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

[BULLDOG]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

 

[ding]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

 

[westwall]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

Have the tolerances off by three thousandths and your AR is a ticking time bomb.

Suuuure you can do that with a Dremel.

What a 'tard.

 

[westwall]

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.

Are background checks reasonable? Do you think you should be able to sell a gun to a stranger without a background check, and not even know his name, much less whether he can legally own a gun?

I have no problem with a background check so long as there is no gun information involved. Want to make it happen. Pass a law that absolves any seller of any crime done with a weapon they sell so long as a background check is done.

There is a simple solution....open up the background check system to private citizens.....gun dealers, stores, the average gun owner.....then, all they have to do is go on to their IPhone, laptop, punch in the name and birthday of a potential gun buyer and see if they have any of the categories that ban them from owning a gun...

Easy Peazy, lemon squeezee.........

Have a buyer....get their name, birthday, punch it in, and just like a cop at a vehicle stop, any convictions or outstanding warrants would pop up....and you can deny a sale without any record keeping and in seconds...not hours, or days..

But bulldog and the other anti-gun extremists don't want that.....they want the red tape, fees and penalties...and in particular....the punishment and destruction of normal gun owners when they don't cross the "T" or dot the "i"............

Pretty much what I was suggesting.

 

[ding]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

Have the tolerances off by three thousandths and your AR is a ticking time bomb.

Suuuure you can do that with a Dremel.

What a 'tard.

He probably didn't even watch his own video.

 

[2aguy]

I'm not seeing your point.

What is the material difference between this military issue M24 sniper rifle...

View attachment 489683

...and this extremely popular Remington 700 deer rifle...?


View attachment 489684

Remington Model 700 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You should start a thread if you are looking for that answer. This thread is about the M4 and the AR15.

Figure it out, Einstein

AR-15 Vs. M4: Which Weapon Is More Formidable? AR-15 vs M4

AR-15 vs. M4 are two varying rifles with striking similarities. AR-15 is easily accessible to civilians. Whereas, the M4 is fully automatic.

www.custom-ar15.com

That is the only attempt at an answer in the entire thread.
1. Barrel - The M4 has a shorter barrel, and is shaped to receive a grenade launcher.
2 Ammo. - The Ar15 can be chambered for several different shells, but the M4 is only capable of 5.56.
3 Automation - Until 1986, both rifles were legally capable of full automatic fire, but the AR15 was modified in 1986. Conversion back to auto fire is neither hard or expensive, but is illegal. ------------this was noted in the OP.
4 manufacturer
5. legality. This has been discussed, but is not a material difference in the guns, or the way they work. other than the already mentioned full auto capability.
6 Category. This is how they are referred to on paper, and has nothing to do with material differences between the rifles, other than the auto capability.

You did point out that the barrel is shaped a little different, but the purpose of that was to attach grenade launcher. Hardly a material difference in the accuracy, speed, or capability of long term continuous use. You got anything else to add to your list? The rest of the differences in your link are really just distinctions without any real differences.

Yeah...other rifles are also convertible to full automatic fire....

See the North Hollywood shootout where the rifles were converted to fully automatic fire...yet, in the shootout...the two robbers, firing fully automatic at the police didn't manage to kill anyone.....both, however, were killed by police using semi-automatic weapons...

So again, it isn't the weapon, it is the target location...in the North Hollywood shootout, the people they shot at were in the open, not in a building, and were behind cover.....so no one was killed by the fully automatic rifle fire.....however, again, both perps, even with their fully automatic rifles, were killed by police with semi-automatic weapons....

It isn't the weapon, it is the target location that makes all the difference....

Case in point...the 1984 FBI shooting, the two criminals had a mini-14 rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, and a pump action shotgun.....they managed to kill 2 FBI agents and wounded 5 others......

Again, it isn't the weapon, it is the target location.....in this case, the shooters were good shots.......the FBI weren't so good...

I am curious as to your point...where you would like to go with this....

The point is to find the material differences between the two rifles. In this thread I have learned the M4 has a shorter barrel, and is shaped so a grenade launcher can attach to it. Other than the auto capability, that is the only difference anybody has been able to mention.

well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoring

I's not hard or expensive to convert an AR15 to full auto capability. It's illegal as hell, and you should be ready to spend a lot of time in prison, but it's not that hard to do.

If you have a file, pretty much any double action gun can be made full auto. The trouble is you can't stop it after you pull the trigger. AR's are simple to convert if you have the selector.

