What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

OP
BULLDOG

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
73,677
Reaction score
14,743
Points
2,180
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.
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.


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.


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.

It's not a material difference in the way the guns work, as in a head to head comparison.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
88,815
Reaction score
28,397
Points
2,250
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.
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.


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.


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.

It's not a material difference in the way the guns work, as in a head to head comparison.


Again, you question has been answered, it isn't complicated........now what?
 
OP
BULLDOG

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
73,677
Reaction score
14,743
Points
2,180
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.
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.
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.
It might be seen as a generic term, but the military uses it to define a specific type of rifle.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
88,815
Reaction score
28,397
Points
2,250
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.
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.
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.
It might be seen as a generic term, but the military uses it to define a specific type of rifle.

Ok.......so, what now? Your question has been answered.......what now?
 
OP
BULLDOG

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
73,677
Reaction score
14,743
Points
2,180
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.
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.


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.
then why ask the question?
That was not an answer to the question asked.
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 ar15
Did I say any rifle was a dangerous weapon for civilians to own?
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
88,815
Reaction score
28,397
Points
2,250
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.
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.


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.
then why ask the question?
That was not an answer to the question asked.
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 ar15
Did I say any rifle was a dangerous weapon for civilians to own?


Your question has been answered......so....now what?
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,362
Reaction score
2,641
Points
325
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

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

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.
I thought you wanted material differences.

1. Barrel - The M4 has a shorter barrel, and is shaped to receive a grenade launcher.
Wrong. Having a shorter barrel is one of the reasons it is known as the M-4. Simply a matter of nomenclature. It is a variation of the M-16 as is the AR-15 which is a copy of M-16 in simi-auto form intended for legal sale to civilians.

2 Ammo. - The Ar15 can be chambered for several different shells, but the M4 is only capable of 5.56.
Again, sematics. The M-16 and many of it's many variants including the AR-15 and the M-4 all fire the same basic 5.56 NATO round and will also fire the civilian made version of the round known as the .223 Rem. there is also a quick and simple conversion that will allow the M-16 to fire the .22LR. The AR-15 was originally made by Armalite but their patent ran out and what we call AR-15s today are made by a host of different companies and fire several different cartridges.

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.
Untrue. Conversion could be made but it was by no means simple or easy and the same remains true today. In fact pretty much any simi-automatic firearm (including police pistols) can be made to fire full auto.
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.
Exactly. The material difference is auto/simi-auto fire.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
71,508
Reaction score
26,484
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
71,508
Reaction score
26,484
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
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?





Who cares. The 2nd Amendment specifically protects military arms.

Your argument is moot.
I understand you would prefer a different type of thread that would allow all your memorized talking points, but this thread is about what might be materially different between two rifles. This thread has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. I asked a question which you either can't or choose not to answer. Not surprising.





No, I am saying the premise of your thread is irrelevant. The only reason why you began it is to launch an attack on the 2nd amendment. You're not very smart so your motives are obvious, which is why I pointed out your logic fail.
 
OP
BULLDOG

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
73,677
Reaction score
14,743
Points
2,180
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

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

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.
I thought you wanted material differences.

1. Barrel - The M4 has a shorter barrel, and is shaped to receive a grenade launcher.
Wrong. Having a shorter barrel is one of the reasons it is known as the M-4. Simply a matter of nomenclature. It is a variation of the M-16 as is the AR-15 which is a copy of M-16 in simi-auto form intended for legal sale to civilians.

2 Ammo. - The Ar15 can be chambered for several different shells, but the M4 is only capable of 5.56.
Again, sematics. The M-16 and many of it's many variants including the AR-15 and the M-4 all fire the same basic 5.56 NATO round and will also fire the civilian made version of the round known as the .223 Rem. there is also a quick and simple conversion that will allow the M-16 to fire the .22LR. The AR-15 was originally made by Armalite but their patent ran out and what we call AR-15s today are made by a host of different companies and fire several different cartridges.

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.
Untrue. Conversion could be made but it was by no means simple or easy and the same remains true today. In fact pretty much any simi-automatic firearm (including police pistols) can be made to fire full auto.
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.
Exactly. The material difference is auto/simi-auto fire.
Yes, Concerned American posted that link, and I responded to it in #38. Barrel shape and Semi/auto fire seem to be the only material differences.
 

fncceo

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
29,633
Reaction score
16,042
Points
1,415
What, if anything, is the fundamental between an M4 and this?

Springfield_Model_1822_Flintlock_Musket_transparent.png


They both operate on the same principle. They both contain approximately the same amount of steel. The flintlock uses wood where the M4 uses plastic (making the M4 more environmentally friendly).

