Nobody doubts the M4 is an assault weapon. Are there any material differences between an M4 and an AR15?

[Anomalism]

The M16 is usually identified by a longer barrel

That's how I can be identified too.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure I did. The Barrels are different. Is there any other material difference other than the multi-fire capability? Legality doesn't present much difference in a hands on comparison in a combat or shooting range, or any other shooting comparison.

.

There's not much significant difference in the M4 and AR-15 other than the full-auto multi-fire capabilities.
I think what a lot of people are trying to suggest, is that there is not much difference between any semi-automatic rifle and the M4 other than the multi-fire capabilities ...
no matter what it looks like or what you call it.

I mean if you want to get technical about performance issues or fancy tactical attachments, there are differences.
But if you are just talking about putting 6 big bullets downrange in a certain amount of time, there are a shitload of firearms that can do that.

.

Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about. Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with), I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.

 

[daveman]

Sure I did. The Barrels are different. Is there any other material difference other than the multi-fire capability? Legality doesn't present much difference in a hands on comparison in a combat or shooting range, or any other shooting comparison.

.

There's not much significant difference in the M4 and AR-15 other than the full-auto multi-fire capabilities.
I think what a lot of people are trying to suggest, is that there is not much difference between any semi-automatic rifle and the M4 other than the multi-fire capabilities ...
no matter what it looks like or what you call it.

I mean if you want to get technical about performance issues or fancy tactical attachments, there are differences.
But if you are just talking about putting 6 big bullets downrange in a certain amount of time, there are a shitload of firearms that can do that.

.

Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about. Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with), I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.

So what answer were you expecting?

 

[BlackSand]

Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about. Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with), I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.

.

Well yeah ... And the AR-10 was better than the AR-15 in some categories, and the Springfield M1-1A Scout was better than both of those in some categories.

Then we get back to ... So What ...
They all do what you buy them to do, and unless you were looking for a reason to buy one or the other, what difference does it make?

If you are wondering which one you might want to buy ...
The bigger question might be whether or not you want to go with Creedmoor 6.5 or Russian 7.62 rounds (bullets)?
If you have someone build you an AR-15 style in the Russian 7.62 x 39 round...
You are going to want them to use the Russian springs to avoid the occasional 9 of 10 shots fired.

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure I did. The Barrels are different. Is there any other material difference other than the multi-fire capability? Legality doesn't present much difference in a hands on comparison in a combat or shooting range, or any other shooting comparison.

.

There's not much significant difference in the M4 and AR-15 other than the full-auto multi-fire capabilities.
I think what a lot of people are trying to suggest, is that there is not much difference between any semi-automatic rifle and the M4 other than the multi-fire capabilities ...
no matter what it looks like or what you call it.

I mean if you want to get technical about performance issues or fancy tactical attachments, there are differences.
But if you are just talking about putting 6 big bullets downrange in a certain amount of time, there are a shitload of firearms that can do that.

.

Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about. Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with), I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.

So what answer were you expecting?

I was hoping for information I didn't already have.

 

[daveman]

Sure I did. The Barrels are different. Is there any other material difference other than the multi-fire capability? Legality doesn't present much difference in a hands on comparison in a combat or shooting range, or any other shooting comparison.

.

There's not much significant difference in the M4 and AR-15 other than the full-auto multi-fire capabilities.
I think what a lot of people are trying to suggest, is that there is not much difference between any semi-automatic rifle and the M4 other than the multi-fire capabilities ...
no matter what it looks like or what you call it.

I mean if you want to get technical about performance issues or fancy tactical attachments, there are differences.
But if you are just talking about putting 6 big bullets downrange in a certain amount of time, there are a shitload of firearms that can do that.

.

Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about. Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with), I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.

So what answer were you expecting?

I was hoping for information I didn't already have.

Uh huh.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about. Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with), I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.

.

Well yeah ... And the AR-10 was better than the AR-15 in some categories, and the Springfield M1-1A Scout was better than both of those in some categories.

Then we get back to ... So What ...
They all do what you buy them to do, and unless you were looking for a reason to buy one or the other, what difference does it make?

If you are wondering which one you might want to buy ...
The bigger question might be whether or not you want to go with Creedmoor 6.5 or Russian 7.62 rounds (bullets)?
If you have someone build you an AR-15 style in the Russian 7.62 x 39 round...
You are going to want them to use the Russian springs to avoid the occasional 9 of 10 shots fired.

.​

I have plenty of rifles and shotguns for hunting and a couple of pistols. I'm good.

 

[Paulie]

I mean your thread title alone is a logical fallacy. “Nobody doubts” lol. Everyone who actually understands firearms doubts that.

