Accuracy of information

[ncblksmth1]

Hey I just bought "The Model 1903 Springfield Rifle and Its Variations" by Joe Poyer. How accurate is this book? If it is not accurate in certain parts which?

Bob

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I kept mine in the outhouse. Didn't read it, but I can say pages 66 through 123 were soft and pliable. Others may have a different opinion.

jt

[1mark]

Unfortunately the 1903 books out there all have errors as non is perfect. Get Brophy book. Canfield also has a good book.

[Rick the Librarian]

Poyer's book has numerous errors. As a rule, it is not recommended, especially if you are new to the M1903. If you want to PM/email me I can send you a review I did of it some time ago.

[dave]

Same with his book on Krags. I have a Carbine with a serial much higher then he listed for them. I e-mail info on my carbine to him and he seemed not to believe me, wanted to see pictures, sent me a list of views, etc.

[Rick the Librarian]

In my own case, I noticed that in his first M1903 book, on his date of manufacture table, he had the years/serial numbers "one year off" (IIRC, he had 1918 serial numbers for 1919, and so forth). I emailed and pointed this out. The answer I expected was, "Yes, someone screwed up in the proof-reading and it will get corrected in the next edition". No, he said that there was different "opinions" as to the dates of manufacture! And I did notice the table got corrected in the 2nd edition. Why couldn't he be "man" enough to admit it??

[jgaynor]

Poyer coauthored a book on Swedish Mauser Rifles with Steve Kehaya. The only error that really popped out for me had to do with some of the photographs of the sniper rifles including the one used on the cover. Somewhere along the line the scope was removed from the rings and turned 180 degrees so that the shooter would be looking thru the objective rather than the eyepiece.

Maybe i am just overly picky but i would have thought someone might have put the rifle to their shoulder and wondered why the images in the scope looked so tiny and far away

Regards,
Jim

[John Beard]

I kept mine in the outhouse. Didn't read it, but I can say pages 66 through 123 were soft and pliable. Others may have a different opinion.

jt

I concede! Your description is better than mine!

J.B.

[TomWatts]

OK, I am going to be the Contrarian

I have most every book mentioned here, and I have taken Rick's Poyer book review (of 2011) and printed it out and put it in my copy of Poyer's book. (I take his and John Beard comments to heart).

But about Poyer, I admit that I don't use the type information etc., but I find the format and ability for quick reference to be one of the best of them all.

Most of the reference books are not references, they are tomes to the subject with very little or confusing organization. When I am looking just for some fact (that I might have to confirm), many times I will go to Poyer first. The 1903A4 reference is the best I have seen for example.

So if he's 98% correct, and we can find the problems, then its still a good reference, I just buy and read them all. (Including all the comments and posts here at Jouster and Milsurps); and I have been reading your comments for many years before I ever posted at either forum!

Cheers
Tom

[Rick the Librarian]

While I grant you there is NO M1903 book (nor is there likely to be one) that is 100% correct, I think it is conceded that Poyers book has more than the "average" errors in it.

[sdkrag]

I have always liked Brophy's Model 1903 book. Problem is a lot of information relavant to the collector has come to light since it's publication. I think it is still the bezt basic and then read, read, read anything that pertains and use your common sense.

[joepoyer]

Someone did put the rifle to his shoulder. I've probably put 200 or more rounds through it. The scope is an m/42 AGA, and I can assure you that it is mounted correctly in the photo on the cover of the 1st and 2nd editions and the color page of the 3rd edition.
Joe Poyer

Response to JGaynors's comment on the Swedish Mauser Rifle book.

[joepoyer]

1

[rcmkhm]

Slightly off topic, but just received in the mail Clark S. Campbell's book on '03 Springfields. Would have like more photos instead of line drawings but my question is how accurate is his serial number data as well as information on the early alterations/modifications? First time I've seen monthly numbers for Remington 1903 production. Chip

[jgaynor]

Slightly off topic, but just received in the mail Clark S. Campbell's book on '03 Springfields. Would have like more photos instead of line drawings but my question is how accurate is his serial number data as well as information on the early alterations/modifications? First time I've seen monthly numbers for Remington 1903 production. Chip

On photographs to each his own. Very high quality photographs can convey a lot of information. Mediocre photographs and an average printing process will likely yield muddy, indistinct images. I kind of like the line drawings, After all that is what the machinists used to build the rifles in the first place.

Campbell worked for Remington and was in a position to rescue the plant manager's correspondence file (for the ww2 period) from routine document destruction. If someone has better information then they should publish it. Some references are simply out of date by virtue of not having access to previously classified information. And then some are just horribly screwed up.

Regards,
Jim