The Gun (C.J. Chivers)

1
I started reading it a few days ago. It's about the impact that the AK has had on the world. Having been a Marine officer, the guy knows what he's talking about, making him a rare exception among journalists.

I'm only in the first few chapters. In the first two chapters, I learned a great deal about Richard J. Gatling. In the third chapter, Hiram Maxim comes into play. Obviously, he decided to go over the advances in weapon technology leading up to the Avtomat Kalashnikov.

One inaccuracy I've noticed: in the prologue, he said that the second most common family of firearms is the Stoner family of rifles and then said that fewer than ten million have been made. Although I don't doubt that statistic, 37 million Mosin Nagants have been made and 16 million SKS's have been made. However, it's an excellent book and I recommend it.

Re: The Gun (C.J. Chivers)

2
I just got thorough reading this a couple of weeks ago. He may be referring to the Stoner family as the second most common of automatic weapons since that's the premise of the book, that portable automatic weapons are what changed the face of warfare. So while everyone was doing game theory work on nuclear exchanges in the Cold War, it was the AK and its proliferation that changed the facts on the ground.

The chapter on Vietnam is not to be missed. While today's M4 is a competent weapon, it sure had a shaky start.

I just watched Chivers last night on Book TV having received a Polk Award for investigative journalism. His blog is fantastic as well:

http://cjchivers.com/
There is only one hope for mankind — and that is democratic Socialism. -- Aneurin Bevan

Re: The Gun (C.J. Chivers)

3
I just read it last month.

Wait until you get to the last third where the history of the M16 is discussed. It will probably keep you from ever buying a Colt anything again, and make you wonder if ANYBODY, from the designers, to the manufacturers, to the distributors, to the military procurement officers up to the highest ranks, actually give a crap about the US soldiers. From my experience the same situation applies today, except that the NRA is also complicit.

The comparison of the Soviet design and procurement process to the American process makes you wonder why America actually won in the long run (or did we?)

Excellent book, highly recommended.

Re: The Gun (C.J. Chivers)

4
I've read it and found it a good, quite accurate book.

Even better, though, is "American Rifle: A Biography" by Alexander Rose. It is an excellent history of rifles, especially military ones, in America. The description of the chicanery that lead to the T44 being selected as the M-14 instead of the T48 (FN-FAL) is particularly interesting and certainly foreshadows the battles over the adoption of the AR-15 a few years later. He has an ax to grind over US Army ordinance & the Springfield Armory in particular, but his case is very well made.

Then again, as far as I'm concerned, we should have bought the FAL chambered in .280 British over the 7.62/M-14 so I already have a few biases going in. :blink: :lol:
Live like you will never die, love like you've never been hurt, dance
like no-one is watching.
Alex White

Re: The Gun (C.J. Chivers)

6
I found the difference between Soviet and American weapons design to be interesting.
The Soviets wanted a submachinegun that could be fired as rifle if the need arose, while the Americans wanted a rifle that could act as a submacinegun, if needed.
" Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I attack." - Gen. Ferdinand Foch, 1st Battle Of The Marne ( 1914).
http://www.rudereds.blogspot.com

Re: The Gun (C.J. Chivers)

8
wlewisiii wrote:I've read it and found it a good, quite accurate book.

Even better, though, is "American Rifle: A Biography" by Alexander Rose. It is an excellent history of rifles, especially military ones, in America. The description of the chicanery that lead to the T44 being selected as the M-14 instead of the T48 (FN-FAL) is particularly interesting and certainly foreshadows the battles over the adoption of the AR-15 a few years later. He has an ax to grind over US Army ordinance & the Springfield Armory in particular, but his case is very well made.

Then again, as far as I'm concerned, we should have bought the FAL chambered in .280 British over the 7.62/M-14 so I already have a few biases going in. :blink: :lol:
As far as I'm concerned, we should have bought the AR-10 instead of the M14. Sadly, somebody proposed the use of composite barrels, so when testing, it blew up.
We should also have adopted the Stoner 63 instead of the AR-15.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests