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

[9thIDdoc]

"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.

Whether assault rifles exist is a really dumb discussion. Our military has a definition of Assault Rifle, and the M4 certainly meets that definition. I'm asking how the M4 differs from an ar15, other than being full auto capable. I've already shown that the AR15 can be easily converted to full auto in #5.

What gives you the idea that any other difference is needed or necessary?

 

[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?

 

[BULLDOG]

"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.

Whether assault rifles exist is a really dumb discussion. Our military has a definition of Assault Rifle, and the M4 certainly meets that definition. I'm asking how the M4 differs from an ar15, other than being full auto capable. I've already shown that the AR15 can be easily converted to full auto in #5.

What gives you the idea that any other difference is needed or necessary?

I never said other differences were needed or necessary. I only asked if other material differences exist. Do they?

 

[Concerned American]

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?

The same reason an M-16 is and an AR15 is not.

 

[Missourian]

I'm not seeing your point.

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



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

Remington Model 700 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Concerned American]

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.

 

[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?

The same reason an M-16 is and an AR15 is not.

Now we're getting somewhere. Of course, I didn't ask about the M16, and that is not what this thread is about, but It would be nice to know what the material differences are between an M16 and an AR15, other than the multi-fire capability, of course. Please tell.

 

[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.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

 

[Concerned American]

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.

Not playing your troll game tonight. Run along.

 

[Concerned American]

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

 

[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.

Not playing your troll game tonight. Run along.

I understand. You can' answer a simple question so you'll run away. Run Forest Run.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"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.

Whether assault rifles exist is a really dumb discussion. Our military has a definition of Assault Rifle, and the M4 certainly meets that definition. I'm asking how the M4 differs from an ar15, other than being full auto capable. I've already shown that the AR15 can be easily converted to full auto in #5.

What gives you the idea that any other difference is needed or necessary?

I never said other differences were needed or necessary. I only asked if other material differences exist. Do they?

is there any difference s stated by you between an m4 and any semi auto rifle with detachable magazine? I mean if you get to ignore the automatic fire part

 

[Missourian]

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

Sorry...I thought you had a point....

...one that is negated by the M24 military sniper rifle / Remington 700 being basically identical.

Since I know nothing about the M4... the M-16A2 was the military rifle of my service time...please carry on with your inquiry.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

Sorry...I thought you had a point....

...one that is negated by the M24 / Remington 700 being functionally identical.

Since I know nothing about the M4... the M-16A2 was the military rifle of my service time...please carry on with your inquiry.

the m4 is a shortened version with a few minor differences.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The M16 is usually identified by a longer barrel than it’s counterpart, the M4. The M16 has a standard barrel length of 16 inches, while the M4 comes in with a barrel length of 14.5 inches standard. This shorter barrel length made the rifle lighter (among other things), and led to the adoption of the M4 over the M16 in the mid 90’s.

 

[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?

Some history. Nearing the end of WWII the Germans developed a weapon capable of firing ammunition less powerful than a standard military rifle round but able to fire in automatic mode. Fully automatic machineguns (firing full power military ammo but requiring a crew of men to be effective) and sub-machine guns that fired pistol ammo and could be used as effectively by a single person but was really only effective at relatively short (pistol) ranges had been around for years. This weapon is known as "Storm rifle" (except in German that I am too lazy to look up) because it was envisioned to be used by troops assaulting an enemy position using auto fire against the enemy while charging them to make enemy fire less effective. Hard to duck and shoot accurately at the same time. It was also found that the smaller lighter ammo was lighter and easier to transport and store. The Russians who encountered it on the battlefield were impressed and developed their own copy and called it an "assault rifle" which is known today as the AK. The American version that was developed is known as M-16. The M4 is a fiddled with version of the M-16. The term "assault weapon" is a civilian perversion invented for propaganda purposes in the attempt to include any and all weapons the speaker doesn't like.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

 

[2aguy]

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?

The fact that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon only......

Big difference.

The AR-15 is not a military weapon, the M4 is......but under the Miller ruling by the Supreme Court the M4 is a weapon protected by the 2nd Amendment....as is the AR-15.

 

[fncceo]

If it is easy enough for any gun owner to convert his AR to full automatic with the tools in his garage, why are we not seeing fully automatic ARs everywhere?

What is preventing all the gals at the old folks home from pimping their ARs and heading down to shoot up the Bingo Parlor?