Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:00]
A
It's. Welcome to another edition of Old School Guns, the podcast that tells you exactly like it is. And I'm trying out some new funky cheap equipment this time, so I hope that the quality is improved. I think some of my older stuff was given up the ghost. So I hope that this is an improvement. This is episode number 22220 and if you have any questions or comments you can email them to me at KB M A K E L O l dot com or you can send them, leave them in the comments section on podbean. But it's been a while since I've actually done one of these. Kind of let the dust settle on a few things and of course whenever I do that then more stuff pops up. And one of them is the group of elected officials who decided to make a TV commercial warning service members not to follow illegal orders. Which is, which is really what I know that they were saying you don't have to. It wasn't a reminder, it was, it was a warning. And here's how I know this. In all my military time, nobody ever had to remind me what the law of land warfare was and that it was not an obligation to follow an illegal order. All service members know this. Now your brand new service members are going to know, are going to be less familiar with it than people who are career NCOs or officers. But everybody knows and everybody knows the basics of the law of land warfare and, and how that all works out that you know at the kind of what the Geneva Conventions and all these things are. Everybody knows this. Don't need to be reminded by Senator Slupkin and Senator Kelly who two of the biggest buffoons in Washington. I don't even remember who the other four are. There were, there's just inconsequential piss ants that don't amount to anything. They're, they're nobodies. But here's the danger of what they're doing. Not only are they trying to sow seeds of doubt, not only are they trying to make what I consider to be a threat. And why do I think it's a threat? Well, because they're saying don't follow illegal orders. What they're really telling you is don't follow what we think are go are illegal orders. And at some point when the Democrats regain power, they're going to go after people and prosecute them. And if you say oh that's, that's crazy man, that would, that could never happen. Well, it happened in another place. We'll talk about in A bit the uk where you remember when they were taking, you know, just in the last 10 years, they were bringing all these British soldiers who'd served during the Troubles, which was their word for the, you know, kind of guerrilla war, horrible insurgency that, that was going on in, in Northern Ireland. They, they were bringing those guys up on charges 30 years after the fact, 40 years after the fact sometimes. So it can happen. And again, I don't want to try to relitigate the Troubles. I know is bad, bad on both. It was very difficult for the people there. And I'm not trying to take, I don't take any sides on that. I'm just saying that on the British side they proceeded to bring people up on charges decades after the fact. And that could very possibly happen here too. People blowing up drug boats are going to, you know, there may be an attempt to try to hold them quote, accountable for some, some BS interpretation of, of war crime. And, and I don't want to speculate on that too much, but I'm just saying that they're, they're laying the groundwork that saying they're going to come after people. They, they know they are, they're going to come after people. The Democrats are easy to read as an open book. I mean face it first thing that when they regain power and they will eventually hope it's not in my lifetime, but they will eventually. They're coming after guns. I mean they are gonna come whole hog after everything because even after the Charlie Kirk assassination, they, they're not saying, you know, assault rifles and handguns. They're not. At first they tried handguns back in the 70s, 80s and it never worked. It never worked. Then it was assault rifles which were a perfect target because most people look and go, yeah, why does somebody need something like that? And then, then it morphed into military grade which is actually more insidious because you could say any precision rifle then, any hunting rifle is a military grade weapon. You know. Now my Savage 12FV in 6.5 Creedmoor is not a military grade weapon in most respects. In the only respects that it is, is, is, you know, and I'm getting into techno stuff, I'm kind of getting off track here, but is that it's made out of materials that, you know, military weapons would be made out of the same kind of steels and things, but not, not really by design or purpose. But the seditious six, to get back on track are going to attempt to, to put people behind bars ex post facto. That's what it's going to be. And you know as well as I do it won't be generals or admirals. It'll be the officers, NCOs, and, and troops, sailors, you know, airmen, all. It'll be though, they'll come after them. They will. On some level, they will try it. And this is the first warning. You don't make a, you don't make a video like that unless you want to tell people, hey, you know, we're going to interpret it. We're going to interpret what is a lawful order and what is not. And so don't do anything that really pisses us off or else that'll be following an illegal order. Whether it's going to a big city to try to help clean up crime, whether it's going to, you