 

[Paulie]

Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about. Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with), I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.

.

Well yeah ... And the AR-10 was better than the AR-15 in some categories, and the Springfield M1-1A Scout was better than both of those in some categories.

Then we get back to ... So What ...
They all do what you buy them to do, and unless you were looking for a reason to buy one or the other, what difference does it make?

If you are wondering which one you might want to buy ...
The bigger question might be whether or not you want to go with Creedmoor 6.5 or Russian 7.62 rounds (bullets)?
If you have someone build you an AR-15 style in the Russian 7.62 x 39 round...
You are going to want them to use the Russian springs to avoid the occasional 9 of 10 shots fired.

.​

I have plenty of rifles and shotguns for hunting and a couple of pistols. I'm good.

If this is even remotely true then it’s totally possible you own a rifle that’s the exact same thing as an AR 15 and you don’t even know it because it wasn’t designed the same way

 

[BlackSand]

I have plenty of rifles and shotguns for hunting and a couple of pistols. I'm good.

.

Shit ... I'll hunt deer with a Patriot-Vortex .308 bolt action, but the Custom AR-15 style 7.62 x 39 with a infa-red scope is a hell of a lot better for hunting hogs.
Not to mention I wouldn't want to be on the bleeding end of either one of them in a tactical combat situation.

But screw it ... If you are happy with what you have, and don't have any concerns about what I have, then we are good to go ...

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

I mean your thread title alone is a logical fallacy. “Nobody doubts” lol. Everyone who actually understands firearms doubts that.

I assumed most would agree that the M4 was an assault rifle. The military does.

 

[BULLDOG]

I have plenty of rifles and shotguns for hunting and a couple of pistols. I'm good.

.

Shit ... I'll hunt deer with a Patriot-Vortex .308 bolt action, but the Custom AR-15 style 7.62 x 39 with a infa-red scope is a hell of a lot better for hunting hogs.
Not to mention I wouldn't want to be on the bleeding end of either one of them in a tactical combat situation.

But screw it ... If you are happy with what you have, and don't have any concerns about what I have, then we are good to go ...

.​

I live in east Texas, so I usually use a Winchester 30-30, but I have a .270 for the few times I have been able to go to west Texas. Deer meat is waaaaaay too expensive on those hunting leases. A 12 gauge 870 Remington, and an 8gauge that was my grandfathers with a barrel that looks to be about 5 ft long for geese (really 36"), and a 410 that I got for Christmas when I was about 8 or 9. A 32 pistol that I am afraid to shoot, and a 38 snub nose Rossi.
I don't have a problem with guns. I have a problem with idiots that oppose reasonable regulation of guns.

 

[BlackSand]

I live in east Texas, so I usually use a Winchester 30-30, but I have a .270 for the few times I have been able to go to west Texas. Deer meat is waaaaaay too expensive on those hunting leases. A 12 gauge 870 Remington, and an 8gauge that was my grandfathers with a barrel that looks to be about 5 ft long for geese (really 36"), and a 410 that I got for Christmas when I was about 8 or 9. A 32 pistol that I am afraid to shoot, and a 38 snub nose Rossi.
I don't have a problem with guns. I have a problem with idiots that oppose reasonable regulation of guns.

.

My first Deer rifle was a Winchester 30/30 ... Excellent firearm, I had the bush rifle, it was loud as hell and it would rock my world when it fired.
The .270 isn't a bad round, and they have new .245 round that just a screamer when it come to velocity and distance
I also have a Remington 870 Wingmaster that is my primary duck and dove gun.
I have a Mossberg 10 gauge for geese, that my hunting friends jokingly call "The Meat Cleaver".
I have a Charter Arms Undercover .38 revolver 5-Shot with a hammer.

So I would say we have a lot of the same things ... I have a shitload more guns than the ones listed though.
I don't have a problem with firearms, I have a problem with idiots who think they are going to define or try to regulate what is reasonable for me ...

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

I live in east Texas, so I usually use a Winchester 30-30, but I have a .270 for the few times I have been able to go to west Texas. Deer meat is waaaaaay too expensive on those hunting leases. A 12 gauge 870 Remington, and an 8gauge that was my grandfathers with a barrel that looks to be about 5 ft long for geese (really 36"), and a 410 that I got for Christmas when I was about 8 or 9. A 32 pistol that I am afraid to shoot, and a 38 snub nose Rossi.
I don't have a problem with guns. I have a problem with idiots that oppose reasonable regulation of guns.

.

