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

[BULLDOG]

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

.

You missed the boat on all this garbage.

You can fight about the M4 and the AR-15 until the cows come home.
You will never succeed with a gun control effort that attempts to identify firearms by names, types, or parts.
Adaptation an innovation always trumps the effort ... And they should have learned that with past Assault Weapons Ban.

The only way you can stop that is if you ban ... Shoots a bullet ... Which isn't going to happen ...

You are really just pissing in the wind and arguing about the irrelevant, no matter what side of the argument you are on.
You can get a custom made semi-automatic weapon that fires anywhere from a .223 to a 7.62 round for $1000.
It doesn't matter what the fuck they call it, or what it looks like.

.​

Please point out where I brought up gun control, or any of the other things you mentioned. I asked simple question. You aren't obligated to come up with an answer if you don't know.

Like I said, your whole premise is to attack the AR platform which is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment. You might be stupid (and you are), but we aren't.

So I'm attacking the AR platform, and that somehow puts me in direct violation of the 2nd amendment? Those are some pretty strong accusations, and require some sort of proof. Please provide links to prove either of your claims.

Yes, you are trying to say that the civilian AR is the same as the military M4, and then you claim that military arms have no place in civilized society. Thus you are trying to lay the groundwork for agreement with your fallacious assumption.

Please link to where I said all military weapons have no place in civilized society, in this thread, or any other.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What's the definition of an assault rifle? Ugly and black? The AR 15 could be converted to fire fully automatic with some gunsmith and as a matter of fact you can convert just about any gas operated rifle to fire fully automatic (some easier than others) but it is illegal. The M4 is equipped to fire 3 round bursts so it would properly be an assault rifle.

Most AR lowers are not M-16 cut. In order to make them like M-16s the lower receiver needs to be milled out on the inside and the shelf lowered. Then a hole drilled in the exact right place and a M-16 FCG put in.

It is possible to do if you have the right equipment and know what you are doing. However, the fact that it is illegal as hell to do it dissuades any law abiding citizen from doing it. Only those with criminal intentions would do it.

Having used a M-16 in a war and decades of range time with an AR as a civilian in my opinion the F-A function is fun thing to have but is not necessary.

My son who was in combat in Iraq said they never used the Burst function on their M-4s. He said their fire discipline was to use the machine guns for F-A suppression fire and the semi auto M-4s for more directed fire.

Of course that was different for us in Vietnam. We hardly ever clearly saw the little sonofabitches so we used F-A for pray and spray.

NO AR-15 lower is cut like an M-16. If they were, they are automatically ILLEGAL.

The first batch of AR-15s actually did use M-16 lowers. They're quite rare and highly prized by collectors now.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not seeing your point.

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

View attachment 489683

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


View attachment 489684

Remington Model 700 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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

Figure it out, Einstein

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

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

www.custom-ar15.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoring

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

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

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

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

It’s a stupid point anyway.

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

It’s not an honest question because the term “assault weapon” is not honest to begin with. There’s no such thing as an assault weapon. It’s literally the same thing as saying a butter knife is just a knife but a butcher’s cleaver is an assault knife. It’s just stupid.

I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term "assault weapon" instead of "assault rifle" earlier in this thread. Does the use of "assault rifle" make the question any more palatable to you?

No, it’s the same damn thing. And it’s the reason you’re not getting the answers you’re looking for. The same round the AR15 fires can also be fired from a much less scary looking brown hunting rifle. These are the kinds of details you clearly don’t understand, which make your position on this entire debate weak.

Of course, there are several different types of guns that fire the same caliber as others. What makes you think I'm unaware of that? I acknowledged the difference between assault weapon and assault rifle, because assault rifle is a specific term used by the military, and assault weapon is not. Real and verifiable answers to the material differences between those two rifles is pretty specific. If you are unable to offer any of those, or just want to whine about what you imagine my purpose for this thread might be, then you are free to go elsewhere. This thread is not a debate. I made no claims about the differences between the two rifles, other than to discuss claims by others.

We all know your purpose here is to demonize the scary looking black rifles.

Please link to anything that might imply any desire I might have to demonize any rifle, scary or not.

 

[BlackSand]

Yes, but if you don't go through the government hoops to make it legal they can put you in jail for many years. The average citizen who can AFFORD to buy a full-auto as a toy CAN get one IF they pass the proctological exam by the ATF and have roughly 20K to spend on a rifle they can buy for 1500.

.

Thanks for the heads up, but I kind of know that.
The best take away from what you mentioned, is that the Powers that be will never give up their rights.
However ... They may try to make it too expensive/difficult for as many others as they can to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights.