know, help ice, try to get rid of some of these criminal illegals that have been, that have been floating around and just operating with impunity. Whether it's anything like that. They, they're going to, they're going to criminalize behavior that is okay now. And they're going to then try to burn in this country. We actually had something, the closest thing we had to that was. I don't know if you know what the Kent State shooting was. I think it was April, May 4, 1970, something like that. Students protesting at Kent State University in Ohio, they call out the National Guard who were ill equipped to, to handle a riot. I think they had, I don't even know if they had shields, but they had M1 rifles, bayonets, ammunition. And through the course of events, about 60 shots were fired and four students were killed. And some of those students and several students were wounded also. A couple of those students who were killed weren't even, they were just like bystanders kind of transiting the campus type of thing, hit by a stray bullet. It wasn't like they were, you know, leading the, the march or leading a charge against the National Guard. But years later, they brought all those guardsmen, not all of them, but they brought guardsmen up on charges and, you know, they were all finally exonerated. But what a, what a thing to have to go through. It was pretty ugly. And you can read about it on the, you can read about it on the Internet. It's a pretty, pretty horrible situation. But these seditious six, who are they really representing? I mean, especially when we talk about the drug boats, Fentanyl is killing a hundred thousand people a year. Now, to put that into perspective, that is what our losses in World War II were. Think in three and a half years of war, if you start from December 1941 to May 1940, well, you know, that's VE Day, so you're really looking at a little over three and a half years by the time you get to August 1945. Three years, eight months, something like that. Seven months. Eight months, we were losing 100,000 people a year. You know, all those white crosses. When you see Saving Private Ryan or you see the big military cemetery and in Hawaii, or you see Arlington, you know, Arlington's all wars, but it's got a lot of World War II people in there. I mean, when you see those things, I mean, it was a. It was a big deal. I mean, that's a lot of people. Compared to other countries in World War II, it wasn't high casualties at all. But to others, you know, to our experience, that was a lot of casualties fairly quickly. And Fentanyl is doing the same thing. In four years, we'll lose 400,000 people. That's about World War II. It's insanity. And, and sinking these guys out on the high seas is only prudent. It's the only thing we can do to defend ourselves. And yet they're defending this. They're angry about it. They want it to stop. Who does? Mark Kelly, A man who should know better based on his service, but obviously he's a dirtbag and doesn't. He should be the one leading a charge saying, put these guys under, Send the Navy. Send the Navy to deal with these guys the same way we sent the Navy to deal with Barbary pirates 225 years ago. You know, the Navy that the US Navy, which defeated the British, scared away the French, beat the British again, handled the. The Mexican navy, handled the Cuban navy, not Cuban navy. The Spanish navy in Cuba and the Philippines fought in two world wars and then the other wars afterwards. The United States Navy should be able to stop fentanyl boats. And those guys are illegal combatants. They're unlawful combatants on those boats. They are part of a terrorist organization attacking our country. If any other time in our history 100,000 people a year were being killed by something like this, you bet we would be. Full scale war. Venezuela would be a parking lot. I mean, we've been actually operating with way too much restraint for way too long. So, you know, who does he think he is? And you know what he is? He's a dirty, stinking political operative just worried about his own future, just taking. Taking a. Just disagreeable side when he knows what the right thing to do. Is. And in my lifetime, that's what's wrong with the government is that if this had happened, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, you know, Tip O' Neill in the 1980s would have been in the White House after hours. He would have sat down with Ronald Reagan, had a drink, and he would have said, I think you got to send the Navy after these guys. They're killing people all over the country with this poison. And it would have, it would have been a bipartisan thing. Now it's hyper partisan. Just absolutely anything Trump does to try to defend the United States, defend our way of life, get rid of unruly immigrants, you know, immigrant truck drivers who, who have licenses that don't have a name on them and they're on our interstates. I don't know about you, but, you know, I don't really like driving on interstates anymore because I see the nonsense goes on. It's terrible, absolutely terrible. And the rest of them are nothing but terrible, cheap political tricksters. But they've tipped their hand. They're going to. They're going to decide what a legal order is five, ten years from now. And the people who are doing the job right now are going to pay the price. That's the signal they've sent. That is the only reason you would send the message that they sent, because they're going to determine what's legal and