Is the AR-15 really a different gun from the M4?

>Now I want the gun grabbers to fuck off just as much as the rest of us, but

Attached: 1520709692392.jpg (594x479, 98K)

The at 15 is a different style of weapon than the m4. One is an assault rifle, the other is a sporting rifle

Attached: Buffertube_Specs.jpg (744x810, 193K)

Etc...

There are a lot of variations within the AR-15 family.

Attached: low-shelf-ar-15-vs-high-shelf.jpg (600x838, 237K)

See, now you're falling into their game. Using the term "assault rifle".

>a liberty is the same as a wrangle

All M4's are AR15's.
Not all AR15's are M4's.
Simple as that.

The made up term is 'assault weapon' and it is used by people who are ignorant or deliberately deceitful.

Assault rifle not assault weapon

Or you could learn the difference between "assault weapon" and "assault rifle".

Is the AKM really that different from the AK?

Attached: 1512142398771.png (625x773, 112K)

An assortment of parts than fit in the palm of my hand? Menial difference in measurements?

A 1968 Mustang and a 2017 Mustang are still both Mustang. It can be automatic, manual, turbocharged or have a blower. It's still a Mustang. If you wanna get specific, you can have an S550 Mustang or an S197 Mustang. But they're still both Mustangs, despite sharing nothing but a brand name, a logo badge and a common heritage.

They're both still AR-15 style rifles. If you wanna get specific you have the M4, M4A1, M16A2, HK416. It doesn't matter, the list goes on. They're all still AR-15 style rifles.
You don't see anyone getting pissy when you call their Ruger SR-556 an AR-15. Or if you call anyone's AK-whatever an "AK".

No, but they're both Jeeps.

You just went out of your way to make a non-equivalent argument.

Attached: ODV0XRd.jpg (1600x2500, 440K)

The M4 is basically a derivative of the M16. This is why it was adopted without a trial.

The M4 is completely different from an M16. This is why Colt owns the Technical Data Package and successfully sued the US government for disclosing it to vendors bidding for the M4 contract.

The M4 is a carbine. The M16 is not. That's a marked difference.

>unironically using the word "assault rifle"

Attached: 1524408654512.jpg (165x202, 5K)

>You don't see anyone getting pissy when you call their Ruger SR-556 an AR-15
That's because the only reason Ruger calls theirs an SR-556 is because "AR-15" is also a trademark owned by Colt.

If you drew a Venn diagram, M4 would be fully inside of the Armalite family.

All M4's are AR-15's. Not all AR-15's are M4's.

>He doesn't have M16 bcgs in his AR's
You fucked up

People still buy civspec?

What's with all these "weak argument" thread on Jow Forums lately?

Why would you willingly buy the lowest bidder shit?

>not knowing that the only similarities those cars have is a name and cylinder count

>being this normie
You ever tell someone who actually cares about cars that a 68 stang is the same as a modern one, you'd get beaten to a pulp.

Also you're wrong on both of these concepts. The ar15 is the overarching family of rifle that would include all variations of the design. The m4 is an Ar 15, with specific very important elements that make it a specific varient. The common ar15 sporter are also different from the m4.

It's like tavors, acr, scars, and a lot of modern guns would fall under the ar18 family of guns. But each of those guns are not ar18s nor each other.

All Shelbys are mustangs, but mustangs are not Shelbys. Really simple if you're iq is above single digits.

V6 Mustang is still a Mustang.
4 cylinder Mustangs are still Mustangs.

>a 68 stang is the same as a modern one
Jesus, it's like you didn't even read his post. He literally said "despite sharing nothing but a brand name, a logo badge and a common heritage."

It isn't though. They basically just improved the spot welding

You're not wrong, it is a pretty weak argument, just like all of the patronizing bullshit that the boomers on this board and across the country come up with. A better argument is that the vast majority of fatalities that the military inflicts upon our enemies is done via indirect fire (ie. mortars, close air support, missiles, etc) and that the function of a service rifle for a solider is indeed the same as the function of the rifle for a civilian in that they're both intended to be a weapon to defend the individual lives of both the soldier and the civilian from individual armed threats while causing as little collateral damage as possible.

This is better because it points out a flaw in the grabber's logic without insulting their intelligence, you can double down by pointing out that GPS, the internet, and the microwave were all once developed as "weapons of war" and have since found considerable function and place in civilian life.

>liberal cry they want something banned, equivocate using already defacto banned things
>tell them it’s already banned
>”well then this bigger category should be banned too”

Every time

Why would you willingly by less than the lowest bidder shit?

I actually agree with OP. Gun grabbers and Jow Forums autists and the ATF spend all this time making a billion different classification for every different fucking gun and arguing over teminology. If you as a civilian could go and buy a fully automatic AR15 you would do so for the exact same reasons that you went out and bought a semiauto AR15. Everyone just get caught up in debating the fucking retarded politics of terminology and an extra part here or a missing part there instead of the actual philosophy behind gun ownership.

Unless his argument is that they're the same because they're both "mustangs", there's a lot of history you'd have to dig through to explain why it's not.

If the argument is mustang is a mustang, then it's a meaningless argument. Literally so what? Manufacturers keep common recognized names to market.

I think everybody ITT needs to cool their tism a bit, I don't think OP is trying to say that there aren't any actual differences between a civilian AR-15 and a military issue M4/M16, just that for the purposes of debating people who don't agree with you the differences are insignificant and come off as pedantic and off-topic to the less educated.

This but i think the best argument is still that a military style rifle isn't any more deadly than any gun with a large magazine. Painting it black and adding rails doesn't make the bullet any more deadly.

