Jump to content

New Book Review: U. S. Military Bolt Action Rifles


Recommended Posts

All,

 

You may have seen that a new book came out by Bruce Canfield earlier this month, titled, "U.S. Military Bolt Action Rifles." I am a longtime fan of Canfield's work, and have all his books in my collection. I especially like the "Collector Notes" included in most of them.

 

I bought the new book as soon as it came out. It is a good book, and I would rate it 4 out of 5 stars, in my opinion. The reason that I rate it one star lower than I would rate most of Canfield's other books is that I found 3 errors in it within the first 10 minutes of reading. I communicated the errors to the author and publisher on 11/14/10, but have not received a response. I was surprised to see the errors.

 

At this point, I need to say that I am nitpicking in my review of this book. Bruce's other books are excellent. This new book has hundreds of pages of great new information regarding rifles we all know, as well as several we probably don't know much about, all presented in a very friendly format. I recommend adding this book to your collection, and although I am critical of some of its content, I don't want to take away from the overall value of the book. I will reference this book often, as I do all the other Canfield books. I know it is difficult to pull all the information together, and that every book will include mistakes, and have critics.

 

That being said, as a writer myself, I am personally cautious to make statements about collecting firearms that include ultimately limiting terms such as “never,” and “always,” unless the evidence is undisputable. Frequently, exceptions present themselves when researching firearms. By using the aforementioned terms, any collector, historian, or researcher potentially boxes themselves in. I have noticed that Canfield sometimes uses such limiting statements, and I certainly understand that he is a well known and highly respected writer who has performed thorough research, and as such, his inclination to use such terms is usually correct, and based upon extensive experience. However, experience is an ongoing process, and never complete, and that’s how mistakes can occur when assumptions are made.

 

Here is a summary of the 3 errors I quickly noticed when I began reading the book. They appear in the M1917 Rifle section.

 

The first error appears to be an issue that was probably missed in editing. On page 294, it says, “The WWII handbooks and manuals are not very common today and finding a nice example may be a bit difficult.” Canfield must have meant to say “WWI,” and not “WWII,” since the handbook he mentioned was a WWI publication.

 

The second error appears in the same paragraph, and is probably an awareness issue. Canfield states, “There was a WWII manual also printed for the M1917, which is rather uncommon today.” Actually, at least 3 manuals were published for the M1917 during WWII. Two publications were field manuals, and one was a Base Shop Data manual. The first manual was FM 23-6, dated August 3, 1942, and the second was FM 23-6, dated 28 October 1943. The Base Shop Data manual was published by Rock Island Arsenal in February, 1943. Pictures of the 2 field manuals are included below:

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Misc/FM_23-6-11.jpg

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Misc/FM_23-6-4.jpg

 

An example of the February 1943 Base Shop Data manual can be seen in the photo below, which shows my two M1917’s, including the short rifle I corresponded with Canfield about several years ago:

 

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/Misc/M1917_Collection_Web.JPG

 

The third issue probably resulted from the author’s previously evidenced limited awareness of WWII manuals for the M1917 Rifle. On page 292, Canfield states, “The term “Enfield” or “U.S. Enfield” may be seen from time to time in reference to the M1917 Rifle. It should be pointed out that this is not, and never was, an official term.” If you look at the first WWII manual for the M1917 (FM 23-6, August 3, 1942 – photo linked above), which I believe is the WWII era manual for the M1917 that Canfield was not aware of, you will notice that the manual is titled, “U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1917 (Enfield).” The War Department at least acknowledged the common term used for the M1917 Rifle in the title of this field manual, and in doing so, made it an official term, in my opinion. Canfield’s use of “never,” as referenced previously, was apparently based on a limited knowledge of WWII M1917 Rifle publications.

 

I have corresponded with Canfield on many occasions, seeking his extensive U.S. Martial Arm experience, and I hope if he reads this review, my criticism will be taken as constructive, as it should. There are two other items I corresponded with him about in the past that were dismissed with “never” or “always” statements as being unoriginal, both of which I still believe have potential merit. One is the M1917 Short Rifle pictured above. No documentation has been found to support its existence as a military modified version, but in close examination, that’s what it appears to be, and one has to admit that it’s a compelling example of a unique M1917 that we may just learn more about in the future. Then again, maybe we won’t. The other item I have is a WWII vintage, U.S. marked Model 1897 trench shotgun, which I inquired to Bruce Canfield about a couple of years back. He said the gun was not completely original, because WWII M1897’s always have acceptance stamps on the buttstock. Mine is not marked on the buttstock. The provenance of my M1897 is another compelling reason that such an “always” statement may be incorrect.

 

I hope anyone reading this will understand, as I said before, that I am nitpicking, and I guess I have a fairly unique outlook, based on my obsession with collecting manuals and other paper items associated with firearms.

 

Anyway, don’t hesitate to buy this book. It’s a good one, even if I did find some errors.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...