what isn't. And that's not going to be a very pleasant day. Oh, let's see the other. I was asked about the slow death of the uk what do I think really caused it or is causing it? I guess you can argue whether it's completely dead or not. But, you know, I think the UK, you know, the British Empire up until World War I was really, I mean, it was, it was massive and it was powerful. The resources it had, the navy that they built to hold it all together, that it was very impressive. When we look back, if you were 500 years in the future, you'd put the British Empire up with the Roman Empire. I mean, I'm serious, the British Empire and the Roman Empire would be two things that you would know about if you were a history student, starting with the First World War. If the British had not, the British inadvertently triggered a world war and they took it from a European land war to a world war. And why do I know this? Why can I say this? And I say it was inadvertent. They thought they were doing the right thing at the time. But what happened is in 18, remember, let's wind back to 1870. In 1871, the French and the Prussians go to war. The Prussians deal on the French and the things over in about a year and a half. Okay, It's a European land war. Germany wins, France loses. Alsace Lorraine becomes a German land holding. It's right there on the border. The German states all unify and become Germany. So it's no longer. So the Franco Prussian War was the last thing the Prussians did as an independent entity. Everything after that, they're part of this German super state, which is now basically where the old Holy Roman Empire was. And they are allies with the Austrians who are similar, or I should say the Austro Hungarians who at least partly are ethnically similar, speak the same language, have some of the same aims. So they're all. They're all good. So go to 1914. If the British stay out of the First World War, then we have another European land war again. And whether the German state is able to defeat France or not, who knows? It may have all ended with kind of playing out as it did in the first year of the war, where the. The Germans kind of knock the Russian Empire, who are the French allies, out of the war. And the Austro Hungarians might. They're fighting the. They're fighting a little bit in the Balkans and all the rest of it, the Germans, the Germans and the French. Germany takes what amounts to northwest France, which is the Noyon Salient, and Belgium, and incorporate that into the German super state. So, you know, I mean, there would have been a settlement and it would have only lasted maybe a year, year and a half because it was gonna. It was still flowing. It didn't. Had already settled into, you know, just the quag static. The quagmire. Not the quag. The quagmire. The static warfare of the trench warfare on the Western Front. So when the lines kind of stabilize, the war is probably over. The war is probably over for the French. If the French were even able to stop the German army, maybe the Schlieffen plan, which is the invasion of Northern France, maybe it succeeds. They capture Paris and say, we make peace now. We'll give you back this and we'll keep something else and, and go from there. Another European land war, you know, it happens. So but when the French or the British went into World War I, they essentially generated a world war all of a sudden. Now the British Empire is at war in toad and to and tote and total, which brings in Canada, Australia, South Africa to an extent, India, Turkey comes in on the side of the Central Powers, which is Germany, Austro, Hungary, Italy comes in on the side of the Allies. I mean, it just generates. The war just gets bigger and bigger and bigger because Britain is, is in it. If Britain stays out, probably Italy stays out, probably Turkey stays out. Russian Empire is knocked out, and there's a land accommodation between Germany and France. You know, Germany's kind of slowly eating, eating up France, but, you know, that's kind of the way that is. So instead we have a world war. And the cost of that war is so devastating to the British Empire that financially and I think even spiritually, they, they started to collapse. Even though they're the victors, they didn't really relish the victory. They just like, yes, the war is over, thank God, it's over, it's done. Let's, let's get out of here. So that is the, that is the First World War. If the British don't get in, you have a European land war probably settles in Germany's favor. Therefore, you do not have the Treaty of Versailles. You do not have the rise of Hitler and National Socialism. They kind of stay a minor party and don't really do anything because after all the country is victorious. They, they've conquered more of France and on and on. They've knocked Russia out and they would have gotten a great large land concession from Russia as they did as, as they did when Russia left the war in 1917. I mean, it would have, they would have gotten a lot. So you would have had this large German superstate. Was that a threat to Britain? Well, yes and no. They were kind of building up a fleet, but it was a lot smaller than Britain. The fact of the matter is the Battle of Jutland should have been a slaughter. It should have been the, the German, the, sorry, the British Grand Fleet should have just wiped out the German High Seas Fleet just on the basis of numbers. Didn't work out that way. Kind of came out to be a draw that the British