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

[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

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.

Yes. More disciplined. Only using that capability in the very few situations called for.

Define "assault weapon"...

I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term Assault weapon instead of assault rifle in the OP, and would have edited the title if I knew how. I have used the term assault rifle since then (see #41)

 

[BULLDOG]

Will somebody just go ahead and agree with Bulldog's stupid idea that AR's should be banned?

Please show where I said anything about banning AR15s.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Yes. More disciplined. Only using that capability in the very few situations called for.

Define "assault weapon"...

I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term Assault weapon instead of assault rifle in the OP, and would have edited the title if I knew how. I have used the term assault rifle since then (see #41)

There is no difference between an AR15 and any other civilian semi auto rifle. The difference between them and an M4 is massive and can not be ignored.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I've answered your question, you ignorant fuck. You just don't like the answer because your only counter to it is to suggest that the ability to toggle from semi-auto fire (or what liberal dipshits call "multi fire") is a minor one when in fact, it's a monumental difference. I've fired both, little boy. I know the difference. You don't.

Look, it's not my fault that you're ignorant and stupid. I wish you were smarter, I really do. But you're not, so all that's left for intelligent people to do is mock your idiocy...

Of course it is a notable difference. That's why it was addressed in the OP, and excluded from the thread. I'm looking for differences other than the one main one. If you don't know of any other differences, then you are like every other poster here who had nothing else to add.

why does it matter??

Obviously it matters to you, or you wouldn't have such a high post count in this thread. It matters to me because I'm really curious as to what more differences there might be. So far, you as a group have nothing.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

I've answered your question, you ignorant fuck. You just don't like the answer because your only counter to it is to suggest that the ability to toggle from semi-auto fire (or what liberal dipshits call "multi fire") is a minor one when in fact, it's a monumental difference. I've fired both, little boy. I know the difference. You don't.

Look, it's not my fault that you're ignorant and stupid. I wish you were smarter, I really do. But you're not, so all that's left for intelligent people to do is mock your idiocy...

Of course it is a notable difference. That's why it was addressed in the OP, and excluded from the thread. I'm looking for differences other than the one main one. If you don't know of any other differences, then you are like every other poster here who had nothing else to add.

why does it matter??

Obviously it matters to you, or you wouldn't have such a high post count in this thread. It matters to me because I'm really curious as to what more differences there might be. So far, you as a group have nothing.

so you cant explain why it matters to you??

the differences have been explained to you so many times it boring to read,,,

 

[themirrorthief]

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?

while the democrats main weapon is bullshit

 

[themirrorthief]

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.

send me a check and I will answer

 

[BlackSand]

I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term Assault weapon instead of assault rifle in the OP, and would have edited the title if I knew how. I have used the term assault rifle since then (see #41)

.

If it helps, in the current Federal firearms statute, an AR-15 would be referred to as a Long-Arm.
Would it surprise you that there is no age requirement in the Federal statutes regarding the owning or possessing of a Long-Arm and Ammunition?

You see ... If there was, that would be a violation of the Second Amendment, because we are born with our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Will somebody just go ahead and agree with Bulldog's stupid idea that AR's should be banned?

I think Bulldog should be banned...

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.

I've answered your question, you ignorant fuck. You just don't like the answer because your only counter to it is to suggest that the ability to toggle from semi-auto fire (or what liberal dipshits call "multi fire") is a minor one when in fact, it's a monumental difference. I've fired both, little boy. I know the difference. You don't.

Look, it's not my fault that you're ignorant and stupid. I wish you were smarter, I really do. But you're not, so all that's left for intelligent people to do is mock your idiocy...

Of course it is a notable difference. That's why it was addressed in the OP, and excluded from the thread. I'm looking for differences other than the one main one. If you don't know of any other differences, then you are like every other poster here who had nothing else to add.

why does it matter??

Obviously it matters to you, or you wouldn't have such a high post count in this thread. It matters to me because I'm really curious as to what more differences there might be. So far, you as a group have nothing.

It's been explained to you.

You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend it. The one difference you mentioned in the OP is sufficient enough to render the two weapons dissimilar...

 

[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?

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.

I'm sorry you think that. I have no intention to lie. Perhaps , if you can show where you or anybody else has shown any substantial difference between how the two rifles are used, except as noted in the OP, I can understand where the confusion might be, and I will understand why you think I am lying. As always, I'm willing to admit that I am wrong when shown proof.