There will also be some idiots doing their best to help them accomplish that every chance they get ...

.​

 

[Missourian]

It is a difference, but not a material difference in the way the rifles work.

Did you know...

...there is a fully automatic Glock?

...and a drop in auto-sear is available for any Glock?

If your point...which you are emphatically avoiding disclosing...is any firearm capable of conversion is ripe for a government ban...then you're talking about banning every semiautomatic firearm.

Don't think that's going to fly.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not seeing your point.

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

View attachment 489683

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


View attachment 489684

Remington Model 700 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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

Figure it out, Einstein

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

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

www.custom-ar15.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoring

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

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

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

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

It’s a stupid point anyway.

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

It’s not an honest question because the term “assault weapon” is not honest to begin with. There’s no such thing as an assault weapon. It’s literally the same thing as saying a butter knife is just a knife but a butcher’s cleaver is an assault knife. It’s just stupid.

I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term "assault weapon" instead of "assault rifle" earlier in this thread. Does the use of "assault rifle" make the question any more palatable to you?

No, it’s the same damn thing. And it’s the reason you’re not getting the answers you’re looking for. The same round the AR15 fires can also be fired from a much less scary looking brown hunting rifle. These are the kinds of details you clearly don’t understand, which make your position on this entire debate weak.

Of course, there are several different types of guns that fire the same caliber as others. What makes you think I'm unaware of that? I acknowledged the difference between assault weapon and assault rifle, because assault rifle is a specific term used by the military, and assault weapon is not. Real and verifiable answers to the material differences between those two rifles is pretty specific. If you are unable to offer any of those, or just want to whine about what you imagine my purpose for this thread might be, then you are free to go elsewhere. This thread is not a debate. I made no claims about the differences between the two rifles, other than to discuss claims by others.

We all know your purpose here is to demonize the scary looking black rifles.

Yup. We all know it, bulldoggy thinks she is smart. But she's not.

I'm sure you have unassailable proof to back up your claim, but it would be nice to see your actual link.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I'm not seeing your point.

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

View attachment 489683

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


View attachment 489684

Remington Model 700 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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

Figure it out, Einstein

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

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

www.custom-ar15.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BULLDOG]

No. I didn't list every sub category of the M4. There are a few.
View attachment 489860

.

And ... You can get a Custom firearm that does anything any of the M4's will do, that isn't a M4, or made with any part an M4 uses ... From a local gunsmith ...

.​

I have no doubt that is true. I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread, but I don't question your claim.

 

[Missourian]

Please link to anything that might imply any desire I might have to demonize any rifle, scary or not.

I'm beginning to believe you don't have a point...

 

[daveman]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

No, it isn't, and no, you don't.

 

[BULLDOG]

​

If it is irrelevant to you, why are you here?

.

Your question is irrelevant ... My attempts to help you understand why, may or may not be ... Your choice ...

.​

It is relevant to me, or I would not have asked. You are free to choose if it is relevant to you.

 

[daveman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just like I said. A lame GOTCHA.

 

[westwall]

I'm not seeing your point.

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

View attachment 489683

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


View attachment 489684

Remington Model 700 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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

Figure it out, Einstein

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

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

www.custom-ar15.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoring

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not what I said at all. But hey, lying is about the only thing you are good at.

 

[9thIDdoc]

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

An assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be – not the military, not gun manufacturers, and not message board posters.

That would (if not struck down by the courts) apply but only as a legal definition and only in that jurisdiction. Pretty much every attempt to create a legal definition has used different criteria for their determination and (sooner or later) been struck down by the courts for violation of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[BULLDOG]

Aren't there any smart gun enthusiasts that can answer my question?

The select-fire option is the basic difference. You seem to be trying to make the case that the average AR-owner is capable of the gunsmithing necessary to create a full-auto weapon. The truth is that these rifles are used in fewer killings than hammers or knives, or fists and feet, for that matter.

Here's a question right back atcha -
Is THIS an "assault weapon"?
View attachment 489862
It's a Ruger mini-14. It fires the same rounds as the AR and just as rapidly - one round for every pull of the trigger. The gaslighting bullshit about AR or AK-styled weapons is just that. When the government comes for the guns, they won't be stupid enough to try to grab them all at once. They take the AR/AK platform first, wait a while then come for all semi-autos of a certain caliber range, THEN they'll get around to the serious business of collecting the true tool of slaughter - semi-auto handguns.
*SPOILER ALERT* IT DOESN'T END WELL FOR THE DOOR KICKERS.

