In 1939, Australian self-taught gunsmith Evelyn Owen developed and presented to the army his version of the submachine gun. This weapon had an extremely simple design, and was also distinguished by its low cost. Moreover, the first prototype was assembled by Owen in his own workshop. The simplicity and cheapness of the new weapon was supposed to interest the army, but the military leaders, having familiarized themselves with it, made a different decision. The military praised the inventor's enthusiasm, but did not order the development of a full-fledged model of small arms for the army.
Having received a refusal from the military, E. Owen soon lost interest in small arms and went to serve in the army. On this his career as a gunsmith could have ended, but the situation soon changed. The first prototype of the submachine gun accidentally caught the eye of Owen's neighbor, Vincent Wardell, who was then working for Lysaghts Newcastle Works. Wardell and Owen again discussed the prospects of the project and decided to once again present it to the military, this time as a new development of an industrial enterprise, and not a lone designer. In a new capacity, an experienced weapon in 1940 was presented to the newly created Central Council of Inventions of the army.
Council experts, led by Captain Cecil Dyer, have expressed interest in Lysaghts Newcastle Works' proposal. This interest was not least associated with events in Europe. By the time of the demonstration of experienced weapons to the Council, Nazi Germany had captured France and was preparing to attack Great Britain. Thus, in the near future, Australia could lose the opportunity to purchase British weapons and equipment, which is why it needed to develop its own systems. Owen and Wardell's proposal could then become a "fallback airport" in case of supply problems.
Owen's serial submachine gun Mk 1. Photo Awm.gov.au
However, further work on Owen's submachine gun was fraught with problems. At the time of the demonstration of the prototype, Australia had received assurances from the UK that the STEN submachine guns would be delivered soon. There was reason to believe that British weapons were superior to domestic ones in terms of their characteristics, but Australian experts decided not to rely on assumptions and to conduct comparative tests of the two samples. Lysaghts Newcastle Works have ordered several prototype weapons chambered for.38 S&W.
Since E. Owen at that time served in the army, most of the work on the development and improvement of his weapons was carried out by employees of the Lysaghts Newcastle Works. The main work was carried out by the brothers Vincend and Gerard Wardell, in addition, they were assisted by the master gunsmith Freddy Künzler. In the later stages of the project, Owen himself joined the Wardells and Künzler.
Probably, the military did not want to contact the domestic manufacturer and wait until it completes all design work, tests, modifications, etc. Because of this, Lysaghts Newcastle Works received the order, but was left without the necessary raw materials. The military department refused to provide ready-made barrels and ammunition for testing. Not wanting to lose the order, Wardell and his colleagues were able to convince the military of the need to change the requirements. After a series of disputes and consultations, it was decided to make a new submachine gun chambered for.32ACP. Such a change in the project made it possible to provide acceptable fire characteristics, but the main advantage was the ability to use ready-made barrels from Short Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk I rifles. For this, the rifle barrel had to be cut into several parts and the chamber of the required dimensions drilled into them.
Evelyn Owen with her submachine guns. Photo Forgottenweapons.com
The.32ACP submachine gun took only three weeks to create, after which it was presented to the army. It should be noted that some sources indicate the date of delivery of this prototype, which can raise certain questions. According to some reports, it was presented to the army on January 30, 1940, but such information may contradict other information about the project. One way or another, all work on the project of a weapon chambered for.32ACP using a barrel from a serial rifle was completed during the 1940 year.
The prototype submachine gun was sent for testing and proved to be efficient. After that, the military demanded to conduct resource tests, during which the weapon was supposed to make 10 thousand shots. At the same time, they refused to provide the necessary ammunition, and the chances of the developer company to get them on their own tended to zero. Thus, the military department again transparently hinted that it does not want to deal with domestic enterprises and wants to acquire British-made weapons.
