Milsurp After Hours

This string has taken a turn...but it's an interesting turn and it brings up a subject that deserves some light. And I agree, JC5, that I don't think we are on the brink of some legal problem either and didn't mean to suggest more in my remarks than a matter of a principle that I'm glad you brought up. And I would think that if the author was asked probably he would have no problem with it.....although he wasn't asked. Perhaps he would see it adds a vote to his status and, by inference, recommends his book. But I also don't think that the education issue within a school, that Duncan links in his argument, is the same as posting here in a public forum that represents only a place for discussion.

One thing that interests me on a broader unmentioned topic is the question of who our "experts" are and how expert are they really anyway and how much more can be known that they have not touched upon in any significant way in any of their works that I'm familiar with. The books I have on different milsurps from different countries. by reputed experts, spend most of the text naming parts and giving production statistics and bore sizes. They remind me of Biologists dissecting bugs and naming the parts and thinking that is a good thing instead of telling us what the bug does and where it comes from and how it lives. I'd rather know about the engineering design and manufacture process and if there were a list that could tell by serial number where the weapon had been and if it had been in a battle and to whom it was issued. Our experts are only the beginning experts it would seem to me. Or at least I hope so.

Great observations Niner. I agree that the thread has gone "off topic" and I started to feel bad about driving it there...but you know what? These forum threads are conversations, and sometimes conversations end up going far afield. That's just the way it goes. I think it's OK. We can always get back to Lee Enfields at any time, and we're not charged by the word.

I should say on the issue of infringement that I have made a similar error myself. Years ago I was giving a talk and quoted from someone at length without being clear enough that the words were not my own (I was nervous). Well, word actually got back to the author of my imperfectly attributed quote and he was ticked off... but he didn't sue me!

Regarding your point about "experts"...I may get into hot water here, but I have always felt that the biggest problem with most gun books is the lack of footnotes. Without knowing the sources and being able to duplicate and verify the research, we have to just take the author's word for it. I think an author needs to offer up his work for other experts to review, challenge, and improve on. At least that is my goal and my promise. A really great book should be the starting point for future researchers. Of course, the footnotes have to be good... there was a recent book by a "non-gun" (mainstream) author on the history of American rifles, and he dutifully littered his text with footnotes, which no doubt impressed his mainstream publisher. But when you actually look at the footnotes, they are mostly from secondary sources--i.e., modern books about guns. There was a shortage of primary sources (which should be things like contemporary newspapers, sporting and military journals, inventor diaries, government reports, first-hand accounts). Of course, I'm talking about history books here (which is the kind I'm working on)...if you're just embellishing a pretty picture book (like a recent tome that consisted entirely of pictures from a gun collection and no explanatory text), or writing an identification guide for collectors, or a modern guide to shooting or reloading---then footnotes might not matter much. If space is an issue, then at least post the footnotes online.

Niner, you wrote:

I'd rather know about the engineering design and manufacture process and if there were a list that could tell by serial number where the weapon had been and if it had been in a battle and to whom it was issued.

Hear, hear brother! The latter part of what you're asking is maybe something that you can never get...but it's OK to ask. Honestly, most people want that! The first part about design and manufacture is definitely possible with enough research. I've spent a lot of time on that and I hope I can handle it well. Basically, you need to put yourself back in time and ask, "Why did they design it this way? What were their expectations? What did they have to compare it with?" When you get so deep into the minutiae of research, it's VERY easy to lose perspective. You can spend so much time on details that you forget the bigger questions that most readers care about.

Whenever I feel like I've gone down the rabbit hole I try to keep in mind one of the best things I have ever read about guns, gun nuts, and gun books. It's from Harold F. Williamson, “Winchester: The Gun That Won the West” (I will quote it and feel safe he won't sue me ):

“Men who love guns are among the most intelligent of hobbyists. The gun-bug’s interest leads him into many by-paths, from Nature study to metallurgy, and from ballistics to history. Not content merely to place his shots in the center of the target, the true shooter wants to know why one gun is better than another, and how it got that way.”

So that's my philosophy on "experts"... First, always support your credibility and the integrity of your research by documenting your sources. After you publish, you cannot keep that stuff "secret" anymore. Second, never lose sight of why people like old guns in the first place, and what they are seeking when they read your stuff. Finally, remember that your position as an "expert" is fragile and ultimately not worth much in the larger universe... better to always remain a "student."

Very thoughtful post JC5. I agree particularly about the footnotes and the fact that the footnotes need to be evaluated as to what they are and what interpretation the author gives them in support of his point. You obviously approach your work in a scholarly way and take it very seriously. When I was in college, over forty years ago, I majored in History and had to do a senior seminar paper as a final requirement for the degree. I chose as a topic the purges in Russia under Stalin and the connection to Russia in previous times as a means to an end. I had a footnote every few sentences throughout the entire work down to the last couple of paragraphs. Got an A and found out later my paper was used as an example to later classes. However, if you boiled it all down I really didn't know much of anything about the subject nor have any very clear conclusions. It was mostly an exercise in what seemed to be the mechanics of being as a historian rather than actually being one. Probably the professor understood that too and that was why my paper was used as an example. He liked lots of footnotes.

I'd say from what you just wrote that you are interested in more than just the mechanics of writing a serious book. You are aware of the importance of having substance and not just content. That is a good thing. When you get your book published you are more than welcome to advertise it here.....for free.

Thanks for the kind words Niner. I will gladly accept your offer about the ad!

I'm not making any efforts to publicize the book yet, not until it's nearly done. I am however, soliciting help from Lee Speed owners and collectors, and will acknowledge in print everyone who has helped. If anyone wants to offer suggestions for things they'd like to see in a gun book, feel free to send me a PM.