms factory. It exhibits a great deal of handwork especially in the many individual welds used to construct the pistol grip assembly. It must also have been difficult to cock with the bolt locking into the barrel. In fact, a rather crudely welded crossbar has been added to the original serrated ‘cocking piece’. It does not appear to have original, but added later somewhat hurriedly.

How it reached North America has been lost to us, probably the customary soldier souvenir route. If it rings a bell with anyone I would like to know. Perhaps one of our advanced North American collectors might know, or a European reader!