actually lost more, but the Germans sailed back in the port and never came out again. So you could, he could throw up. Who was the winner? Who was the loser? Tactically, the Germans won. Strategically, the British won. That's kind of how I look at it. The next big problem that hit the British Empire was, and this sounds inconsequential, but it's really consequential. It's the abdication crisis. They had a king, King Edward viii, and basically the palace forced him out. And it's coming out now. It's not because Wallace Warfield Simpson, the twice divorced American socialite who the king wanted to marry was not the primary reason. The primary reason is, is that all these little minions in the palace, led by a guy named Tommy La Salles, didn't want him to be king. They didn't like him. They didn't want him to be king. They thought he was lazy. They thought, even though he was quite popular with the people. So anyway, they. They used his romance to. To basically force him out. You know, when that happened, I think a lot of the. I say a lot of the confidence in the British monarchy kind of evaporated, and people kind of saw it for what it was. If you can force a king out, that's pretty. That's pretty heinous. Does the king really have any power? What is the monarchy in Britain? And the answer is, we now know today, it's a joke. It's a farce. It's. It's. It's a cosplay farce that, you know, it just has a lot of money behind it. So the abdication crisis did it. The Second World War, which, again, the. Let's just say for alternative history that Britain does get in the First World War. And then after the end of the First World War, they said, hey, enough is enough. We're not getting involved in another European land war. So they don't do the Second World War. They just say, sorry, Polish independence. And fighting for Polish independence was ridiculous, as it turned out, because Stalin basically occupied Poland and they weren't free anymore anyway. So you could argue the British got into World War II with an aim which was guaranteeing Polish independence. That could not and would not happen. So World War II, when. When World War II is grinding away, now there is a world war because now the Japanese become involved. Britain is stretched to the limit. They've got a worldwide empire. They've got belligerent nations in both Europe and Asia who are nipping at their heels and are going to, you know, basically, at least in the Pacific, take their possessions away from one at a time, which they effectively did, and going after and threatening Australia, threatening India. Now, the Japanese threat to the British Empire was a real thing. I mean, it was a real thing. If we hadn't been just hammering the Japanese and sinking their navy and everything else, and they had decided to move westward, they would have caused a real problem for the British. You know, the Axis link up in, you know, North Africa, around Suez and Palestine. And, you know, through that, they were. They were afraid the Japanese and the Germans would link up. And that would have been a bad Thing, but let's just say that Britain stays out. Again, there's no real incentive. They could have reinforced the East a little bit and probably dissuaded the Japanese, although maybe they would be in a war with the Japanese anyway, but they wouldn't have been involved in a European land war. Again, it would have been another. Let the Germans fight the Russians. We don't like either side. So I realize that, you know, France and a few other countries have. Have, you know, kind of gone under the. Gotten stomped in the process. But, you know, do we really want to get involved? And the answer was they did get involved and it precipitated a larger war. You know, I don't know. I don't know. To me, I don't think they had a choice, actually. I just don't think. I think what they saw was be their. Their empire would be isolated. Another German victory on the continent would have completely isolated them because they would have taken. The Germans would have taken the rest of France, which they effectively did. They would have had everything from the middle of Poland all the way over to the Pyrenees mountains. They were allies with the Italians. They had Austria. You know, I mean, face it, they didn't need anything out of the Balkans. Where else would they go? You know, if they had. If they had held their appetite and said, we really don't want to get involved in the Mediterranean, we really don't want to get involved in the Balkans or North Africa, then, you know, it's. It's a lot different war. It's a lot tougher war. And I think the British knew that if even if that had happened that way, that they. They would be an isolated country that essentially the continent and all the trade possibilities and all the, the economics and the political. Just the political atmosphere at the time would have been so completely hostile that that's why they went to war. But World War II, bankrupt. I had a chance to talk to some members of Parliament at one time, and this is. This is 20 years ago now, but I was critical of Neville Chamberlain. I said, Chamberlain, you know, was obviously fooled by Hitler. He was obviously, you know, kind of made a. Made an imbecile of. In front of the world, embarrassed in front of the world. And they said, well, Chamberlain basically knew what was up and what was going on, but he did not want to commit to a world war because he knew it would bankrupt Britain and be the