In response, Wardell and his comrades proposed a new version of the weapon, this time designed for the.45ACP cartridge. The gunsmiths rightly believed that the Australian army definitely had no shortage of such ammunition, since it was armed with Thompson submachine guns and some other systems chambered for this cartridge. An order was placed for the supply of cartridges, but by mistake (or malicious intent) a shipment of.455 Webley cartridges arrived at Lysaghts Newcastle Works. However, these events did not affect the course of the project. The finished prototype received a new barrel made from the units of an old rifle of the corresponding caliber.
Various prototypes of the submachine gun. Photo Forgottenweapons.com
At the beginning of 1941, the development team for a promising submachine gun was replenished by Evelyn Owen. He was recalled from the army and sent to participate in the development of new weapons. What kind of design innovations were proposed by Owen is unknown. Working in a team, Australian gunsmiths did not try to immortalize their names to the detriment of the common cause. At the same time, however, as a result, the weapon received the name of E. Owen, who joined its development only at one of the last stages.
During 1941, the Lysaghts Newcastle Works engineering team continued to work on their new project and "fought" the military. In addition, several prototypes were tested, according to the results of which new samples were fine-tuned. The tests made it possible to establish the strengths and weaknesses of the project in its current form, as well as improve ergonomics and make some other adjustments.
At the beginning of September, 41st, the military department again changed its requirements for a promising submachine gun. Now the military demanded that the weapon be converted to use the 9x19 mm Para cartridge. Such cartridges were used by a large number of systems, including the STEN submachine gun. By the end of the month, work on the modernization of the submachine gun ended, and another prototype was presented for testing.
For comparative tests, Owen, Wardells and Künzler presented their own submachine guns chambered for the 9x19 mm Para and.45ACP cartridges. Their rivals were the British STEN and the American Thompson, using similar ammunition. These tests, during which all possible parameters and characteristics were verified, allowed Lysaghts Newcastle Works to prove their case and demonstrate the superiority of their design over competing designs.
Drawing from the patent. Figure Forgottenweapons.com
At the beginning of the tests, all four samples of weapons showed their best side, but as the conditions became more complicated, the characteristics of the submachine guns changed noticeably. The differences in the perfection of the structures were especially pronounced during the tests with contamination. The American "Thompson", after being in the mud, continued to shoot, although it was not without delays and other problems. British STEN did not pass the mud test. At the same time, both samples of Owen's submachine guns coped with all the tests.
Comparison of four samples in conditions close to real, helped the Australian military to figure out which weapon should go into battle, and which one should be abandoned. In this regard, Lysaghts Newcastle Works received an order for the production of a batch of 2,000 submachine guns, which were planned to be sent to the army for military trials. Moreover, several samples and documentation on the new weapon were sent to the UK with a proposal to test them and start mass production. According to reports, in 1943, British specialists conducted their comparative tests, during which the Australian weapon again bypassed STEN and other samples.
A characteristic feature of E. Owen's first submachine gun, assembled in his own workshop, was the extreme simplicity of the design. In the course of the further development of weapons, simplicity of design was put at the forefront, which ultimately affected its final appearance. At the same time, the Wardell brothers and F. Künzler did not engage exclusively in the development of Owen's first design. They proposed a number of significant innovations that were supposed to provide high performance without the use of compromise and questionable solutions.
Partial disassembly of the Mk 1-42 submachine gun. Photo Zonawar.ru
During the tests, the authors of the project constantly identified various flaws and corrected them. In addition, new original ideas were introduced to improve performance. Because of this, the prototypes of 1940-41 were noticeably different from each other both in appearance and in the structure of the internal units. Consider the design of the serial submachine gun, designated Mk 1.
The main unit of the weapon was a tubular receiver, inside which was a bolt, a reciprocating combat spring and some elements of the firing mechanism. In front of it was attached a 9 mm barrel with a length of 247 mm (27.5 caliber). To reduce the toss of the barrel when firing, a slotted muzzle compensator was provided, which discharges part of the powder gases forward and upward. The design of the expansion joint was changed several times during serial production. In addition, the barrel initially had fins for better cooling, but then it was abandoned. The barrel was fixed in place with a special clip. Behind the latter was a small vertical store shaft. A characteristic feature of the submachine gun was the top location of the store, which simplified its design. Directly under the magazine shaft, on the lower surface of the receiver, there was a window for ejecting the casings.