My first Deer rifle was a Winchester 30/30 ... Excellent firearm, I had the bush rifle, it was loud as hell and it would rock my world when it fired.
The .270 isn't a bad round, and they have new .245 round that just a screamer when it come to velocity and distance
I also have a Remington 870 Wingmaster that is my primary duck and dove gun.
I have a Mossberg 10 gauge for geese, that my hunting friends jokingly call "The Meat Cleaver".
I have a Charter Arms Undercover .38 revolver 5-Shot with a hammer.

So I would say we have a lot of the same things ... I have a shitload more guns than the ones listed though.
I don't have a problem with firearms, I have a problem with idiots who think they are going to define or try to regulate what is reasonable for me ...

.​

Background checks? Do you oppose them?

 

[9thIDdoc]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

Part of the actual definition of an assault rifle is that it is able to fire in fully automatic mode. AR-15s are simi-automatic and incapable of fully automatic fire. Weapons 101. A very high percentage of all firearms are simi-automatic and not assault anything. This is basic knowledge and essential for any rational discussion of firearms use.

You are absolutely right. That is why I specifically excluded that capability from the discussion in the OP. Are you saying that the M4 and the AR15 are equivalent in everything but the multi-fire capability?

Well if you exclude the ammo then an M-4 is just a spoon. Don't be ridiculous.

Got it. You don't know the answer, so you think a dumb remark will cover up your ignorance.

So you know what the answer is, and you lied when you said you wanted honest debate.

Just like I said. A lame GOTCHA.

Not sure where I said I was looking for any kind of debate in this thread. Please link

Okay, so you didn't want debate. You just wanted someone to parrot your own opinion, which is that AR rifles should be banned.

Wrong again. I just asked a simple question. Don't worry about it if you don't know the answer.

You asked a question, then did not accept any answer offered.

Dishonest.

Sure I did. The Barrels are different. Is there any other material difference other than the multi-fire capability? Legality doesn't present much difference in a hands on comparison in a combat or shooting range, or any other shooting comparison.

Link? Barrel length is not a material difference unless the weapons in question can only accept a particular length. Legality is the difference especially if changes in the law are the issue. If potential change in the law is not the reason you ask your question why not inform us what it is?
I have in fact used assault rifles in combat. The full auto feature is an advantage only in very particular instances and for any but an experienced shooter is likely to leave one without ammo in the middle of a firefight. This is a definite fax pas especially if you are far away from resupply. Full auto was known by the troops as "spray and pray" or "rock 'n roll" because you made lots of noise but had to get very very lucky to actually hit a target. The usual goal is to get the enemy more interested in taking cover than in shooting back.

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

Part of the actual definition of an assault rifle is that it is able to fire in fully automatic mode. AR-15s are simi-automatic and incapable of fully automatic fire. Weapons 101. A very high percentage of all firearms are simi-automatic and not assault anything. This is basic knowledge and essential for any rational discussion of firearms use.

You are absolutely right. That is why I specifically excluded that capability from the discussion in the OP. Are you saying that the M4 and the AR15 are equivalent in everything but the multi-fire capability?

Well if you exclude the ammo then an M-4 is just a spoon. Don't be ridiculous.

Got it. You don't know the answer, so you think a dumb remark will cover up your ignorance.

So you know what the answer is, and you lied when you said you wanted honest debate.

Just like I said. A lame GOTCHA.

Not sure where I said I was looking for any kind of debate in this thread. Please link

Okay, so you didn't want debate. You just wanted someone to parrot your own opinion, which is that AR rifles should be banned.

Wrong again. I just asked a simple question. Don't worry about it if you don't know the answer.

You asked a question, then did not accept any answer offered.

Dishonest.

Sure I did. The Barrels are different. Is there any other material difference other than the multi-fire capability? Legality doesn't present much difference in a hands on comparison in a combat or shooting range, or any other shooting comparison.

Link? Barrel length is not a material difference unless the weapons in question can only accept a particular length. Legality is the difference especially if changes in the law are the issue. If potential change in the law is not the reason you ask your question why not inform us what it is?
I have in fact used assault rifles in combat. The full auto feature is an advantage only in very particular instances and for any but an experienced shooter is likely to leave one without ammo in the middle of a firefight. This is a definite fax pas especially if you are far away from resupply. Full auto was known by the troops as "spray and pray" or "rock 'n roll" because you made lots of noise but had to get very very lucky to actually hit a target. The usual goal is to get the enemy more interested in taking cover than in shooting back.