No, they aren't. As someone who actually HAS, legally converted an AR-15 into a M-16 it is actually quite easy if you have a full machine shop. Quite the opposite if you don't. And you need much more than just the selector lever, you need a disconnector, you need to drill the hole for the safety sear in EXACTLY the right position, if you're off by more than a couple of thousandths you're SOL. You have to change the bolt carrier, you have to change the firing pin, and, if you want it to work well, you'll need to upgrade the buffer, and buffer spring.

So, no. If you don't have access to a machine shop, it ain't easy.

How many of those parts are easily and legally available for purchase? How much of that list can be found on the shelf of any large gun shop? Next, please list any parts that aren't easily purchased.

All of them are legal. Except for in the state of californication. As far as availability goes, they aren't very available. When you can find them, they are expensive. And, because they are hard working parts, you can't just make them in a cheap 3D printer either.

Interesting, but not very specific. I'll go at it from a different angle. which of those parts can't be easily purchased without some sort of special license, permit, or other special permission. The ones that Joe Blow, on the street couldn't easily purchase.

Actually, I was VERY specific. No special permission is required to buy ANY of those parts. They are just difficult to find because there is no demand, so why make something that has low demand?

Just to be clear, you are saying that there is no real difference between an ordinary Ar15 and a fully automatic AR15, other than a few easily changed parts, right?

No, he's not. Clean the wax out of your ears.

It's almost like bulldog is a moron.

I'm not sure you are the best person to make that judgement. You are certainly entitled to your opinion though, for what that is worth.

You mean besides the fact that I have shit built at machine shops?

What's your experience in machining. Besides I just posted a smyth buster video on why you are full of shit. You'd believe anything that confirmed your bias. Next time though you might want to do a little research before you get your pants pulled down in front of everyone.

Research? Research isn't something anti-gun extremists do....emotion is what they do...

 

[Blues Man]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

And yet no one does it.

So I''ll ask the same question again

If it's so easy to convert an AR 15 to a fully automatic rifle how come we don't see people using converted AR 15s used in crimes?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything. M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.

Any weapon can be used in an assault. So I guess they are all "assault weapons" from a bb gun to a machine gun.

"Assault Weapon" is a bullshit, made up term to equate military rifles with sporting rifles so they can gun-grab at will.

The term "Assault Rifle" is a legitimate term of art.

It originated with the Sturmgewehr 44 (literally translates as "Storm Rifle" but means "Assault Rifle").

The problem the German Wehrmacht was trying to solve in creating the Strumgewehr 44 was the need for two different primary weapons. One for open-field combat, and another for close quarters combat (CQC) in cities and building-to-building.

Germany had the MP40:

Which fired 9mm Luger (the common 9mm pistol round used today) which is a small round, great for CQC. It was great for close quarters combat because it was small, light, easy to carry and maneuver in building-to-building combat, and was full-auto to allow suppressive fire without the need for machine guns.

The alternative primary weapon was the Karabiner 98k:

It was an excellent weapon for open-field combat at distances and very accurate because it fired one round at a time, but its bolt action, large cartage (big bullets), and length made it nearly useless in CQC.


The solution was to make a rifle that would serve both roles, so they wouldn't need mixed units. Everyone would carry the same weapon for both open-field and CQC. Germany developed a rifle that had a mid-sized round (not a pistol round, but also not a full rifle round), the ability to shoot one round at a time (semi-auto) and the ability to shoot full-auto for suppressive fire in CQC situations.

Behold, the Assault Rifle (Storm Rifle)....TADAAAAA:

And, who copied the Strumgewehr 44?

THE ******* SOVIETS:

Followed a few years later by the ArmaLite AR10 Rifle, which had too big a cartage for assault rifle purposes, so it was followed by the AR-15 chambered in 5.56:

The original AR15 had selective fire (both semi-auto and full-auto modes) which became the M16A1, but today's civilian variants are semi-auto only and cannot be converted to full-auto without a complete change of the receiver.

So, in sum, although the term "Assault Weapon" is a bullshit, made up term designed to empower gun-grabbers with scary-sounding words, the term "Assault Rifle" is a legitimate term for a military-grade weapon that most civilians cannot purchase.

Anybody who calls a civilian sporting rifle "assault" anything is a gun-grabbing POS who should be executed.

 

[2aguy]

"assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything. M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.

Any weapon can be used in an assault. So I guess they are all "assault weapons" from a bb gun to a machine gun.

"Assault Weapon" is a bullshit, made up term to equate military rifles with sporting rifles so they can gun-grab at will.