Yes, I know about the select fire option. That is why I excluded that from the discussion. I'm trying to find out differences other than the obviously main difference.
I have specifically refrained from making any case for anything. I just asked the question, and perhaps lightly discussed some of the answers.
I've shot a mini-14. but don't know enough about it to comment.
I see you have concerns about the government taking our guns, but that has nothing to do with my question.

 

[westwall]

What's the definition of an assault rifle? Ugly and black? The AR 15 could be converted to fire fully automatic with some gunsmith and as a matter of fact you can convert just about any gas operated rifle to fire fully automatic (some easier than others) but it is illegal. The M4 is equipped to fire 3 round bursts so it would properly be an assault rifle.

Most AR lowers are not M-16 cut. In order to make them like M-16s the lower receiver needs to be milled out on the inside and the shelf lowered. Then a hole drilled in the exact right place and a M-16 FCG put in.

It is possible to do if you have the right equipment and know what you are doing. However, the fact that it is illegal as hell to do it dissuades any law abiding citizen from doing it. Only those with criminal intentions would do it.

Having used a M-16 in a war and decades of range time with an AR as a civilian in my opinion the F-A function is fun thing to have but is not necessary.

My son who was in combat in Iraq said they never used the Burst function on their M-4s. He said their fire discipline was to use the machine guns for F-A suppression fire and the semi auto M-4s for more directed fire.

Of course that was different for us in Vietnam. We hardly ever clearly saw the little sonofabitches so we used F-A for pray and spray.

NO AR-15 lower is cut like an M-16. If they were, they are automatically ILLEGAL.

The first batch of AR-15s actually did use M-16 lowers. They're quite rare and highly prized by collectors now.

No, they didn't. The very first selectfire M-16's were actually marked AR-15 Model 614, I had one. They were sold to the USAF Security Police Forces. When the Army adopted them, the nomenclature was changed to M-16, while the civilian models remained AR-15's. There is a huuuuuuge difference between the two. A M-16 has a selectfire disconnector, while the AR-15 is manufactured so that it may NOT accept the disconnector. There are other manufacturing differences as well, but that's the big one. If a receiver is capable of accepting a selectfire disconnector it is AUTOMATICALLY CLASSIFIED AS A MACHINEGUN, and illegal as a result.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

First of all the M4 comes with three round burst and single shot.
The M4a1 comes with single shot and full auto.
At least do a little research before posting.

No. I didn't list every sub category of the M4. There are a few.
View attachment 489860

The rifle you described doesnt exist.
This is why we dont take you anti gunners seriously.

 

[westwall]

I'm not seeing your point.

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

View attachment 489683

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


View attachment 489684

Remington Model 700 - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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

Figure it out, Einstein

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

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

www.custom-ar15.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoring

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

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

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

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

It’s a stupid point anyway.

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

It’s not an honest question because the term “assault weapon” is not honest to begin with. There’s no such thing as an assault weapon. It’s literally the same thing as saying a butter knife is just a knife but a butcher’s cleaver is an assault knife. It’s just stupid.

I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term "assault weapon" instead of "assault rifle" earlier in this thread. Does the use of "assault rifle" make the question any more palatable to you?

No, it’s the same damn thing. And it’s the reason you’re not getting the answers you’re looking for. The same round the AR15 fires can also be fired from a much less scary looking brown hunting rifle. These are the kinds of details you clearly don’t understand, which make your position on this entire debate weak.

Of course, there are several different types of guns that fire the same caliber as others. What makes you think I'm unaware of that? I acknowledged the difference between assault weapon and assault rifle, because assault rifle is a specific term used by the military, and assault weapon is not. Real and verifiable answers to the material differences between those two rifles is pretty specific. If you are unable to offer any of those, or just want to whine about what you imagine my purpose for this thread might be, then you are free to go elsewhere. This thread is not a debate. I made no claims about the differences between the two rifles, other than to discuss claims by others.

We all know your purpose here is to demonize the scary looking black rifles.

Yup. We all know it, bulldoggy thinks she is smart. But she's not.

I'm sure you have unassailable proof to back up your claim, but it would be nice to see your actual link.

My unassailable proof is your stupid thread here.

 

[daveman]

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?

An assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be – not the military, not gun manufacturers, and not message board posters.

The problem is when lawmakers are utterly ignorant about guns and still make laws about them.

 

[daveman]

Okay....5 pages of answers.....soooo.....now what?

He's waiting for someone to say OMG THERES NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFSRENSE SO AR15S SHOULD BE BANNED HA CHECKMAET GUN NUTS