With simple machine tools, the flintlock could be converted to a fully automatic rifle.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
88,815
Reaction score
28,397
Points
2,250
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

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

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.
I thought you wanted material differences.

1. Barrel - The M4 has a shorter barrel, and is shaped to receive a grenade launcher.
Wrong. Having a shorter barrel is one of the reasons it is known as the M-4. Simply a matter of nomenclature. It is a variation of the M-16 as is the AR-15 which is a copy of M-16 in simi-auto form intended for legal sale to civilians.

2 Ammo. - The Ar15 can be chambered for several different shells, but the M4 is only capable of 5.56.
Again, sematics. The M-16 and many of it's many variants including the AR-15 and the M-4 all fire the same basic 5.56 NATO round and will also fire the civilian made version of the round known as the .223 Rem. there is also a quick and simple conversion that will allow the M-16 to fire the .22LR. The AR-15 was originally made by Armalite but their patent ran out and what we call AR-15s today are made by a host of different companies and fire several different cartridges.

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.
Untrue. Conversion could be made but it was by no means simple or easy and the same remains true today. In fact pretty much any simi-automatic firearm (including police pistols) can be made to fire full auto.
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.
Exactly. The material difference is auto/simi-auto fire.
Yes, Concerned American posted that link, and I responded to it in #38. Barrel shape and Semi/auto fire seem to be the only material differences.


OK....now what?
 
OP
BULLDOG

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
73,677
Reaction score
14,743
Points
2,180
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

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






And, once again, who cares.
I hate to tell you this, but I really don't give a shit what you might care about.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
88,815
Reaction score
28,397
Points
2,250
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

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






And, once again, who cares.
I hate to tell you this, but I really don't give a shit what you might care about.


Good for you...now what?
 
OP
BULLDOG

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
73,677
Reaction score
14,743
Points
2,180
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?





Who cares. The 2nd Amendment specifically protects military arms.

Your argument is moot.
I understand you would prefer a different type of thread that would allow all your memorized talking points, but this thread is about what might be materially different between two rifles. This thread has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. I asked a question which you either can't or choose not to answer. Not surprising.





No, I am saying the premise of your thread is irrelevant. The only reason why you began it is to launch an attack on the 2nd amendment. You're not very smart so your motives are obvious, which is why I pointed out your logic fail.
Still think you are a mind reader, don't you? Can you tell me what I'm thinking about you right now?
 
OP
BULLDOG

BULLDOG

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
73,677
Reaction score
14,743
Points
2,180
What, if anything, is the fundamental between an M4 and this?

View attachment 489706

They both operate on the same principle. They both contain approximately the same amount of steel. The flintlock uses wood where the M4 uses plastic (making the M4 more environmentally friendly).

With simple machine tools, the flintlock could be converted to a fully automatic rifle.
Funny. Dumb but funny.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
88,815
Reaction score
28,397
Points
2,250
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?





Who cares. The 2nd Amendment specifically protects military arms.

Your argument is moot.
I understand you would prefer a different type of thread that would allow all your memorized talking points, but this thread is about what might be materially different between two rifles. This thread has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. I asked a question which you either can't or choose not to answer. Not surprising.





No, I am saying the premise of your thread is irrelevant. The only reason why you began it is to launch an attack on the 2nd amendment. You're not very smart so your motives are obvious, which is why I pointed out your logic fail.
Still think you are a mind reader, don't you? Can you tell me what I'm thinking about you right now?


Now what?
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
71,508
Reaction score
26,484
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
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

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






And, once again, who cares.
I hate to tell you this, but I really don't give a shit what you might care about.




Likewise, so your mental masturbation is a waste of everyone's time.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
71,508
Reaction score
26,484
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
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?





Who cares. The 2nd Amendment specifically protects military arms.

Your argument is moot.
I understand you would prefer a different type of thread that would allow all your memorized talking points, but this thread is about what might be materially different between two rifles. This thread has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. I asked a question which you either can't or choose not to answer. Not surprising.





No, I am saying the premise of your thread is irrelevant. The only reason why you began it is to launch an attack on the 2nd amendment. You're not very smart so your motives are obvious, which is why I pointed out your logic fail.
Still think you are a mind reader, don't you? Can you tell me what I'm thinking about you right now?




Don't care.
 

Blues Man

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
14,094
Reaction score
4,724
Points
290
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?
If it was so easy to convert an AR 15 to fully automatic then why isn't it done ?

When was the last tinme you saw any mass shootings where a stock AR 15 had been converted to a fully automatic rifle?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top