end of their empire, which it was. If their word is to be taken as true, then that's true. He knew that, hey, we're going to go to war, and even if we win, we lose. Which is what happened to them World War II. They lost fewer people in World War II than they did in World War I, but they still lost a lot. And, you know, the other side of the coin is they had to arm Stalin to help beat the, beat the Germans. So we built up our next enemy. Built up the next enemy. But right after the war, face it, what was it? It took what, five years to basically disassemble most of the British Empire. India being gone, you know, they set up the hokey Commonwealth, all that kind of nonsense. It was just, yeah, goodbye, you know, it was done. And the people wanted a social democracy where everything's paid for by the government and that's it. I mean, we're at the position now where, you know, the British Navy has more admirals than they have warships. They only got like, have like 15 or 16 warships. It's unbelievable to think that the British Navy is, is that weak now. You know, it's, it's just. It's just really amazing. You know, all their institutions were eroded. There is no more pride. Their religious institutions have crumbled. Yeah, it's. It's a bad deal. And now they've got waves of illegal immigration which have brought in people who have no knowledge of the past traditions or how the country is operated or what its history is. They could care less. I mean, they're grilling shish kebabs in the. You go to downtown London, I guess, and, you know, all you hear is Middle Eastern languages and people grilling shish kebabs and, and other things on the streets. So the UK is, is effectively done for. And that brings us. The same types of pressures are coming to the United States. I've been asked, you know, because I've said, hey, I don't know if a civil war would happen, but the conditions for it are starting to line up. And it doesn't mean it's going to happen, but the conditions. It's almost like the doomsday clock. You know, the clock is getting a lot closer to doomsday than it is, you know, backing off. And some of the things that, that do that is the political polarization. And you see it after the Charlie Kirk assassination, you know, whether you like Charlie Kirk or not. And some people like him, some people don't. You know, I, I kind of agreed with a lot of what he said, but not everything he said. But when people are out there going, yeah, he was a. All he did was spread hate. And it's like, I don't know. I'm not familiar with everything, every single word he ever said, but I've never seen anything that was spreading. Again, hate, an undefined term. They define hate as anything they disagree with. So the fact he was religious and he believed in a lot of family values and other types of things, I guess they thought that was spreading hate. Or he believed that trans people should. I don't want to speak for him, but trans people should, you know, find an answer within themselves. And, and maybe being a more spiritual person would be a better answer to that. That's spreading hate. You know, the, the one example they use as well, you know, if you have a graduating class from the airline pilots school and all of them are black, that's obviously a function of dei. And those are probably, on the whole, not the best people. We've selected people based on a characteristic that has nothing to do with their qualifications, which I agree with. And I would say the same thing. If they were. Every one of them was white or every one of them was Asian, I would expect that, that. Or everyone was male, everyone was female. I would expect there to be people who competitively are the best, would reflect, you know, different types of people. So if you look at it that way, everything he said was, was true. It's just absolutely true. And the, the people who just celebrated his assassination, that's just terrible. I mean, we remember, I remember Martin Luther King, who, A lot of white people really weren't revved on, but nobody celebrated. And if they did, they would have been called out. Nobody celebrated his assassination. Same thing with Robert F. Kennedy. Even the same thing with, like when George Wallace, he was, he was shot and grievously wounded. He was paraplegic after that or quadriplegic. But, you know, nobody celebrated those acts of violence, but they celebrated Charlie Kirk's. And they seem to turn a blind eye to the weird furry culture, trans, sexual, homosexual, things that are all associated with that. Like that's all okay. You know, like that's all okay. And it's, it's really not as we've seen. Another thing is the, the name calling that everybody you disagree with, and this comes from the left is a racist, is a Nazi and all. Now that's based. That's laying ground to what I'm going back to the seditious six with. If you call somebody something, then it's. And, and you do it often enough so that it gains some familiarity. It doesn't really gain any truth or credence. But if you Keep calling someone a racist, keep calling someone a Nazi, then it's a okay to go out and do violence against them and shut them up. Because everybody goes back to the paradigm, well, what if you killed Hitler in 1938? There wouldn't have been a Holocaust, so killing Hitler would have been morally justified to do that. Now it's a completely specious and false argument because in 1938 nobody knew what Hitler was going to do. So since you can't see the future, you