At the back from below on the receiver, a screw hole was provided for attaching the firing mechanism cover. The latter was a trapezoidal metal unit, in front of which there was a large trigger bracket and a pistol grip. Inside were the details of the firing mechanism. A butt was attached to the back of the casing. The weapon was not equipped with a forend, instead of which an additional front handle was offered, secured with a collar on the barrel.
Owen submachine guns of different series (top and middle) and Austin SMG (bottom). Photo Forgottenweapons.com
The design of the trigger housing and the butt depended on the model. Early serial submachine guns, the so-called. Owen Mk 1-42 were equipped with a solid-walled casing and a metal frame stock. Subsequently, the design of these units has changed. The Mk 1-43 modification received a wooden stock that was simpler and cheaper to manufacture, and the increase in weight was compensated for by windows in the walls of the metal casing. There were also some other differences in production technologies, muzzle compensator design, etc.
Owen's submachine gun had a free-bolt-based automation. The bolt itself was made in the form of a cylindrical unit with a hole in the rear part for installing a reciprocating mainspring and a complex front part formed by a cylinder and a rounded surface. Inside the shutter, a special rod was attached with a pin, on which a reciprocating combat spring was put on during assembly. When the bolt was placed inside the receiver, the rod passed into the hole of a special partition. Thus, the bolt and the spring remained in the front chamber of the box, and the rod fell into the rear, where the loading handle was attached to it, brought out through the slot in the right wall of the receiver.
The firing mechanism was located in the casing, next to the trigger and the fire control handle. It consisted of only a few parts: a trigger, a sear, a locking bolt in the rear position, a fire safety lock and a few springs. The translator-fuse flag, displayed on the left side of the casing and located above the pistol grip, made it possible to block the sear, as well as to shoot single or burst.
Another camouflage paint option. Photo World.guns.ru
Box-shaped detachable magazines for 32 rounds were placed in the receiving shaft of the receiver. The top location of the store simplified the supply of ammunition, and the spring provided the movement of cartridges even in non-standard positions. It should be noted that the magazine shaft was located not along the longitudinal axis of the weapon, but with a shift to the right. This provided the possibility of aiming using the existing unregulated rear sight and front sight.
Owen's submachine gun had a length of about 810 mm and weighed (without magazine) about 4.22 kg. Thus, this weapon could not boast of great ease of use, however, comparative tests showed that the loss in weight and dimensions is fully compensated for by reliability and fire characteristics.
The principle of the weapon's operation was quite simple. Before firing, the shooter had to insert the magazine into the receiving shaft and load the weapon by pulling the bolt handle back. At the same time, the latter was retracted to the extreme rear position, compressed the reciprocating mainspring and caught on with the sear. Shooting could only be carried out from an open bolt. When the trigger was pressed, the bolt went forward under the action of the spring, caught the cartridge in the store and fed it into the chamber. At the extreme forward point, the bolt striker hit the cartridge primer and a shot took place.
Australian soldiers with Owen SMG. Photo Wikimedia Commons
Under the influence of the recoil force, the bolt began to move backward, pulling the spent cartridge case behind it. Having reached the swinging extractor, it detached from the bolt and, under its own weight, fell out through the window in the lower surface of the receiver. The bolt, in turn, went into the rear position and, depending on the mode of fire, clung to the sear or went forward again.
Such mechanisms allowed Owen's submachine gun to fire at a rate of up to 700 rounds per minute. The effective firing range provided by the 9x19 mm Para cartridge did not exceed 150-200 m.
For disassembly and maintenance of the weapon, it was necessary to use the appropriate lock and remove the barrel. After that, the bolt and the reciprocating combat spring were removed from the receiver. By unscrewing the lower screw, it was possible to remove the firing mechanism cover. The butt, regardless of the design and material, was also fixed on the screw and could be detached from the trigger housing.
