'US Military Bolt Action Rifles' by Bruce Canfield - a review
http://www.brucecanfield.com/images/...taction-02.jpg
Bruce Canfield, known better for his books on specific military firearms, has taken a slightly different path in the last few years. A couple of years back, he authored Combat Shotguns, which attempted (and succeeded very well, in my opinion) an over-all look at the long and varied use of the shotgun by members of the U.S. military. In his new book, U.S. Military Bolt Action Rifles, he delves through the long history of the bolt action rifle in the U.S. military, which dates from the Civil War time period, to its specialized use in even the current time period, in the Middle East. The result is a 400+ page detailed look at this subject.
I have always believed that Bruce’s forte’ is the way he organizes his books. As in his last books, he includes an extremely detailed table of contents, with extensive coverage of the sub-topics in many chapters. Although it was somewhat “visually impaired” by the “watermarked” drawings of rifles included in the text of the table (I would have left the drawings out), it was more useful to me than the index, although the index was very adequate.
Each chapter is organized along similar lines. He quotes from primary sources in explaining the development. He can’t, obviously, include the depth can did on a “one-gun subject”. He discusses in detail changes that were made, the type of cartridge and other developments for each rifle. I enjoyed, especially, the section on the combat use of these rifles. I think he was especially effective in using “primary” sources in explaining why a rifle was well-received and why it was not always liked. He does not depend on hearsay; they are quoted from the source. He ends the main section by discussing why the rifle was replaced and any “other” uses that were made.
The chapters are always finished by two very useful sections: a) A complete, detailed look at all accessories, ammunition and “accouterments”, such as bayonets, ammunition, cartridge belts and other gear. Dredging up these itesm for some of the early rifles must have been a lot of work!! B) “Collector notes”. This includes the “present” state of collecting this rifle, what a mint example would look like and things to look out for in the way of fakes. Obviously, this latter section may change over the years.
Bruce covers a large number of rifles. I was especially impressed with the coverage of “earlier” rifles – the plethora of bolt-action rifles tested by the U.S. Army and Navy from the Civil War to the adoption of the Krag-Jorgensen in 1892: The Ward-Burton, the Hotchkiss, Remington-Keene, Chaffee-Reece and Remington-Lee (which introduced the box magazine or U.S. military service) and others. In each case, he discussed why or why not these rifles were a success or (more likely) a failure. He did a good job of researching production details (several were produced to the tune of several thousand rifles) and received a fair amount of combat use). I especially appreciated him clearing up the myriad rifles used by the Navy during this period (Hotchkiss, Remington-Lee, etc.). Also, Bruce shows that a number saw action with the Army in the Indian Wars, backed up with some very rare pictures. For me, this was probably the most fascinating part of the book, from a "learning" standpoint.
Bruce covers the “big three” of U.S. bolt action rifles, the Krag, M1903 and M1917 in much more detail. The Krag had a surprisingly detailed section for a “survey” book. A lot of coverage on the differences and “sub-differences" between the various models. In this section, the picture quality dropped some. A couple of “sample” pictures might have better served than the collages he featured on a couple pages. Also, a detailed look in the “Collector’s Notes” section on fake 1892 rifles and 1898 carbines. I would have liked to see a similar section explaining the numerous misnamed “Philippine Constabulary rifles" which are actually “school guns", which appear on the market frequently.
The M1903 section contained a lot of information which you can find in his Springfield book (2004). He did a good job of abridging, so it wasn’t a book in itself. He left in many of the useful “comparative” pictures which are so helpful. An extensive section on accessories was welcome, as was his collector notes again. Although I still disagree with his use of the term “Modified” to describe later Remington M1903s, I did appreciate him cutting the “border” down to 3,020,000 instead of the usual 3,050,000 serial number (I favor about 3,035,000, but that’s me!). There might have been a couple of sentences about the Rock Island/Springfield “hybrids of the late 1920s, but maybe it didn’t make the cut.
M1917: A very good explanation of the origins of the M1917. I thought he was effective with his “comparative photography in this section. As with the other sections, he spends some time on development (a brief discussion of the P-14 origins is made). Bruce has subsections on the use of the M1917 between the wars which had quite a bit which belonged in the WWII section. Perhaps the “Use of M1917s in WWII should have been the major section and “Between the Wars” a subsection. I did appreciate him mentioning use of the M1917 by the Philippine Army in 1941-42, which is often overlooked in the history of the M1917 rifle.
Sections follow on the “other” rifles used in World War I by the U.S., including the Moison-Nagent, the Ross and the Berthier. He decided to leave out the Lee-Enfield (SMLE) due to the fact that “…these weapons were not used in combat by [U.S. troops]”. In this is he is mistaken, as the 27th and 30th divisions used these rifles extensively in their combat service with the British in late 1918. The Berthier was mentioned as having been used by the black soldiers of the “145th Division”, which did not exist. They were used by the 93rd Division, a skeletal division of Black Doughboys who did see service with the French. Other than those minor mistakes, he did a fine job in outlining the development and use of these weapons, without getting bogged down in foreign use and development.
He sums up by describing the use of the Winchester M70, Remington M720 and other variants. As the reemergence of the use of the sniper rifle in Afghanistan and other locations, this would be of special interest; of course, the history of these rifles is not completed.
Most interesting is that the author/publisher took the time and space to print the complete SRS records, nearly 100 pages of data, on the early rifles, plus the Krag and M1917 (sorry, no M1903s!). This would be VERY helpful .
Bruce took upon himself to write a very ambitious history of near 150 years of bolt action rifle development. As I said, at the start, the book is very well-organized and “flows” very well. He uses the same system in all his chapters, so that you can look up a given rifle or feature, without wading through a lot of pages. Someone wanting a history of one or more of the “Big 3” (mentioned above) might be better off looking for a specialized book; but for a good overview, which almost doesn’t seem like an overview, you’d have to travel a ways to locate something better than Bruce's book. I can guarantee that everyone will find something he wasn’t familiar with in this book. I was especially impressed with his coverage of the “early” rifles. Many firearms historians emphasize the Trapdoor and leave it at that. It was refreshing to have a military firearms book that hardly mentioned the Trapdoor at all (except for comparison). For me, this was the highlight of his book.
A little pricey at $59.95, but not out of line for what quality gun books are going for these days. It would be a good investment, because $59.95 is a LOT cheaper than the cost buying a fake! For anyone wanting a good survey of U.S. bolt action rifles, I recommend this book.
