Black Rifle Book 2

SinnFeinM1911 · June 19, 2007, 2:20pm

I came across this again today and had to laugh !!

I really hope no one uses this for any kind of non-fiction reference material.

If you notice the page just in the cover with the author, when he talks about being in the “Colt Arms Room”, and when you take a good look at that picture, you WILL noticed it is PHOTOSHOPED !! look up and down his arms and you can see the square pencil lines all around his body. I just thought it was pretty funny.

losbronces · June 19, 2007, 4:21pm

Personally, I hate photo shop. I see all sorts of pictures now being passed off as real. If they are done well, its hard to tell they’ve been alterred. Seeing is no longer believing…

SinnFeinM1911 · June 19, 2007, 4:49pm

It just goes directly to the crediibilioty of hte Author and any text in the book. If he lied about that, what else between the covers is lies.

I know many people who try to use it as a Black Rifle Bible, and it is the futherest thing from that.

Pat_Rogers · June 19, 2007, 5:06pm

It looks liked they PS Steve Troy as well, and it was not flattering.
He seems enthralled with Swan, and believes the kool aid.
The engineers that actually did the work on the mil-std-1913 rail have a significantly different slant on it, and swan.

However, his book, and his opinions. Like all books, go into it with an open mind and remember that we are all biased about multiple subjects.

C4IGrant · June 19, 2007, 7:03pm

What is even worse is that a lot of the general public view this book as the God’s honest truth about AR’s. :rolleyes:

C4

SinnFeinM1911 · June 19, 2007, 7:48pm

Sure they are HIS OPINION, but they are put out there as fact and like Grant said, some use this as the gospel…

Pat_Rogers · June 19, 2007, 8:16pm

I don’t disagree. However, the book had been out for what, 2-3 years? It has been common knowledge among all who do this, and the faults/ facts whatever have been hashed over many times.

I don’t like a lot of what is in it, and is sucks compared to Vol 1. But it is his book and no one is forcing anyone to buy it.

MH64 · June 19, 2007, 8:50pm

There was an HK book not too long ago that was full of inaccuracies. Text, photos and general info wrong. Don’t recall the author.
And picked up a copy of an AK book by Poyer, its crap. Again, info text and photos are wrong.

People who aren’t familiar with these weapons buy these books and expect whats in them to be correct.

Pat_Rogers · June 19, 2007, 9:39pm

There is of course always an expectation of accuracy- be it books, magazines or the news. Hey, even from students…
However, seldom are you going to see it.
We have a saying. There is stupid, and there is History Channel stupid.
The same can apply to about anything, but there is no more perfection in books/ magazines/ media then there is in any errornet forum, Senate hearing, body armor advertising, school catalog or marriage ceremony.

You need to be smart enough to seperate the wheat from the chaff when looking at anything.

DocGKR · June 20, 2007, 12:09am

and know what, who, and where to go to assess the veracity of any suspect information…

Ekie · June 20, 2007, 12:24am

In regards to the AR-15 TBR and BRII are the definitive works. Like it or not. There is next to zero chance that these books will be replaced by a more comprehensive and or accurate book. Don’t think any of us are working on writing their replacements?

Mr. Bartocci directly addressed our concerns with the accuracy of BRII here:

http://archive.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=267601

I had the following criticism:

Ekie:

Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any incorrect photo captions, which TBR was riddled with. Pat on the back there.

You finishing the M16A2 story started in the first book, that was much needed.

Most of the critism of your book, is just that. That said, it is a work of man, and there are errors:

First off the picture on page xxi, need I say more? (on an archive search I found that I brought this up with you before).

The reverting back to .155" trigger/hammer pins, page 264.

page 110:

“Both the MOD O and MOD 1 versions of the Mk12 incorporate Harris bipods.” Then a picture of a versa pod (spelling) on the next page.

Nit picking here, the MK12’s pictured in the books are excellent mock ups (the old PWA lowers don’t look bad on them), but the choice in buttstocks and grips is outside of the norm. Looks like the uppers may very well be real?

That is all I can think of, off the top of my head, outside of the Component Reference Guide.

Mr. Bartocci addressed my concerns and others with the following response:

crsbar:

I greatly appreciate the fact that many of you have enjoyed Black Rifle 2 as well as some of my other work. I will say that most can not fathom what kind of an undertaking it is to write a book of that magnitude. The most critical thing is getting the support of the right people. If you look at the acknowledgements in the book you will see who was involved. These were the only people to go to. For the M16A2, ACR as well as the M4 and 9mmSMG, I was fortunate to have access to the project managers at Colt. I was fortunate enough to be granted permission by SOCOM to get their full cooperation with the SOCOM chapter. That was never done before or since. I dedicate 4 1/2 years of my life to bring the most accurate and technical account of the post-85 development of this family of weapons.
I will be happy to address any comments on the book. I will give you the source of where the information came from but I will not debate the information. I was hesitant of revealing myself on this forum due to the way some people get beaten down on this forum. But I will hold civil conversations and provide you the answers to some of your questions.