Yes, you did have intent to lie. You couldn't make the point that you wanted, because it is erroneous, so you misrepresented what another poster said. That is called a LIE. You might be an unethical, lying piece of crap, but we aren't.

I misrepresented nothing

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.

I'm sorry you think that. I have no intention to lie. Perhaps , if you can show where you or anybody else has shown any substantial difference between how the two rifles are used, except as noted in the OP, I can understand where the confusion might be, and I will understand why you think I am lying. As always, I'm willing to admit that I am wrong when shown proof.

Yes, you did have intent to lie. You couldn't make the point that you wanted, because it is erroneous, so you misrepresented what another poster said. That is called a LIE. You might be an unethical, lying piece of crap, but we aren't.

He agreed the M4 was an assault rifle, but the AR15 wasn't. That is exactly what I have said from the first. Where was the misrepresentation?

 

[Canon Shooter]

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.

I'm sorry you think that. I have no intention to lie. Perhaps , if you can show where you or anybody else has shown any substantial difference between how the two rifles are used, except as noted in the OP, I can understand where the confusion might be, and I will understand why you think I am lying. As always, I'm willing to admit that I am wrong when shown proof.

Yes, you did have intent to lie. You couldn't make the point that you wanted, because it is erroneous, so you misrepresented what another poster said. That is called a LIE. You might be an unethical, lying piece of crap, but we aren't.

I misrepresented nothing

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.

I'm sorry you think that. I have no intention to lie. Perhaps , if you can show where you or anybody else has shown any substantial difference between how the two rifles are used, except as noted in the OP, I can understand where the confusion might be, and I will understand why you think I am lying. As always, I'm willing to admit that I am wrong when shown proof.

Yes, you did have intent to lie. You couldn't make the point that you wanted, because it is erroneous, so you misrepresented what another poster said. That is called a LIE. You might be an unethical, lying piece of crap, but we aren't.

He agreed the M4 was an assault rifle, but the AR15 wasn't. That is exactly what I have said from the first. Where was the misrepresentation?

You can't even define what an "assault rifle" is...

 

[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.

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

I had hoped at least one of the gun nuts here could come up with at least some example of substantial differences between the two guns, except as noted in the OP. So far, I haven't seen any. If I missed a specific example, then please point it out. I'm sorry if you think I haven't answered any questions relating to the OP. Ask again, and I will try to answer. I'm not going to bother with unrelated questions.

You're fucking pig-headed.

What's the point of your question? Apparently, you hope to demonstrate that the two weapons share enough characteristics that they can be considered, essentially, the same. But what you really need to wrap your pointed little head around is that the difference noted in the OP is more than sufficient to nullify every single one of the similar characteristics in a comparison of the two guns...

So you have no differences to add other than the one main one listed in the OP?

Why does it matter?

It matters because that is the purpose of the thread. You don't get that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

I'm sorry you think that. I have no intention to lie. Perhaps , if you can show where you or anybody else has shown any substantial difference between how the two rifles are used, except as noted in the OP, I can understand where the confusion might be, and I will understand why you think I am lying. As always, I'm willing to admit that I am wrong when shown proof.

Yes, you did have intent to lie. You couldn't make the point that you wanted, because it is erroneous, so you misrepresented what another poster said. That is called a LIE. You might be an unethical, lying piece of crap, but we aren't.

I misrepresented nothing

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.

I'm sorry you think that. I have no intention to lie. Perhaps , if you can show where you or anybody else has shown any substantial difference between how the two rifles are used, except as noted in the OP, I can understand where the confusion might be, and I will understand why you think I am lying. As always, I'm willing to admit that I am wrong when shown proof.

Yes, you did have intent to lie. You couldn't make the point that you wanted, because it is erroneous, so you misrepresented what another poster said. That is called a LIE. You might be an unethical, lying piece of crap, but we aren't.

He agreed the M4 was an assault rifle, but the AR15 wasn't. That is exactly what I have said from the first. Where was the misrepresentation?