The term "Assault Rifle" is a legitimate term of art.

It originated with the Sturmgewehr 44 (literally translates as "Storm Rifle" but means "Assault Rifle").

The problem the German Wehrmacht was trying to solve in creating the Strumgewehr 44 was the need for two different primary weapons. One for open-field combat, and another for close quarters combat (CQC) in cities and building-to-building.

Germany had the MP40:

Which fired 9mm Luger (the common 9mm pistol round used today) which is a small round, great for CQC. It was great for close quarters combat because it was small, light, easy to carry and maneuver in building-to-building combat, and was full-auto to allow suppressive fire without the need for machine guns.

The alternative primary weapon was the Karabiner 98k:

It was an excellent weapon for open-field combat at distances and very accurate because it fired one round at a time, but its bolt action, large cartage (big bullets), and length made it nearly useless in CQC.


The solution was to make a rifle that would serve both roles, so they wouldn't need mixed units. Everyone would carry the same weapon for both open-field and CQC. Germany developed a rifle that had a mid-sized round (not a pistol round, but also not a full rifle round), the ability to shoot one round at a time (semi-auto) and the ability to shoot full-auto for suppressive fire in CQC situations.

Behold, the Assault Rifle (Storm Rifle)....TADAAAAA:

And, who copied the Strumgewehr 44?

THE ******* SOVIETS:

Followed a few years later by the ArmaLite AR10 Rifle, which had too big a cartage for assault rifle purposes, so it was followed by the AR-15 chambered in 5.56:

The original AR15 had selective fire (both semi-auto and full-auto modes) which became the M16A1, but today's civilian variants are semi-auto only and cannot be converted to full-auto without a complete change of the receiver.

So, in sum, although the term "Assault Weapon" is a bullshit, made up term designed to empower gun-grabbers with scary-sounding words, the term "Assault Rifle" is a legitimate term for a military-grade weapon that most civilians cannot purchase.

Anybody who calls a civilian sporting rifle "assault" anything is a gun-grabbing POS who should be executed.

Allow me to help.

Assault Rifle:

A combination of two words placed together to create fear among uninformed Americans, so that those uninformed Americans can be stampeded into granting anti-gun extremists the power to ban and confiscate any gun those same extremists call "Assault Weapons."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No you can't
But if you think you can try it I DARE YOU

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

 

[ding]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.

 

[ding]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.
View attachment 490635

And not in stock.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.
View attachment 490635

And not in stock.

So you have to have fully auto capability right this minute? I guess your civil war will just have to wait a week or two. I buy stuff from Amazon all the time that is out of stock. Patience grasshopper. Your instant gratification .demands can't always be fulfilled. Pay a little more and get it sooner if it's that important to you.

 

[ding]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.
View attachment 490635

And not in stock.

So you have to have fully auto capability right this minute? I guess your civil war will just have to wait a week or two. I buy stuff from Amazon all the time that is out of stock. Patience grasshopper. Your instant gratification .demands can't always be fulfilled. Pay a little more and get it sooner if it's that important to you.

I don't need one at all. Semi-automatic is all I would ever want and probably more than you will ever own.

But can't you just manufacture one in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinding wheel?

 

[westwall]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.
View attachment 490635

And not in stock.

So you have to have fully auto capability right this minute? I guess your civil war will just have to wait a week or two. I buy stuff from Amazon all the time that is out of stock. Patience grasshopper. Your instant gratification .demands can't always be fulfilled. Pay a little more and get it sooner if it's that important to you.

I don't need one at all. Semi-automatic is all I would ever want and probably more than you will ever own.

But can't you just manufacture one in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinding wheel?

Don't forget the Emory board for the fine polishing!

 

[SavannahMann]

Actually. There are. The alloys used in construction of military grade weapons are restricted. So the weapon is in fact. Stronger.

Another example of that is concrete. Yes. Concrete. The mix they use to construct Prisons is rated at 80k pounds per square inch. That is far more than you can manage with civilian concrete. The mix is restricted to official government use.

Take a civilian weapon. The PS-90. That original weapon was the P-90. Designed to use special ammunition to defeat soft body armor. The weapon was wildly successful at that. Today you can buy a PS-90 or a pistol to fire the 5.7 MM ammo. But the actual armor piercing ammo is restricted. The penetrating ammo is available for LEO’s or Military only.

The civilian ammo is good. But it is not nearly as good as the restricted.