First is the picture in question. The one of me. That was the editor. What happened was I was standing to the left of the same rack of M4’s at Colt that Mike and Ed were. Blake felt it would be redundant so he cut me out and put me in the middle.

I regards to the bipod on the Mk12 MOD0, that upper was sent to me by David Dunlap from PRI. This was one he was testing. The official bipod is the harris; however, once you see what the SOCOM guys really have, there are no straight issue equipment. They use a plethora of equipment and that was one of the bipods they use.

In regards to why Bushmaster was not in the book. I approached Bushmaster in the early stages of the book based on their marketing of being mil-spec and their sale to the government. BR2 was only on U.S. and Canadian military versions. So BFI should be in there. So I started asking questions and met with silence. I wanted photo’s of U.S. Govt marked BFI lowers and numbers and references to I could corroborate the claims and write it up. I was unable to get any of it. I could not find any corroborated or documented proof of the claims. The information I found was less than good for BFI so they were not put in the book. This is all I will say about why BFI was not in the book.

Much of the technical information on dates of when changes were implemented came from Colt work orders at the factory. So I am confident in their accuracy.

As far as the Mil-Std-1913 rail is concerned, this was interesting. I spent more time on that than most parts of the book. This was a heated issue due to the people who were involved. Many made claims but offered no documentation to back up their claims. The only one who did was Dick Swan. He provided plenty of information that proved categorically to me he was the designer of the final dovetail dimensions of the rail. He in fact had mounts out the predated the flat top upper receiver. I had documentation as well as nondisclosure agreements as well as actual drawings. Most all was provided in the book but the actual drawings.

I am a technical writer, I seek out and research facts. I addressed the book in this way. Nothing was put in print that I did not corroborate with multiple sources. There are a few caption mistakes and one or two technical mistakes that will be addressed in the next printing which should be this year sometime. As far as the future, I would like to announce some articles I have in print right now that may interest some of you. I have a article coming out in SAR on the M4. One that addresses what it is and what it is not. Also a two part series on Colts SCAR program. The first part is their two direct gas entries and the second part is on their gas piston submission. I had an opportunity to spend a day at the factory and fire nearly 800 or so rounds through all three.

Pat_Rogers · June 20, 2007, 12:52am

Ekie- all very true, and you are correct that it will not likely be replicated.
The AR is a very controversial platform, and all who have touched it have a bias. This author drinks the swan sperm for sure, and he has paper that says something.
He also has paper that says nothing when concerning LW, and that should never have been added to that book.

Ekie · June 20, 2007, 1:41am

Yes, there is paper that says something.

Both TBR and BRII have chapters on experimentals, odd balls, dead ends, and just plain freak stuff that makes you wonder why they were included. Kalashnikov books are the same. Check out KALASHNIKOV ARMS, something like half the pictured rifles are one off freaks of some sort. Personally, if it ain’t an issue item it is of little to no interest to me.

Pat_Rogers · June 20, 2007, 1:56pm

On the other hand, i’m interested in seeing how the designers/ committee’s and users wound up with what they did.
I had the opportunity to put a lot (as in a metric buttload) of rounds downrange through the handful of the very first XM4’s that we received from the Army.
I have seen- and shot- a great many of the strangely configured guns in the past.
It was interesting.

Of course, i feel the same way about tanks.

His comments re bushamster were interesting. There is a great story there, but will never be told as the bm swallowers will cry and gnash their teeth about being just as good as…

SinnFeinM1911 · June 20, 2007, 3:41pm

Kinda off topic, but I heard ARMs Trademarked “Flat Dark Earth” as “ARMs Brown”???

Pat_Rogers · June 20, 2007, 4:39pm

Now, that is funny! Did he invent the internet as well? Incandescent lamps?
A pathetic attemt to make himself into something useful.

Ed_L · June 20, 2007, 11:25pm

Exactly. It appears to be a detailed well put together book so many people will assume that it is 100% factual. That is one way that misinformation gets started.

Pat_Rogers · June 21, 2007, 12:26am

Hi Ed!
Certainly Collectors Grade has a very good reputation, and their books are well laid out.
They fell on their sword on this one though…

Harv · June 21, 2007, 12:38am

I got Pat for all my AR info… So I don’t need this Bartocci guy…

Plus I highly doubt this Bartocci guy is funnier then Pat…

Robb_Jensen · June 21, 2007, 1:37am

Pat is a damn good guy to go for, for info.

I usually ask my dad or coldblue (aka LtCol. David Lutz USMCR) about XM4/M4 questions that I can’t find on my own. Lutz was my dads boss at Quantico Firepower/PM Ground Weapons from 1988-90. Prior to that it was Major Jack Muth III USMCR (who IIRC is now retired from Colt too). Lutz, Muth and two of my dads armorers (SSGT Owens & SSGT Guthrie RIP) taught me a lot about the AR/M16 ‘back in the day’.