Assault rifle as defined by Germany was a weapon that allowed use in close quarters and long range. The M4 is not an assault rifle since it can not reach long range. The AR15 is not an assault rifle because it doesn't have any auto fire capability.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Yes. Rarely used.

which has nothing to do with the fact it has the ability and the AR15 does not making them critically different, there is no difference between an AR15 and any other semi automatic rifle especially those with detachable magazines.

Amusing but not surprising that after 400 posts, so many are struggling with the question in the OP, and the purpose of the thread. I'll type slowly so it will be easier for you to understand.

We all know the M4 is capable of select fire. We also know the AR15 is not.
Are there any other significant (that means big) differences between the two rifles?

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

Yes. Rarely used.

which has nothing to do with the fact it has the ability and the AR15 does not making them critically different, there is no difference between an AR15 and any other semi automatic rifle especially those with detachable magazines.

Amusing but not surprising that after 400 posts, so many are struggling with the question in the OP, and the purpose of the thread. I'll type slowly so it will be easier for you to understand.

We all know the M4 is capable of select fire. We also know the AR15 is not.
Are there any other significant (that means big) differences between the two rifles?

I guess youre to stupid to know thats the only difference,,

now why did it matter??

 

[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

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.

Yes. More disciplined. Only using that capability in the very few situations called for.

Define "assault weapon"...

I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term Assault weapon instead of assault rifle in the OP, and would have edited the title if I knew how. I have used the term assault rifle since then (see #41)

There is no difference between an AR15 and any other civilian semi auto rifle. The difference between them and an M4 is massive and can not be ignored.

Please list those differences. We already know about the select fire.

 

[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.

Yes. Rarely used.

which has nothing to do with the fact it has the ability and the AR15 does not making them critically different, there is no difference between an AR15 and any other semi automatic rifle especially those with detachable magazines.

Amusing but not surprising that after 400 posts, so many are struggling with the question in the OP, and the purpose of the thread. I'll type slowly so it will be easier for you to understand.

We all know the M4 is capable of select fire. We also know the AR15 is not.
Are there any other significant (that means big) differences between the two rifles?

there doesn't have to be just like with ak47 semi auto rip offs.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I've answered your question, you ignorant fuck. You just don't like the answer because your only counter to it is to suggest that the ability to toggle from semi-auto fire (or what liberal dipshits call "multi fire") is a minor one when in fact, it's a monumental difference. I've fired both, little boy. I know the difference. You don't.

Look, it's not my fault that you're ignorant and stupid. I wish you were smarter, I really do. But you're not, so all that's left for intelligent people to do is mock your idiocy...

Of course it is a notable difference. That's why it was addressed in the OP, and excluded from the thread. I'm looking for differences other than the one main one. If you don't know of any other differences, then you are like every other poster here who had nothing else to add.

why does it matter??

Obviously it matters to you, or you wouldn't have such a high post count in this thread. It matters to me because I'm really curious as to what more differences there might be. So far, you as a group have nothing.

so you cant explain why it matters to you??

the differences have been explained to you so many times it boring to read,,,

Nobody has explained any differences other than select fire, which was noted in the OP.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

I've answered your question, you ignorant fuck. You just don't like the answer because your only counter to it is to suggest that the ability to toggle from semi-auto fire (or what liberal dipshits call "multi fire") is a minor one when in fact, it's a monumental difference. I've fired both, little boy. I know the difference. You don't.

Look, it's not my fault that you're ignorant and stupid. I wish you were smarter, I really do. But you're not, so all that's left for intelligent people to do is mock your idiocy...

Of course it is a notable difference. That's why it was addressed in the OP, and excluded from the thread. I'm looking for differences other than the one main one. If you don't know of any other differences, then you are like every other poster here who had nothing else to add.

why does it matter??

Obviously it matters to you, or you wouldn't have such a high post count in this thread. It matters to me because I'm really curious as to what more differences there might be. So far, you as a group have nothing.

so you cant explain why it matters to you??

the differences have been explained to you so many times it boring to read,,,

Nobody has explained any differences other than select fire, which was noted in the OP.

because there isnt any real differences,,

of course the military version is made with better materials but you cant see those,,

now why does it matter??

 

[BlackSand]

Please list those differences. We already know about the select fire.

.

It is a website where we discuss the issues and our ideas.

That being understood, how many people need to give you the same answer before you are satisfied?
How many times do you need to hear the same answer before you are willing to discuss anything even vaguely associated with the question or the answer given?

.​