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

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Define "assault weapon".

Your eagerness to dismiss the primary difference between the two clearly exposes you and your liberal, anti-gun agenda...

I acknowledged the primary difference in the OP. The point was that there is very little difference other than select fire capability. Even in a combat situation, single fire is usually preferred for the military rifle, making them virtually the same in most situations.

still irrelevant

 

[Canon Shooter]

since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war it really doesnt matter does it,

Where does the Constitution state that?

I just read the 2nd Amendment four times and the words "weapons of war" aren't included...

 

[Canon Shooter]

The point was that there is very little difference other than select fire capability.

And that difference is profound.

As for your comments about what is preferable in war, I doubt you've any real-world experience on which to make such a statement...

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.
View attachment 490635

Standard Mass 5.56 x 45(223) M16 BCG Complete w/ Adjustable Gas Key - Welcome to Rubber City Armory

RCA patented gas system allows you to adjust gas key to the bolt to soften high pressure gas systems. Instructions Included Carrier materail 8620 Bolt Construction 9310 Tool steel extractor and cam pin *LIFETIME WARRANTY*

rubbercityarmory.com

What is your point? You can find cheap ones, and some that are not so cheap. Still, $215 wouldn't be so bad if you were a nutbag gearing up for an armed civil war.

and you would be a nutbag to press the war

I'd say him posting that he could build one using a ruler, a vise and a grinder qualifies him for nutbag of the year.

You can say what you want, and I suppose it is partially my fault for letting the thread get misdirected, but the point is that there is very little difference between the use of the two guns.

again there are over 600,000 automatic firearms in the hands of the general public it's irrelevant if you think the AR and m16 have very little difference
It's irrelevant because they are constitutionally protected

So I'll just put you down as not able to come up with any substantial differences, other than multi-fire capability. You realize that even in combat, the military avoids using that multi-fire capability as much as possible, don't you? Thanks for participating.

 

[progressive hunter]

since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war it really doesnt matter does it,

Where does the Constitution state that?

I just read the 2nd Amendment four times and the words "weapons of war" aren't included...

are you saying its for hunting???

you may want to read the first part of the 2nd A,, cause its pretty clear what its for,,

be tough defending the country from a rogue government foreign or domestic of you are not properly armed,,

 

[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?

Define "assault weapon".

Your eagerness to dismiss the primary difference between the two clearly exposes you and your liberal, anti-gun agenda...

I acknowledged the primary difference in the OP. The point was that there is very little difference other than select fire capability. Even in a combat situation, single fire is usually preferred for the military rifle, making them virtually the same in most situations.

still irrelevant

Then you shouldn't worry yourself about the question then, should you?

 

[Canon Shooter]

since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war it really doesnt matter does it,

Where does the Constitution state that?

I just read the 2nd Amendment four times and the words "weapons of war" aren't included...

are you saying its for hunting???

you may want to read the first part of the 2nd A,, cause its pretty clear what its for,,

be tough defending the country from a rogue government foreign or domestic of you are not properly armed,,

The inarguable fact is that your statement is false. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about "weapons of war".

Not a single fucking word...

 

[progressive hunter]

since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war it really doesnt matter does it,

Where does the Constitution state that?

I just read the 2nd Amendment four times and the words "weapons of war" aren't included...

are you saying its for hunting???

you may want to read the first part of the 2nd A,, cause its pretty clear what its for,,

be tough defending the country from a rogue government foreign or domestic of you are not properly armed,,

The inarguable fact is that your statement is false. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about "weapons of war".

Not a single fucking word...

then whats it for??

hunting rifles??

I take from your lack of reasonable answer to what is intended you know you have nothing but emotional complaining about others,,

 

[Canon Shooter]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.
View attachment 490635

Standard Mass 5.56 x 45(223) M16 BCG Complete w/ Adjustable Gas Key - Welcome to Rubber City Armory

RCA patented gas system allows you to adjust gas key to the bolt to soften high pressure gas systems. Instructions Included Carrier materail 8620 Bolt Construction 9310 Tool steel extractor and cam pin *LIFETIME WARRANTY*

rubbercityarmory.com

What is your point? You can find cheap ones, and some that are not so cheap. Still, $215 wouldn't be so bad if you were a nutbag gearing up for an armed civil war.

and you would be a nutbag to press the war

I'd say him posting that he could build one using a ruler, a vise and a grinder qualifies him for nutbag of the year.