I didn't see it as much difference either, but it was much closer to a substantial difference than anybody else came up with. I had hoped that letting that pass might encourage others to come up with something. Up to that point, all that was offered was unrelated things like how many were in use, or what the 2nd amendment says.
I shot a full auto once. The car I shot at was pretty shot up before I started, so I have no idea if I even hit it, but I think I did. Fun though.

 

[BlackSand]

Background checks? Do you oppose them?

.

I have an NICS Number ... I don't give a rat's ass about Background Checks,
Nor do I have a problem handing any dealer money for a firearm and walking out the door with it as soon as ...
They scan my ID, I answer a few questions on the computer, and they give me change if necessary.

You see ... The assclowns on the Beltway are never going to make it so they cannot get whatever they want. whenever they want.
They may try to make it more expensive and cumbersome for the law-abiding American Citizen to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights ...
But they are never going to stop a criminal from utilizing straw purchases or breaking the law.

Those folks in the Banana Republic on Capitol Hill will tell you they are doing something good ...
When all they are really ever accomplishing is selling more guns.
Look up the numbers ... The ATF is approving over 3 million Federal Background Checks for new firearm purchases a month ...
And you think that makes a damn bit of difference as to where those guns are going, and who ends up with what?

That would be a bit of a Polly-Anna view of how effective gun control actually is.
You're really just pissing off the people who obey the law anyway ...

.​

 

[westwall]

Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about. Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with), I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.

.

Well yeah ... And the AR-10 was better than the AR-15 in some categories, and the Springfield M1-1A Scout was better than both of those in some categories.

Then we get back to ... So What ...
They all do what you buy them to do, and unless you were looking for a reason to buy one or the other, what difference does it make?

If you are wondering which one you might want to buy ...
The bigger question might be whether or not you want to go with Creedmoor 6.5 or Russian 7.62 rounds (bullets)?
If you have someone build you an AR-15 style in the Russian 7.62 x 39 round...
You are going to want them to use the Russian springs to avoid the occasional 9 of 10 shots fired.

.​

I have plenty of rifles and shotguns for hunting and a couple of pistols. I'm good.

Suuuure you do.

 

[BULLDOG]

Background checks? Do you oppose them?

.

I have an NICS Number ... I don't give a rat's ass about Background Checks,
Nor do I have a problem handing any dealer money for a firearm and walking out the door with it as soon as ...
They scan my ID, I answer a few questions on the computer, and they give me change if necessary.

You see ... The assclowns on the Beltway are never going to make it so they cannot get whatever they want. whenever they want.
They may try to make it more expensive and cumbersome for the law-abiding American Citizen to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights ...
But they are never going to stop a criminal from utilizing straw purchases or breaking the law.

Those folks in the Banana Republic on Capitol Hill will tell you they are doing something good ...
When all they are really ever accomplishing is selling more guns.
Look up the numbers ... The ATF is approving over 3 million Federal Background Checks for new firearm purchases a month ...
And you think that makes a damn bit of difference as to where those guns are going, and who ends up with what?

That would be a bit of a Polly-Anna view of how effective gun control actually is ...

.​

You don't think increased gun sales are mostly because all the hysterics about everybody's guns being confiscated, or for the hard core crazies, the hope for a real civil war?

 

[9thIDdoc]

I have plenty of rifles and shotguns for hunting and a couple of pistols. I'm good.

.

Shit ... I'll hunt deer with a Patriot-Vortex .308 bolt action, but the Custom AR-15 style 7.62 x 39 with a infa-red scope is a hell of a lot better for hunting hogs.
Not to mention I wouldn't want to be on the bleeding end of either one of them in a tactical combat situation.

But screw it ... If you are happy with what you have, and don't have any concerns about what I have, then we are good to go ...

.​

I live in east Texas, so I usually use a Winchester 30-30, but I have a .270 for the few times I have been able to go to west Texas. Deer meat is waaaaaay too expensive on those hunting leases. A 12 gauge 870 Remington, and an 8gauge that was my grandfathers with a barrel that looks to be about 5 ft long for geese (really 36"), and a 410 that I got for Christmas when I was about 8 or 9. A 32 pistol that I am afraid to shoot, and a 38 snub nose Rossi.
I don't have a problem with guns. I have a problem with idiots that oppose reasonable regulation of guns.

Wonderful. But many have a problem with those idiots who do not understand enough to know what is/is not reasonable regulation of guns. I imagine everyone here has no problem with reasonable regulation such as restrictions on violent felons. But many have a very substantial problem giving up civil rights because of the paranoia of those who are unwilling to inform themselves. In my opinion Your rifles and shotguns are every bit as deadly as any assault rifle ever made.