The German military began looking for a new submachine gun design in secret in the mid 1930s. There is basically no surviving documentation, but the main contenders appear to have featured: Hugo Schmeisser’s MK-36,II and Erma’s EMP-36. Today we are taking a look at the two known example of the Schmeisser design at the British Royal Armouries. It is a simple blowback design with a full wooden stock, and chambered for 9x19mm (although the second example, made for Hungarian trials, is in 9x25mm). It does have a quite strange magazine safety, which prevents the bolt from opening if a magazine is not present – the purpose of this is a mystery to me.
The Schmeisser gun was simple and effective mechanically (expect for that weird safety), and it ultimately contributed its magazine, bolt, and fire control system to the MP38 and MP40 design. In exchange, the Haenel company that Schmeisser works for was one of the two initial MP38 manufacturers.
Many thanks to the Royal Armouries for allowing me to film and disassemble this unique prototype! The NFC collection there – perhaps the best military small arms collection in Western Europe – is available by appointment to researchers:
https://royalarmouries.org/research/national-firearms-centre/
You can browse the various Armouries collections online here:
https://royalarmouries.org/collection/
Why did they go stamped – milled – stamped? Was it a manufacturing QA issue like the first AKs?
Regarding knurling at top of 9×25 mm version I presume it might be applied to prevent light reflections.
Observe that 9×25 mm version is in fact mirror (has cocking handle at opposite side). What could be reason for that?
https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/Schmeisser_MK36.III suggest that it was prevented from entering production due to patent clash with Heinrich Vollmer w.r.t. telescoping return spring and says said element was resulting in a moderated fire rate. Why Schmeisser elected to implement this in way interfering with Heinrich Vollmer?
Said weapons seems to be executing of Hugo Schmeisser’s patent DE599202C
https://patents.google.com/patent/DE599202C
whose aim was langsamen Feuertempos. But if Heinrich Vollmer already hold patent why Hugo Schmeisser managed to secure patent too?
You are correct, obtaining a slow rate of fire is mentioned in the DE599202 patent text as one goal.
But the legally binding claim (Ansprüche) is for a “large diameter spring” as Ian describes it (a spring diameter as large as the reveiver allows) plus a cylindrical part at the rear of the bolt, fitting inside the spring, that is as long as the spring in total compressed state, to achieve maximum bolt travel.
This does not interfere with the idea of a “telescoping return spring”.
P.S. Ian called Hugo Schmeisser a Haenel designer. In fact, together with his brother Hans (who was the commercial director), they owned C.G. Haenel.
The premise of this video is a bit inaccurate – the MK 36,II is basically just an MP 28,II in a different body. It has almost nothing to do with the MP 38 & MP 40.
The gun that Ian is thinking of, that actually has the “mechanics of the MP 40”, is the MK 36,III, which uses the MP 40 bolt assembly/telescoping buffer spring. The MK 36,III is not the same as the MK 36,II as featured in this video.
That makes it all clear. Thanks!
My thoughts on the separate firing pin that it might prevent pierced primers.