don't know what someone's going to do. But this is based on, if you call them the same kind of names, then basically everybody becomes all of your enemies, become a Hitler and you can take this kind of action against them. That is absolutely, you know, some of the most twisted thinking there is. But it's true, but it's true. They, they believe it. And you know, you even see this, the hatred for the National Guard. And then two National Guardsmen are, one was killed, the other is grievously wounded. Will probably, I don't know, but I would just assume probably will never be the same. You know, these are every, all these people who are like, I don't like the militarization of our cities and it's like, well, the National Guard was just there to help out. And also if you went in a 10 mile radius around your house, no matter where you live, you will find a certain number of people are members of the National Guard or the Air National Guard or the Naval Reserve or the Army Reserve. These are your friends and neighbors just trying to make the cities a little bit better, make them a little bit safer. These aren't like Hessian mercenaries brought in during the American Revolution to suppress the colonists. No, that's not what this is. These are your friends and neighbors performing civic duty. So they should think really twice about that before they hate the National Guard. And indeed Senatorki Slotkin, just before these two National Guardsmen were attacked, she said, oh, within a week the National Guard will be firing on us civilians. Totally frickin wrong. Totally 100% wrong. Turned out to be just the other way that some unvetted, very suspicious Afghan refugee, you know, a psychopath, had done this. So there you go. That, that shows you what imbeciles, as we would say, booger eating simpletons that these seditious six really are. And the hatred for the National Guard is just an extension of the ongoing hatred of police. I mean when you see those videos, body cam footage, what police go through, it's, it's pretty rough. I they won't use any of those videos for recruiting. That's. That's for sure. Hatred and defunding the police. Again, signature Democratic positions, the Democratic Party of the United States. And look at the only people who are just holding a civil society, the rule of law in our big cities together are the National Guard and the police. And we don't have a very civil society. Look at, look at road. I mean, do you feel if you grew up in the 1960s or the 1970s, do you remember road rage being a thing? I mean, I'm sure there was an incident here and there, but it was so rare. Now you hear about it every day. You know, the other thing you hear about every day is a female teacher with one of her male students in middle school or high school or something. Never heard of that either. But now it's commonplace. There's something going on. There's something going on. And the use of, I don't know, even in sports. Professional sports has gotten a lot uglier too. I don't really watch baseball, so I can't save from that. But the little I've seen of the NFL, you know, bench clearing, bra brawls, people spitting on each other. They had one where a guy, one guy punched another guy right in the groin, you know, I mean, just kind of stuff that would never have happened. You know, there used to be a code among professional football players. If you played in the NFL, you were. Even if you played on separate teams, you were still kind of comrades, you know, you were part of a elite, part of the sports world. You played in the NFL and they kind of respected that. That's all gone now. Now it's just a bunch of. It's. It's like wild dogs after each other. And the funny part is this was the year that the NFL was going to promote sportsmanship. And yet it has had a worse problem than ever. So they've made it. By promoting sportsmanship, they've somehow made it worse. So we don't have a civil society anymore. And again, I go back to road rage being just something that's really bad, really bad. And it escalates into violence at the drop of a hat. At the drop of a hat. And you, you basically plug all this into the increase in crime, violent crime, and especially what we saw with that young woman who was murdered on the subway train. People who just get thrown. There are camera footage, and this is not AI stuff of somebody's just waiting at a subway station and another individual comes along and just throws them down. The stairs. And a lot of times it's older people that are getting thrown, getting kicked around. And you know, talk about a, talk about an argument for concealed carry and constitutional carry. You know, when somebody who's 30 years younger than you and a whole lot stronger is trying to throw you down some stairs for no reason other than that's just what they feel like doing in the moment. That's. That's a dangerous place to live. It's a dangerous thing to live. But that's enough. That's enough of those things. And we will now go to. I have some leftover questions and answers, and one of these came from a YouTube video, I believe, because they're asking me the same question that they asked on something that I was watching a while ago, a short while ago. What are the definitions of a battle rifle versus an assault rifle? Well, I believe that the battle rifle fires a cartridge that is also used in medium machine guns. And as one would expect, it is a generation earlier than the later rifles, which I don't call assault