Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
That is the only attempt at an answer in the entire thread.Figure it out, EinsteinYou should start a thread if you are looking for that answer. This thread is about the M4 and the AR15.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
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
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.
The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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 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.That is the only attempt at an answer in the entire thread.Figure it out, EinsteinYou should start a thread if you are looking for that answer. This thread is about the M4 and the AR15.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
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.
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....
well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoringThe 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.That is the only attempt at an answer in the entire thread.Figure it out, EinsteinYou should start a thread if you are looking for that answer. This thread is about the M4 and the AR15.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
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.
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....
And none of that has anything to do with the OP.The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
There are currently 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....how many are used in mass public shootings.....maybe 2 a year, if that, since handguns are the preferred weapon for mass public shooters.....and fully automatic weapons in crime are more rare than the same person getting hit by lightning multiple times....
then why ask the question?And none of that has anything to do with the OP.The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
There are currently 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....how many are used in mass public shootings.....maybe 2 a year, if that, since handguns are the preferred weapon for mass public shooters.....and fully automatic weapons in crime are more rare than the same person getting hit by lightning multiple times....
It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.
And none of that has anything to do with the OP.The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
There are currently 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....how many are used in mass public shootings.....maybe 2 a year, if that, since handguns are the preferred weapon for mass public shooters.....and fully automatic weapons in crime are more rare than the same person getting hit by lightning multiple times....
And none of that has anything to do with the OP.The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
There are currently 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....how many are used in mass public shootings.....maybe 2 a year, if that, since handguns are the preferred weapon for mass public shooters.....and fully automatic weapons in crime are more rare than the same person getting hit by lightning multiple times....
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.well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoringThe 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.That is the only attempt at an answer in the entire thread.Figure it out, EinsteinYou should start a thread if you are looking for that answer. This thread is about the M4 and the AR15.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
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.
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....
It is a difference, but not a material difference in the way the rifles work.And none of that has anything to do with the OP.The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
There are currently 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....how many are used in mass public shootings.....maybe 2 a year, if that, since handguns are the preferred weapon for mass public shooters.....and fully automatic weapons in crime are more rare than the same person getting hit by lightning multiple times....
You are wrong.......pointing out that there are 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands is difference from the military M4 rifle....with very few in civilian hands. That too is a difference.
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.well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoringThe 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.That is the only attempt at an answer in the entire thread.Figure it out, EinsteinYou should start a thread if you are looking for that answer. This thread is about the M4 and the AR15.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
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.
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....
It is a difference, but not a material difference in the way the rifles work.And none of that has anything to do with the OP.The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
There are currently 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....how many are used in mass public shootings.....maybe 2 a year, if that, since handguns are the preferred weapon for mass public shooters.....and fully automatic weapons in crime are more rare than the same person getting hit by lightning multiple times....
You are wrong.......pointing out that there are 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands is difference from the military M4 rifle....with very few in civilian hands. That too is a difference.
which has nothing to do wit your question but this assumption has everything to with the fact that it simply doesn't happen and that no crimes are committed with these weapons or virtually no crime.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.well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoringThe 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.That is the only attempt at an answer in the entire thread.Figure it out, EinsteinYou should start a thread if you are looking for that answer. This thread is about the M4 and the AR15.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
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.
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....
That was not an answer to the question asked.then why ask the question?And none of that has anything to do with the OP.The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
There are currently 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....how many are used in mass public shootings.....maybe 2 a year, if that, since handguns are the preferred weapon for mass public shooters.....and fully automatic weapons in crime are more rare than the same person getting hit by lightning multiple times....
Assault rifle is a term born from the world wars. For instance, to storm trenches, special weapons were developed, one being the Thompson 'submachine gun', referred to as a trench broom at the time. It was primarily made for assaulting a specific area by giving out a stream of fire. WWII continued this, when most soldiers had bolt action rifles and certain units trained for assault had light automatic weapons/assault rifles. The MP 38 & 40 were 9mm versions the Germans used and are often seen in movies. Essentially, the AK 47 came from this evolution. The American Army developed very light auto-fire rifles about the time of Vietnam and, though warfare was not like WWII, the AR 15 and its offspring M14 fit the category that assault rifles were in. Like may terms, it is not precise, but referring to light, compact, auto-fire arm such as the AR ab ab assault weapon is not an exaggeration. It is precisely because certain individuals know it is what it is that it appeals to them.The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
It is a difference, but not a material difference in the way the rifles work.And none of that has anything to do with the OP.The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
There are currently 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....how many are used in mass public shootings.....maybe 2 a year, if that, since handguns are the preferred weapon for mass public shooters.....and fully automatic weapons in crime are more rare than the same person getting hit by lightning multiple times....
You are wrong.......pointing out that there are 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands is difference from the military M4 rifle....with very few in civilian hands. That too is a difference.
the question you ask is an effort to paint the ar15 as a dangerous weapon for civilians to own. the fact is almost no crime is committed with an ar15 and that every automatic rifle is and has the same capabilities of the evil black ar15That was not an answer to the question asked.then why ask the question?And none of that has anything to do with the OP.The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.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.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?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.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?
There are currently 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....how many are used in mass public shootings.....maybe 2 a year, if that, since handguns are the preferred weapon for mass public shooters.....and fully automatic weapons in crime are more rare than the same person getting hit by lightning multiple times....
