Not really.
There are significant differences in the civilian AR barrels. Most of them are not the same as what is issued on a M-4.
Many civilian barrels are stainless steel, which the military never uses. Some are a weaker grade of steel with no chrome lining. Some have different twist rates. Some, like the hammer forged ones, are better quality.
The military issue M-4 barrels are 14.5 inches. Unless you get a NFA stamp or a pinned muzzle device to lengthen the length of the barrel you can't even own one.
While inferior barrels are available in AR15
style rifles, the barrels on a genuine Colt AR15 are mil-spec and always have been. Mil-spec barrels are also available from MANY other manufacturers.
Your allusion to the M4 is a red herring meant to obfuscate; this is another issue entirely. An M4 is a "short rifle" (barrel less than 16", oal less than 26"), and thus is NFA regulated. Barrel composition is not a factor. Nice try, though - and typical of you alleged "experts".
I think you are a little confused.
Over the years I have built a couple of hundred ARs and presently own more than a couple of dozen. I can probably build one from scratch with my eyes closed for the most part. I understand the platform very well.
I specifically said that that you couldn't have a 14.5 inch barrel without the NFA stamp or a pinned muzzle device.
The commercial market for AR-15 produces a variety of firearms that are different from the military issued M-4 carbines or even the older M-16A1s or M-16A2s. Most AR-15s sold in the US are not mil spec. The upper and lower receivers will be forged to mil spec dimensions and most have mil spec aluminum material but sometimes it doesn't go much farther than that.
A $260 Palmetto Stare Armory AR-15 is not the same quality or the same specifications as a military issued M-4. Not much beyond the dimensions of the receivers.
It is true that you can purchase Colt and FN military barrels or even semi auto clones of M-4s but most AR-15s sold are not those rifles. I have several Colt Model 6920s, which is the same as the military issued M-4 except it has a 16 inch barrel and a semi auto lower receiver. The cheaper ARs will have cheaper components.
Except for the basic dimensions of the upper and lower receivers the ARs that I have for precision shooting they have nothing in common with any military issued AR.
No, it is you who are confused.
You compared "
civilian AR barrels" with "
what is issued on a M-4".
This is literally apples and oranges; barrel length and overall length are the issues here, NOT barrel composition, which is the actual topic.
More specifically, the discussion was the ability of the barrel to withstand high rates of fire, which precipitated the mention of barrel composition. And interestingly enough, this is a factor which has NEVER been considered in defining an "assault weapon". This omission is proof positive that anti-gun types really have no interest in the actual effectiveness of a weapon, and instead choose to judge based on inconsequential physical features.
One must also delineate between AR15
style weapons and true AR15's. The former are extremely popular and offered in a wide range of qualities, where a true AR15 is always mil-spec by virtue of it's manufacturer.
Not that any of these distinctions are actually relevant; 2A merely acknowledges a freedom, it does NOT establish a privilege, thus regulation of any sort is literally unconstitutional.
Regardless, the GCA and NFA do exist, albeit illegally. But the bottom line is this: If gun control advocates were genuinely concerned about the lethality of firearms, they would address actual technical issues rather than inciting the public on irrelevant cosmetic variations.
This is undeniable proof of the insincerity of "gun control" advocates. They don't want less shootings, they want unarmed citizens because they are easier to dominate and control. And this is exactly what 2A is intended to prevent.