rifles. I call them intermediate cartridge rifles because assault rifle means. And again, there's no perfectly accepted definition, but the generally accepted definition is an assault rifle has a detachable magazine of 20 to 30 rounds and can be reloaded quickly and fires an intermediate cartridge. But I like intermediate cartridge rifles because that opens the door to things that don't fit in either category, like the SKS, the Rasheed, the M1 carbine, which is really not an assault rifle recognized as such, but it is an intermediate cartridge rifle. And it had a very long life, surface life after World War II. You know, I mean, they were used up through Vietnam and I'm sure some countries still use them today. I saw them in use in the 1980s. So, you know, intermediate cartridge rifles, that's what an AK is. That's what an M16 is. That's what, you know, CZ 52, CZ 5257 Rasheed. Trying to think of if there are any others, and I'm sure there are because there are also skss that have a detachable magazine. I don't think any of them were really very good, but they did have it. So would that be an assault rifle? I mean, that's why I don't like the assault rifle. The other thing is assault rifle carries political baggage with it. Intermediate cartridge rifle is the best, and it's for civilian purposes. It's semi automatic. It's, you know, fires obviously a more modern cartridge. Something does. Developed at the end of or after World War II and goes the battle rifle is the. And. And I don't even know that semi automatic is necessarily a prerequisite, but a battle rifle is the rifle that was essentially the generation before. And if you're in England, I suppose you could say that the Lee Enfield is a battle rifle as is the. Their version of the FN fal, You know. So I would, I would say that, you know, you could. But if you want to make it semi automatic only then, yeah, it narrows it down quite a bit. And I won't name all the ones, you know, M14s and essentially M1, Garand Tokarev, the German G41, G40, you know, that whole thing of they use the same cartridges that the medium machine guns used. So anyway, that's it. And I know that that question was kind of stolen from someone else's Q and A. Here's the next one. Is the M16A1 still viable as a general issue rifle? Well, I'm going to show you my age and my curmudgeon ness. But I would say, yes, I would say that if you have a, you know, is. Is the United States going to go Back to the M16A1? No. Is. Are any of our NATO allies going to go to it? No. Smaller countries though that have them may stick with them. I think Israel probably has large stocks of them and they're not going to throw them away in any smaller country. I think they're fine. I mean you can mount an optic on it if you want. They are lightweight. They do not have an adjustable stock, but their stock is kind of short. So even if you're wearing, you know, some rudimentary body armor, it's probably not going to be bad. So you can, you can go that way for people of shorter stature in different parts of the world. And the rifle fits very well. So I think now if you're super tall, I think it's probably a. And I don't know, I do know a couple guys who were in the service who were very tall. I should have asked them. I never asked them what they thought of the M. The, you know, just the stock length of the M16A1. I know the A2 was, was. It was lengthened and it's very comfortable. I find the A2 to be very comfortable. The problem was that when you're wearing a flak jacket, you couldn't even get a, couldn't even get a sight picture. I used to have to open my flak jacket and then put the butt of the rifle up against my shoulder just so I could get a sight picture which negates a lot of the protection of the flak jacket. But anyway, flak jackets are gone. They've got those other, the other body armor systems now. And I think you could still use an A2, but it's, it's going to be harder. It's definitely going to be harder, but I think, yes, it is definitely viable. I like the fact it's select fire. I like the fact that it's lightweight. I think the cartridge is, is awesome for that 0 to 300 meters. It is awesome. And it can reach out even a little farther. You know, you could, you can probably hit targets at 500 meters if you really tried. You'd have to practice though, especially with the open sights. But if you have an optic and I, I like the original Colt optic. I mean, I think that's a great optic. And there are copies of it out now. And then there's also lower cost copies. You know, Barska and some of these other renowned manufacturers have put out that little AR scope that just kind of goes through the hole in the top of the handle and there you are. Okay, next question. What is your opinion of the STG44? Was it really a revolutionary rifle? Well, first of all, I have to say that I have never fired an 8 millimeter Kurz STG44. I have only handled and fired, I've handled them, but I have only handled and fired the 22 long rifle version. And I actually find it a little ungainly. It doesn't have the greatest ergonomics and that's to be expected. It was designed in the middle of the war. Get it designed to get it out. They weren't going to noodle around with the design to make it more comfortable or easier to use. So I, I don't have it. I don't see it as the world beater that some people see it as. It was also kind of a super submachine gun. I know that there were some, some backroom stuff about, you know, Hitler didn't