Now you say it is easy to replace the sea. Well. Yes and no. First. Controlling a fully automatic rifle is a lot harder than it appears in Hollywood. Truth be told after the third round you aren’t hitting where you were aiming. At full cyclic rate you can dump a thirty round magazine in about three seconds.

This causes problems. Ammo gets heavy. And dumping a mag heats up the barrel. Here is where those special alloys come in. Your six hundred dollar cheap knockoff is going to melt down a lot sooner than a military rifle.

Even the military rifles have a problem with heat. You can cook off the rounds from the heat.

Modifying or filing the sear isn’t the solution you think it is. The AR-15 platform has an unusual bolt carrier for a reason. The back closed section is designed to trip the hammer release. What happens without that part properly aligned a good probability one of two equally undesirable results. First the weapon could fire early. The hammer hits the firing pin before the bolt is locked in position. Your fully automatic rifle jams. Potentially blowing up the upper receiver.

The other possibility is FTF. Or fail to fire. The firing pin is brushed forward but it does not have sufficient force to ignite the primer.

Your filed or modified sear that seems so simple probably fires full auto. But it is also very likely to have malfunctions.

But let’s get back to that fully auto rifle that has you worried. That spray and pray is used more for suppressive fire. The idea is to get the other guy to duck and keep his head down so he can’t shoot you. This is used when you are trying to fix an enemy in a location for either a flanking move or some sort of support fire. Say artillery or air strike.

The Las Vegas Shooter was thankfully an idiot. He fired a thousand rounds. He managed to kill 60 and wound 411. That is spray and pray into a crowd. A crowd where you almost couldn’t miss. And he managed a kill rate of one for every sixteen rounds fired. His hit rate in a densely packed crowd was not even 50%.

He like you thought the AR’s just looked scary. If he was educated he could have gotten those kills off of a true long range rifle much more efficiently. And probably made his escape to Mexico before they identified his location.

 

[BULLDOG]

Actually. There are. The alloys used in construction of military grade weapons are restricted. So the weapon is in fact. Stronger.

Another example of that is concrete. Yes. Concrete. The mix they use to construct Prisons is rated at 80k pounds per square inch. That is far more than you can manage with civilian concrete. The mix is restricted to official government use.

Take a civilian weapon. The PS-90. That original weapon was the P-90. Designed to use special ammunition to defeat soft body armor. The weapon was wildly successful at that. Today you can buy a PS-90 or a pistol to fire the 5.7 MM ammo. But the actual armor piercing ammo is restricted. The penetrating ammo is available for LEO’s or Military only.

The civilian ammo is good. But it is not nearly as good as the restricted.

Now you say it is easy to replace the sea. Well. Yes and no. First. Controlling a fully automatic rifle is a lot harder than it appears in Hollywood. Truth be told after the third round you aren’t hitting where you were aiming. At full cyclic rate you can dump a thirty round magazine in about three seconds.

This causes problems. Ammo gets heavy. And dumping a mag heats up the barrel. Here is where those special alloys come in. Your six hundred dollar cheap knockoff is going to melt down a lot sooner than a military rifle.

Even the military rifles have a problem with heat. You can cook off the rounds from the heat.

Modifying or filing the sear isn’t the solution you think it is. The AR-15 platform has an unusual bolt carrier for a reason. The back closed section is designed to trip the hammer release. What happens without that part properly aligned a good probability one of two equally undesirable results. First the weapon could fire early. The hammer hits the firing pin before the bolt is locked in position. Your fully automatic rifle jams. Potentially blowing up the upper receiver.

The other possibility is FTF. Or fail to fire. The firing pin is brushed forward but it does not have sufficient force to ignite the primer.

Your filed or modified sear that seems so simple probably fires full auto. But it is also very likely to have malfunctions.

But let’s get back to that fully auto rifle that has you worried. That spray and pray is used more for suppressive fire. The idea is to get the other guy to duck and keep his head down so he can’t shoot you. This is used when you are trying to fix an enemy in a location for either a flanking move or some sort of support fire. Say artillery or air strike.

The Las Vegas Shooter was thankfully an idiot. He fired a thousand rounds. He managed to kill 60 and wound 411. That is spray and pray into a crowd. A crowd where you almost couldn’t miss. And he managed a kill rate of one for every sixteen rounds fired. His hit rate in a densely packed crowd was not even 50%.

He like you thought the AR’s just looked scary. If he was educated he could have gotten those kills off of a true long range rifle much more efficiently. And probably made his escape to Mexico before they identified his location.

I got as far as your remarks about concrete. Obviously, you never heard about rebar.