In the picture  to the right, you can see that some experimen-tation was conducted with the retracting handle. The top MK shows the handle on the left side, while the lower MK, appears to have it on the left. There was also experimentation with the sights and bayonet attachment. Both MK models share similar spring and bolt mechanisms with the MP28, though their wooden stocks differ significantly. In Chris Ellis and Peter Chamberlain’s "The Schmeisser Submachine Gun", it is suggested that the wood furniture and buttstock of a Gewehr 98 were used for one prototype, and parts from the Hungarian Huzagol rifle were used for another. However, after examining the stock of the Huzagol 35M rifle, I found no resemblance to the stocks shown in the photos here. The Huzagol 35M has a two-part buttstock as well.

The authors also mention a “MK36, II,” which suggests there were likely several prototypes of the M.K.36. The presence of a comma after "MK36" suggests earlier models “,I” and “,II” may have existed before the "M.K.36, III." This naming convention seems to apply to the MK34 as well.

This is a somewhat ambiguous area, as I have often found that authors confuse the model numbers, resulting in misinformation. For example, in a booklet by Norbert Moczarski, the author claimed that Hugo Schmeisser developed the MP36. However, I believe this is incorrect, as I have personally seen the "Erma Erfurt" stamp on the MP36’s woodwork. In my view, Mr. Moczarski may have confused the M.K.36 with the EMP36.

Although I admire Schmeisser’s designs, I believe that in this case, Heinrich Vollmer’s “double-stack, double-feed” system would have been a smarter choice. It might have saved many German lives on the Eastern Front, though this is easier to say in hindsight. At the time, the decision must have seemed well thought out. As a result of the decision to use Schmeisser’s system, Haenel initially had exclusive rights to produce all the magazines and magazine loaders for the MP38. All magazines produced in 1938 and 1939 bear Haenel's code "122," as do the magazine loaders.

Furthermore it is interesting to see parts such as the bolt, telescopic spring, the MP41 end cap, and the MP44 fire selector, which appear again in Schmeisser's later designs.

One key innovation in the EMP36 was the introduction of a folding stock. While this concept was relatively new in submachine gun design, Hugo Schmeisser had already secured a patent for a folding stock in 1935 (German patent number 679684 “Ausziehbare Schulterstütze einer Maschinenwaffe”; Extractable shoulder stock for a machine gun) This folding stock concept was likely driven by military needs, as Nazi Germany was preparing for war and sought a more compact weapon for use in armored vehicles. The military had requested that the weapon’s design reduce the space it occupied during transport, leading to the development of the folding stock. Schmeissers folding stock however was different from the one used on the EMP36. The folding stock used on the EMP36 (and later on the MP38 with an additional locking system) was designed by Ewald Pochert. His name appeared on a Finnish patent No. 21234.

https://patenttitietopalvelu.prh.fi/en/patent/19400060/

A new unique feature specified by the military was a small hook under the barrel’s front end, which prevented the weapon from being pulled back into the vehicle during automatic fire.

Another major design change was the positioning of the magazine. Unlike earlier submachine guns, which featured a side-mounted magazine for easier prone shooting, the EMP36’s magazine was mounted underneath. This likely reflected a shift in military thinking, as the benefits of a downward magazine—better balance and recoil control—outweighed those of the side-mounted design. However, the EMP36’s magazine is not entirely vertical; it’s angled slightly forward and to the right. This unusual positioning was required to accommodate the double-feed recoil system developed by Vollmer, making the EMP36’s internal mechanics similar to its predecessor, the Erma EMP.

In contrast to the more traditional, rifle-like appearance of the MK36, III from Haenel, the EMP36 had a sleek, modern look, despite sharing many internal components with the EMP. The trigger mechanism and bolt, for instance, were directly carried over from the earlier EMP design. Interestingly, while Vollmer had patented improvements to the telescoping main spring guide—refining the original Schmeisser patent—the EMP36 does not incorporate these improvements. This suggests that while Vollmer had sold the production license for the VMP (which became the EMP) to Erma, there was no formal collaboration between Vollmer and Erma on the EMP36’s development.