like it and, and all the rest of it. And so it wasn't until the generals asked for more of them and they were used a lot on the Eastern front. So the reason that, you know, the Western allies didn't see it that much and they didn't really appreciate its potential. So there you are. But you know, the fact that they still find them in little weapons caches today in the Middle east and I'm sure in Ukraine and other places, you know, they're not valueless, that's for sure. And for something that's 80 years old plus or 81 years old or 82 years old now, that's pretty good. It's actually pretty good. All right, next question. What war movie has the most accurate portrayal of firearms? And I have to say, I don't know. I don't know. I know that Saving Private Ryan, the, the sniper rifle has been criticized because of the two different scopes. And Kelly's Heroes, they use just a Mosin Nagant 9130 sniper. The US troops have that. So, you know, I don't know. I don't know. I'm sure Band of Brothers was pretty good. I don't remember seeing anything egregious in Band of Brothers. Of course, one of my favorite movies, Zulu, they. They have long leaves in there because they didn't have enough. Martini Henry's and the Pistols, the Charred and Bromhead are using. Stanley Baker and Michael Caine were actually World War I. Webley. Mark Vies. So, yeah, Mark Six. So those aren't, those aren't very accurate. Other than that, you know, most of the movies, like, I think where Eagles Dare has got a pretty good, you know, because they're all German weapons. And MP 40s were staple in Hollywood, you know, in the 60s, you know, because just the way they look and everything else. So probably those. So I really can't. I really can't say it's. No matter what movie I think of. I'm sure there's an anachronism in there somewhere. Oh, one movie that's very Surprising, though, is Winchester 73, made in the early 1950s. They actually used a Winchester 1873 in it and not a Winchester 92 or 94 or something else. And so they used the actual rifle, which I thought was pretty darn good. I thought that was pretty darn good. It showed that they know. It shows that they know what they're doing. But a lot of, A lot of Hollywood productions are hampered by budget, what's available. And sometimes they try to, you know, gussy things up to look a little differently. If you want to check out some good ones on Westerns, one of the best is Duelist 1954 on YouTube. And it's Mike Bellevue, who was the editor of Guns, the black powder editor of Guns of the Old west magazine. I'm not even sure if that's still around. But anyway, to go back, to go back to that, you know, he really goes through all these old TV series and explains what the gun should have been kind of what they had and what they were and how they kind of had. Certain guns masquerade as others. It's very entertaining. All right, and here's our last question, and I think I've already answered this before, but I'll go through it again. Is the Colt SP1 carbine really the what would Stoner do rifle? If you're not familiar, what would Stoner do as a project done by Inrangetv of trying to make an M4 style rifle as light as possible. For what reason? I don't know, because it's already light. But they want to make a lighter, a lighter version. They took every lightweight component they could get their hands on and put it on there and they, they come out with some weight savings, but they also come out with increased recoil and you know, muzzle a little bit. It's a jumpier gun. It's also a gun that has a, it's got a polymer lower that also is part, it's also got the buttstock as part of the, as part of it. Part of it. And it really to me is a very, not only very unattractive, but you know, I guess they can put spacers in to, to, to adjust the length of pull, but that seems to me to be a very awkward and kind of a cheap out thing. The SP1 carbine is exceptionally light and I'm sure it's heavier because it has a, it has the, you know, it's a charge, it's, it's a full charging handle, carry handle gun. So I'm sure that it's a little bit heavier. But it's got the same kind of pencil barrel, the same kind of, you know, it's just lightweight and it's got the two position buttstock. So I, I'm like this, I would never do a what would Stoner do rifle when you could easily build something that would resemble a, an SP1 carbine. You know, all you have to do is get an upper, a lower, an adjustable buttstock and the upper, you know, if it's just the rail upper, not the carry handle and get the, you know, 14.5-inch pencil barrel with a permanently attached flash suppressor and you know, there you are, you can probably do it a whole lot less, probably the third of the price, you know. Well, now that Andersen is gone and they're not making those cheap lowers anymore, it's, you know, but you could probably find an inexpensive lower. You could build it yourself very cheaply so. And have something just as good. I personally like the carry handle because I like the way they look and the kind of optics I would mount on something like that would be very simple thing anyway, so it wouldn't really matter. But anyway, that is my answer to that and that is it for this edition of Old School Guns. Ah, the podcast that does tell you exactly like it is. And like I said at the beginning, any questions or comments, please email them to me at kb m a k e l.com or put them on the comments section of Podbean. But for now, this is Old School Guns Out.