The used ammunition supply system, despite its unusual appearance, provided the submachine gun with not only high performance, but also good resistance to dirt. The lower location of the window for ejecting the sleeves made it difficult for dirt to get into the receiver, and also made it easier to remove it: sand, earth or water, when the shutter was moved, fell out of the window down. The large trigger guard was also useful. When firing, the falling out shells fell on it and bounced to the side without burning the shooter's fingers.
An early prototype of the Owen SMG Mk 2. Photo Awm.gov.au
In 1942, after military trials, the new weapon was put into service under the designation Owen SMG Mk 1 - "Owen submachine gun, version 1". Later this designation was changed to Mk 1-42 (by year of release) to distinguish it from later versions. During the Second World War, the Australian industry produced about 45,433 new submachine guns. About 12 thousand units belonged to the basic modification Mk 1-42 and were equipped with metal butts. In 1943, the production of the Mk 1-43 variant was launched, featuring a new trigger casing and a wooden butt. Such weapons were manufactured in the amount of 33 thousand pieces.
A curious feature of Owen's serial submachine guns was the color. These weapons were intended for use by the Australian army, which was fighting mainly in the southern regions of Asia and the Pacific Ocean with its own peculiarities of the landscape. For this reason, the weapon received a camouflage color adapted for the jungle, mainly yellow and green. The vast majority of submachine guns that have survived to this day have exactly this color, although there are both black and unpainted samples.
There is information about the development of a modernized submachine gun with the designation Mk 2. Due to some design innovations, it was planned to increase the fire characteristics, as well as to further reduce the weight. This version of the weapon reached mass production, but could not supplant the base Mk 1. As a result, the production of Owen's submachine gun of the second model was limited to a few hundred pieces.
Serial production of Owen SMG submachine guns continued until 1944. The simplicity of design and low cost of production made it possible to manufacture more than 45 thousand units of such weapons, which was sufficient to solve all the problems of the Australian army. These weapons were actively used by Australia during World War II and subsequent conflicts. With Owen's submachine guns, Australian troops went into battle in Korea and Vietnam. At the end of the sixties, a massive write-off of submachine guns, which had exhausted their resource, began. Part of the remaining reserves were sold to third countries. The replacement for the weapons of the Second World War were the F1 submachine guns of their own Australian design.
Serial Owen SMG Mk 2. Photo Awm.gov.au
While working for Lysaghts Newcastle Works, Evelyn Owen was listed as an employee and received salaries on an equal basis with his other colleagues. In addition, after the adoption of the new submachine gun into service, the payment of premiums and patent royalties began. In total, Owen earned about 10 thousand pounds on his project. He used the money he received to build his own sawmill. At the same time, Owen continued to work on promising weapons on an initiative basis. After the war, the self-taught engineer became addicted to alcohol and died in 1949 without ever seeing his weapon used in new conflicts.
From the point of view of Lysaghts Newcastle Works, the submachine gun project was not particularly successful. Until mid-1941, she had to work on an initiative basis, not counting on any compensation for expenses. In addition, Vincent Wardell had to literally fight for the project and, as they say, spend his nerves on its promotion. Only after the start of serial production, the company was assigned a bonus for the creation of a project in the amount of 4% of the value of orders. Nevertheless, payments under this contract were constantly delayed, which is why the full amount was transferred to the company only in 1947 - three years after the end of production. Due to delays in payments from the military department, the company could not pay off loans on time, which led to an increase in already considerable debts. Payment of debts, fines, etc. led to the fact that the company's profit fell from the original 4% to 1.5% of the total cost of serial production.
Self-taught designer Evelyn Owen began building his submachine gun in the late thirties, wanting to help the country defend against possible threats. Later on, the specialists of Lysaghts Newcastle Works showed their enthusiasm on this basis, who brought the project to serial production. As a result of the joint work, one of the most massive Australian types of weapons appeared, which, however, at first led to large expenses, and then brought its creators only a quickly faded fame. Nevertheless, in the history of small arms, the Owen SMG submachine gun remained one of the most interesting developments, even if it did not receive much distribution.
