Mistake in a Weaponry Book

R

RT

New member
I received "The Illustrated History of Weaponry" by Chuck Wills as a gift from my sister-in-law for Christmas. It's entertaining and I enjoy the pictures. However, I was stunned when I turned to the section on the 1911.
IMG_0008.jpg


That, combined with the fact that there were no pictures of an M14, M16, or FAL, made me go :confused:
 
T

Technosavant

New member
I always note that there's a metric ton of illustrated books on small arms in the bargain bins of any bookstore. It leads me to believe that anybody with an interest in firearms has that kind of literary work as his/her goal.

With that kind of flood in the market, there are certain to be errors- the vast array of firearms on the market (currently and historically) means that one person cannot be an expert on everything.
 
R

Rayndeon

New member
Not sure how a book on weaponry can make that mistake. Isn't the 1911 (and the BHP folks?) pretty much the epitome of a single-action handgun?
 
T

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
The most prolific writers of these books are English or Dutch. They are enthusiasts, but not particularly blessed with any real hands-on experience. I'll try and get pictures of some of the more egregious ones in my library...

The stuff you see on the Hitler Channel is generally just as sophomoric.
 
L

Lurch37

New member
Obviously the old excuse of: "No really, I bought it to read, it has some really good articles in it" doesn't hold well in this case. :)
 
B

B. Lahey

New member
Heh. I got that same book for Christmas last year and that same part irritated me.

But if you think that's the worst of it, you must not have finished the book yet. There are many more screwy statements in there...
 
M

Mal H

Staff
I had to go check a book my wife gave me for Christmas to be sure it wasn't the same one. It's called "Weapon - A Visual History of Arms and Armor". It's not the same book. If it had been, it would enjoy the rest of its life in the back of a closet.

The short description of the 1911 in this one is very basic, but mostly factual. The book seems to be a very good history of edged weapons and armor more than modern firearms.


As for the description of the 1911 in the first post - who can name all the blatant errors in the text? I counted 4, there may be more.
 
J

JohnKSa

Administrator
The stuff you see on the Hitler Channel is generally just as sophomoric.
Click to expand...
I watched a history channel show on the M16 the other day and was amazed at the amount of misinformation contained. It was almost like they worked hard to get in as much inaccurate information as they could.
 
T

Tamara

Moderator Emeritus
The ones written by the Dutch guy are the worst, because minor factual errors get turned into real howlers by the mangled translations of technical terms into English.
 
C

ClayInTx

New member
Seldom is a writer of a non-fiction work able to garner all the information needed by himself. He has to depend on others for quite a lot of this and must trust it is correct; he has no way of knowing this or he would not have had to ask.

Unfortunately there are many know-it-alls who don’t quite know it all but are very willing to tell him they do, and then give him bum information.

This is probably what happened to the writer in the OP.
 
B

B. Lahey

New member
He has to depend on others for quite a lot of this and must trust it is correct
Click to expand...

That's sometimes the case, but the book being discussed here is not anything like the epic works of military literature you are probably thinking of. It's just a thin book of nice photos with little infoblurbs stuck in there. One person could have checked the entire text in an afternoon or two.

I think Tamara is on target here. It reads like it could be a poor translation of material that wasn't great to begin with. Or maybe just the work of an enthusiast "expert".

There's a reason it was on the $3.99 clearance table at Barnes & Noble.:)
 
R

RT

New member
off of the back cover.

About the Author: Chuck Wills is a writer, editor, and consultant specializing in history, with an emphasis on military history. He lives in New York City.


IMG_0006.jpg
 
Last edited:
G

Gary L. Griffiths

New member
He lives in New York City.
Click to expand...

New York City!??!:eek:




Get a rope! :rolleyes:


The problem isn't confined to books, either. Went to a firearms museum a couple of years ago, and saw an 1895 Gatling plus numerous Krag rifles, all labled caliber .30-40 Krag. THEN, saw an 1895 Winchester labeled caliber .30 U.S. Army!

Tried to explain the difference to them, but I don't think I got very far! :)
 
M

Mal H

Staff
Yes, they are. Different names for the exact same cartridge.

Gary, what difference were you trying to explain to them?
 
G

Gary L. Griffiths

New member
Uh, aren't the .30-40 Krag and .30 US Army different names for the same cartridge?
Click to expand...

Yes, and no. The official name of the military cartridge is the Cartridge, Caliber 30, US Army. It is often referred to as the .30 Army or .30 US, sometimes the .30 Gov't cartridge (not to be confused with the ".30 Gov't 06"). The 30-40 Krag was the civilian (or commercial) name of the cartridge.

It's like the 7.62x51 Nato cartridge and the .308 Winchester, or the 5.56x45mm and the .223 Remington. We don't talk about M-14s or M-60s being chambered for the .308, or M-16s chambered for .223.

I know, I know, it's nit-picking. I just thought it was funny that the military weapons were labeled "caliber .30-40 Krag" and the one civilian weapon of that caliber was labeled ".30 Army). I hasten to add, however, that the 1895 Winchesters were often marked ".30 Army."

Yes, they are. Different names for the exact same cartridge.

Gary, what difference were you trying to explain to them?
Click to expand...

Thought I'd responded to Mike's post last night, but I guess the reply got sidetracked into that vast wasteland of endlessly wandering posts! :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top