You can say what you want, and I suppose it is partially my fault for letting the thread get misdirected, but the point is that there is very little difference between the use of the two guns.

again there are over 600,000 automatic firearms in the hands of the general public it's irrelevant if you think the AR and m16 have very little difference
It's irrelevant because they are constitutionally protected

So I'll just put you down as not able to come up with any substantial differences, other than multi-fire capability. You realize that even in combat, the military avoids using that multi-fire capability as much as possible, don't you? Thanks for participating.

So, exactly how ignorant are you?

No one except an ignorant liberal moron bed-wetter would refer to it as "multi-fire".

Just admit that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and we can move on...

 

[BULLDOG]

The point was that there is very little difference other than select fire capability.

And that difference is profound.

As for your comments about what is preferable in war, I doubt you've any real-world experience on which to make such a statement...

You are right. I have never had to use a rifle in a combat situation, but I can evaluate what those that have have to say about it. Most say auto fire rarely hits what they want to hit, and it's the best way to run out of ammo in the middle of a fight. Most say they avoid that. I'll take their word for that.

 

[Canon Shooter]

since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war it really doesnt matter does it,

Where does the Constitution state that?

I just read the 2nd Amendment four times and the words "weapons of war" aren't included...

are you saying its for hunting???

you may want to read the first part of the 2nd A,, cause its pretty clear what its for,,

be tough defending the country from a rogue government foreign or domestic of you are not properly armed,,

The inarguable fact is that your statement is false. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about "weapons of war".

Not a single fucking word...

then whats it for??

hunting rifles??

I take from your lack of reasonable answer to what is intended you know you have nothing but emotional complaining about others,,

It's non-specific, you stupid fuck, and for good cause. Idiots like you want to rid the world of anything anything you find to be scary. Might I suggest that, when the shootin' starts, you simply duck your candy-ass behind closed doors and let brave men do what's necessary...

 

[Canon Shooter]

The point was that there is very little difference other than select fire capability.

And that difference is profound.

As for your comments about what is preferable in war, I doubt you've any real-world experience on which to make such a statement...

You are right. I have never had to use a rifle in a combat situation, but I can evaluate what those that have have to say about it. Most say auto fire rarely hits what they want to hit, and it's the best way to run out of ammo in the middle of a fight. Most say they avoid that. I'll take their word for that.

Got a source for that, or are you going to rely on what "most" of "those" have allegedly said to convince others of your uneducated argument?

 

[progressive hunter]

since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war it really doesnt matter does it,

Where does the Constitution state that?

I just read the 2nd Amendment four times and the words "weapons of war" aren't included...

are you saying its for hunting???

you may want to read the first part of the 2nd A,, cause its pretty clear what its for,,

be tough defending the country from a rogue government foreign or domestic of you are not properly armed,,

The inarguable fact is that your statement is false. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about "weapons of war".

Not a single fucking word...

then whats it for??

hunting rifles??

I take from your lack of reasonable answer to what is intended you know you have nothing but emotional complaining about others,,

It's non-specific, you stupid fuck, and for good cause. Idiots like you want to rid the world of anything anything you find to be scary. Might I suggest that, when the shootin' starts, you simply duck your candy-ass behind closed doors and let brave men do what's necessary...

hey dumbfuck,, a militia is a civilian military and it would be stupid to not have them armed like a military,,
I know its hard for stupid fucks like you to do critical thinking stuff like this but please try,, cause youre exposing your idiocy and making people wonder how you manage to put your pants on in the morning

 

[westwall]

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?

Another Democrat spewing Hitler's propaganda.