The cocking handle was positioned on the left side of the weapon, allowing the shooter to operate the handle without removing their dominant hand from the grip. Additionally, a small rest bar with a serrated hook was placed beneath the muzzle, likely intended to prevent the weapon from recoiling out of an armored vehicle’s firing port during automatic fire.

The magazine, mounted underneath and slightly angled, was likely a new design as well, although no original specimen has survived. Interestingly, a surviving EMP36 in a U.S. collection has been made to function with an adapted magazine based on the MP38’s double-column, single-feed system. This is a curious departure, as Erma had previously used double-column, double-feed magazines in their earlier designs. Despite this, the bolt’s feed horns suggest that the original EMP36 magazine was indeed a double-feed design.

The sights on the U.S. example are flip-type, adjustable for distances of 100 and 200 meters. The Prague specimen, however, is missing its rear sight, although the groove dimensions match those of the earlier EMP. Other small components, such as the magazine catch, were likely repurposed from standard EMP production. The EMP36’s fire selector functioned similarly to its predecessor but featured a cross-pin selector switch instead of the EMP’s rotating lever.

Field stripping the EMP36 was done in much the same way as Vollmer had designed, although the disassembly lever found on earlier EMP models was replaced by a simpler button mechanism. This button, located in the middle of the forearm, was pulled out and turned to allow the receiver to be rotated and separated from the stock and body assembly. This modification was also incorporated into later EMP models as a safety feature to prevent accidental disassembly.

Overall, from a user perspective, the EMP36 represented a significant leap forward in design. Its folding stock made the weapon more compact, and the left-sided cocking handle allowed for smoother operation. The gun could be fired effectively with the stock either folded or unfolded, making it a versatile choice for the German military.

There has been some speculation about the capital “L” and its meaning. G. de Vries and B.J. Martens come to the conclusion in their excellent “The MP38, 40, 40/1 and 41 Submachine Gun – Propaganda photo series II” that it must mean “Leightmetall” (Light-weigt Metal). Another explanation is that the “L” stands for “Luftwaffe”. The “L” stamp was used on other weapons like the K98 and HP35 as well.

In my opinion, the original MP38 was developed for armored troops and not especially for the “Fällschirmjäger” (paratroopers), mainly because of the hook below the barrel that made sure that the MP could not accidentally be pulled into the vehicle while shooting, and of course the folding stock. The Luftwaffe might have initiated the development of this prototype.

The receiver tube and magazine holder of the MP38 (L) are made from a single piece of 4mm cast and machined aluminum. This part still includes the same push button and ejector as the ones used in the MP38. What stands out is the locking system. The receiver tube has a locking connector that fits into the grip’s connector. While the locking system is similar to that of the regular MP38, it is designed differently. The entire connection system seems very strong. Overall, the weapon has a solid look and feel.

On top of the tube, a newly designed sight is attached. Instead of two small screws at the corners, the screws are placed in the center—one at the front and one at the back of the sight. The sight is set for distances of 100m and 200m.

The grip is made from one piece of cast aluminum. The frame wasn’t designed to have a Bakelite foregrip wrapped around it. In fact, no Bakelite is used at all in this design. The pistol grip plates are made of wood, similar to those used later on the MP44, but they are not really comparable to the EMP36 hand plates. The locking breech that connects the frame to the upper receiver is different. The "button" is slightly larger and has a different shape.

The barrel nut is made of steel and is longer because of the larger screw thread on the tube. There is no separate strap loop since it is molded into the upper receiver.

The tube holds a regular bolt and telescopic spring, but the internal parts I examined were not original to the gun—they were taken from another MP38 or MP40. All other parts are identical to those of a regular MP38.

Interestingly, the frame is stamped with the serial number V3013 on the bottom. I assume the “V” stands for "Versuch" or "Versuchsmodell" (which means "experimental model"). I doubt 3,013 units of the MP38 (L) were made! The first "3" likely indicates that this was the third test series, maybe experimenting with different materials like sheet metal or aluminum. The "13" probably shows this was the 13th MP38 (L) produced. According to G. de Vries and B.J. Martens, at least three specimens still exist. One is owned by the Prague Military Museum (which is the one I examined), and another is in the hands of a Belgian collector (who I’d love to contact; info@mp40.nl!!!). Any more information would be welcome.