C. J. Chivers
If that does not constitute another example of how we are winning, I do not know what would.
I have mentioned Chivers’ work in the past, but this also serves as a reminder that I need to type up my own review of it as well at some point… The short-and-sweet, however, is, “You need to read this, but it is not what you expect.”
I read Chiver’s book when it came out a year ago and was glad to part with it in a book exchange. This book tries to be everything for everyone and fails. It tries to be more than a history of the AK-47 but it is less than a book on intermediate caliber automatic weapons. On the plus side, it informed me of Soviet post- World War II small arms development and how it related to German developments. Even with Soviet small arms, it leaves huge gaps. Although it discusses the Automat, there is no discussion of why this was chambered in 6.5mm Ariska or how it was operationally employed. It seems more of a collection of vaguely related topics, discussing Gatling and Maxim while almost skipping over John M. Browning and other innovators. The reviews indicated that this book would do much to discuss the early problem with the M-16 in Vietnam, yet it failed to provide any new information.
Maybe I’m becoming too jaded as a reader but I don’t feel this book lives up to the hype.
What you have to remember is that the book was not written for us; as far as I can tell, it was written for folks with next-to-no operatoinal knowledge of firearms, and we are probably the better for it. Even with that said, it managed to teach me a few things I was otherwise unaware of.
I definitely agree that it could have been better-written – I found it a little disjointed and jumpy in places – but considering the century of history he had to cover, and wildly varying players, nationalities, governments, and whatnot else, it could have been a hell of a lot worse
.
Like I said, folks should read it, but it was not exactly as advertised.