The M4 is a carbine rifle, not an "assault rifle". "Assault rifle" is just a ridiculous term that the Nazi's made up out of thin air when they renamed the MP 43 to make it sound scary for propaganda purposes.

Only Nazis call any rifle an "assault rifle".

Our military and the NRA disagree with you

NRA-ILA | Glossary

For definitions of key words related to firearms and the 2nd amendment check out this page.

www.nraila.org

You didn't read far enough.

• Assault Rifle
  By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect.

I read the entire thing. You agree the M4 is an assault rifle though, like I said in the OP --- right?

Yes. But the AR-15 is not. By the definition you cited.

Looks like this thread is over.

I never said the AR was. I did say that other than the multi-fire capability, there were no substantial differences in the two. That is, unless you can name those substantial differences.

Again -- I have no obligation to defend a claim I didn't make.

I don't know what's so hard about that to understand.

OK. Since you can't point out any fault in this OP, I assume we are in agreement.

Typical progressive, you lose, so you lie.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.
View attachment 490635

Standard Mass 5.56 x 45(223) M16 BCG Complete w/ Adjustable Gas Key - Welcome to Rubber City Armory

RCA patented gas system allows you to adjust gas key to the bolt to soften high pressure gas systems. Instructions Included Carrier materail 8620 Bolt Construction 9310 Tool steel extractor and cam pin *LIFETIME WARRANTY*

rubbercityarmory.com

What is your point? You can find cheap ones, and some that are not so cheap. Still, $215 wouldn't be so bad if you were a nutbag gearing up for an armed civil war.

and you would be a nutbag to press the war

I'd say him posting that he could build one using a ruler, a vise and a grinder qualifies him for nutbag of the year.

You can say what you want, and I suppose it is partially my fault for letting the thread get misdirected, but the point is that there is very little difference between the use of the two guns.

again there are over 600,000 automatic firearms in the hands of the general public it's irrelevant if you think the AR and m16 have very little difference
It's irrelevant because they are constitutionally protected

So I'll just put you down as not able to come up with any substantial differences, other than multi-fire capability. You realize that even in combat, the military avoids using that multi-fire capability as much as possible, don't you? Thanks for participating.

So, exactly how ignorant are you?

No one except an ignorant liberal moron bed-wetter would refer to it as "multi-fire".

Just admit that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and we can move on...

Really? That's the only thing you can think of? Unless you can come up with something else, I'll put you on the same list as that other idiot who has no answers to the question.

 

[westwall]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.
View attachment 490635

Standard Mass 5.56 x 45(223) M16 BCG Complete w/ Adjustable Gas Key - Welcome to Rubber City Armory

RCA patented gas system allows you to adjust gas key to the bolt to soften high pressure gas systems. Instructions Included Carrier materail 8620 Bolt Construction 9310 Tool steel extractor and cam pin *LIFETIME WARRANTY*

rubbercityarmory.com

What is your point? You can find cheap ones, and some that are not so cheap. Still, $215 wouldn't be so bad if you were a nutbag gearing up for an armed civil war.

and you would be a nutbag to press the war

I'd say him posting that he could build one using a ruler, a vise and a grinder qualifies him for nutbag of the year.

You can say what you want, and I suppose it is partially my fault for letting the thread get misdirected, but the point is that there is very little difference between the use of the two guns.

again there are over 600,000 automatic firearms in the hands of the general public it's irrelevant if you think the AR and m16 have very little difference
It's irrelevant because they are constitutionally protected

So I'll just put you down as not able to come up with any substantial differences, other than multi-fire capability. You realize that even in combat, the military avoids using that multi-fire capability as much as possible, don't you? Thanks for participating.

So, exactly how ignorant are you?

No one except an ignorant liberal moron bed-wetter would refer to it as "multi-fire".

Just admit that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and we can move on...

Really? That's the only thing you can think of? Unless you can come up with something else, I'll put you on the same list as that other idiot who has no answers to the question.

Good! I am happy to see you place yourself on the idiots list. FINALLY!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

Here you go dumb ass.

The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.

Readily available? Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.

Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.

That's a machined part. You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice? Seriously?

Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that

No. You couldn't. The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts. That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make. I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it. But go ahead and prove me wrong. Make that part.

No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.

You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass. Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto. If you don't believe me call the ATF.

Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function

but you can use an M16 BCG on an AR15. Not too expensive either.

$300 IF you can find one. Which is a big if. But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is. But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.

An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.
View attachment 490635

Standard Mass 5.56 x 45(223) M16 BCG Complete w/ Adjustable Gas Key - Welcome to Rubber City Armory

RCA patented gas system allows you to adjust gas key to the bolt to soften high pressure gas systems. Instructions Included Carrier materail 8620 Bolt Construction 9310 Tool steel extractor and cam pin *LIFETIME WARRANTY*

rubbercityarmory.com

What is your point? You can find cheap ones, and some that are not so cheap. Still, $215 wouldn't be so bad if you were a nutbag gearing up for an armed civil war.

and you would be a nutbag to press the war

I'd say him posting that he could build one using a ruler, a vise and a grinder qualifies him for nutbag of the year.

You can say what you want, and I suppose it is partially my fault for letting the thread get misdirected, but the point is that there is very little difference between the use of the two guns.

again there are over 600,000 automatic firearms in the hands of the general public it's irrelevant if you think the AR and m16 have very little difference
It's irrelevant because they are constitutionally protected

So I'll just put you down as not able to come up with any substantial differences, other than multi-fire capability. You realize that even in combat, the military avoids using that multi-fire capability as much as possible, don't you? Thanks for participating.

So, exactly how ignorant are you?

No one except an ignorant liberal moron bed-wetter would refer to it as "multi-fire".

Just admit that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and we can move on...

Really? That's the only thing you can think of? Unless you can come up with something else, I'll put you on the same list as that other idiot who has no answers to the question.

your thread died a long time ago any question you have are irrelevant
But you seem to avoid questions asked of you.

 

[BULLDOG]

The point was that there is very little difference other than select fire capability.

And that difference is profound.

As for your comments about what is preferable in war, I doubt you've any real-world experience on which to make such a statement...

You are right. I have never had to use a rifle in a combat situation, but I can evaluate what those that have have to say about it. Most say auto fire rarely hits what they want to hit, and it's the best way to run out of ammo in the middle of a fight. Most say they avoid that. I'll take their word for that.

Got a source for that, or are you going to rely on what "most" of "those" have allegedly said to convince others of your uneducated argument?

I assume these people know more about armed combat, and have more access to the best practices than either you or I do.

Full Auto: Battlefield Necessity or A Waste of Ammo?

Even if the Army does nothing more to improve the M4, the service should be applauded for its decision to dump the three-round burst setting. It's ineffective, never used and hinders accuracy with its inconsistent trigger pull.

www.military.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The point was that there is very little difference other than select fire capability.

And that difference is profound.

As for your comments about what is preferable in war, I doubt you've any real-world experience on which to make such a statement...

You are right. I have never had to use a rifle in a combat situation, but I can evaluate what those that have have to say about it. Most say auto fire rarely hits what they want to hit, and it's the best way to run out of ammo in the middle of a fight. Most say they avoid that. I'll take their word for that.

Got a source for that, or are you going to rely on what "most" of "those" have allegedly said to convince others of your uneducated argument?

I assume these people know more about armed combat, and have more access to the best practices than either you or I do.

Full Auto: Battlefield Necessity or A Waste of Ammo?

Even if the Army does nothing more to improve the M4, the service should be applauded for its decision to dump the three-round burst setting. It's ineffective, never used and hinders accuracy with its inconsistent trigger pull.

www.military.com

from your source
can't really see a downside to it. Back in the mid-1980s -- before the shift to the M16A2 and the three-round burst -- active-duty infantry units kept to a strict rule that rifleman only fired their M16A1s on semi auto. Today's combat-experienced infantrymen are even more disciplined.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Auto fire from rifleman is for final fire in an emergency usually when being assaulted and the enemy has closed to danger close, as in in threat of being over run.