I think you're misunderstanding where they're coming from, I know this because my girlfriend was anti-gun and I've had to "convert" her so to speak while still being respectful. Given that information I think most people who aren't pro-gun would just want to include large magazines in general in any sort of ban that they endorse.

A better tactic is to discuss the logistical nightmare that confiscating magazines would be, (point out that they're often times not serialized and certainly not tracked, and that they're all over the country already) how infrequently rifles of ALL types are used in the commission of crime, ( taking care to cite a source that will not offend them or dismiss the source as crazy/biased. This article is a good redpill nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html ) and from there discussing the statistical rarity of mass shootings in the US, making sure to point out that the chances of dying in a mass shooting are less than dying in a lightning strike and possibly making the connection to Muslims and terrorism since they probably agree that it's not fair to discriminate against all Muslims for the actions of a statistically negligible portion of the population.

according to the ATF an m4/16 is a "machine gun". It's ownership and transfer is heavily controlled.

An ar15 is not a "machine gun" and the ATF treats it like any other semi-auto firearm.

If there is no difference between the military issue rifle and the civilian only rifle, the gun grabber should be fine holding onto a rifle until the next gun buyback. Like the M4, it will have a select fire trigger and sub 16" barrel and I'll be sending hourly pictures of his doggo to the ATF while he holds on to that rifle. He'll be fine, it's basically the same rifle as what is sold in stores, nothing bad will happen to him because he is right. It's basically the same gun.

Yes, AR-15 does not have the third hole for the Auto-Sear

But it's basically the same part, just that one has been modified to prevent full auto fire.
If you're firing them in semi auto, then both guns are wielded and function identically, right?

Great argument for the ATF. I'm sure you'll convince them.

I'm not an Amerimutt, so I've never seen, let alone held/fired any of the ARs. It's a genuine question.
Also the AR-15 is ATF compliant and not that easy to convert to full auto, so idk what your point is.

People who come to Jow Forums for anime, vidya or whatever, get pulled into the gun control debate and come to Jow Forums to learn and/or shitpost. It's pretty standard.
To be fair, the subject is pretty damn broad and more than a little confusing at times. Especially since anti-gunners are purposefully vague/obtuse if not legitimately retarded.

youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ

No difference between the two, right? Isn't that the argument? Or did you already forget the topic while shitposting?

The AR15 was sold to civilians before the military adopted it and had it modified for full auto/burst.
It was designed by a guy in his garage and then sold to a company without a military contract.
It's literally a civilian rifle that was adopted my the military.

How is it called then, double nigger?

Shut your whore mouth you fucking retard.

The first M16 delivered to the military were stamped colt armalite ar-15 look it up.

Ignore him, Jow Forums probably has the highest concentration of boomers out of any board on Jow Forums, and boomers are literally incapable of any sort of self-awareness or thinking about alternative positions to their own.

If you don't think that all you need to do is give every man, woman, and child an AR to stop gun violence and that every anti-gunner is maliciously trying to kill all patriots rather than ignorant of facts then you're retarded. Also, Israel is our greatest ally.

Assault rifle is a thing. 1) intermediate cartridge 2) detachable box magazine 3) effective range out to 300m 4) selective fire capabilities. Don't be dipshits.

Sure, but that isn't the AR-15 you'll find in gun stores. In the context of OP's bizarre post is your point?

should be *what* is your point

>OP asks what's the difference between the two rifles
>user lists a bunch of minor technical parts, which I'm assuming are just slight modifications of the parts to prevent full auto fire
>I ask if the two guns perform the same if you shoot in semi auto
>you have a meltdown
It's not that hard to follow this conversation user, and my question seems to me that it should be really easy to answer with your extensive knowledge.

Yeah I know, I've actually been on Jow Forums for years and I'm not antigun. His triggered response is unexpected, but not unsurprising.

As a firearms nerd, the M4 is of course an AR-15, just as an L1A1 is a FAL.

But the antigunners already took away my ability to own many AR-15 versions, including the M4, and made it prohibitively expensive to own functional equivalent AR-15 versions, with the NFA and Hughes Amendment. Now they have the nerve to pretend they haven't done that yet, and equate an AR-15 (implied: that I can own) to an M4 (AR-15 I can't own), which is bullshit. How do you propose to call them on this bullshit while remaining technically correct? I haven't found a good answer -- they're not gonna stick around for even a 5-minute lecture.
Something along the lines of "that's an M4, which is full-auto; the AR-15s you can buy at a gun store are only semi-auto, so they're not the same gun" is the best I got.
But on one hand, it's still not technically true -- there are stores (SOTs) you can go to and get a pre-86 full-auto AR-15 (at an absurd markup due to artificially constrained supply, and after 9 months of waiting), but I'm already treading close to the limits of the modern american attention span.
And on the other hand, the media has generated so much confusion about what "semi-automatic" even means that people will hear that discussion and walk away with the idea that the AR-15s you can buy are in fact full-auto, while M4s are... something even scarier.
My own sister, who should have known better (this was some time after dad had us all complete 80% AR-15s as a family, back in the 90s) once asked me to clarify full-auto and semi-auto. I'm glad she did, because she was 90% sure semi-auto meant "fires only until you release the trigger", while full-auto meant "fires until it runs out of bullets, no matter what you do". Apparently having literally grown up around guns, and building your own AR-15 lower from 80% and parts, only gets you 10% doubt. (Next time you hear some soccer mom say "I grew up around guns, but...", consider: they may not even be lying.)

>which I'm assuming are just slight modifications of the parts to prevent full auto fire
The parts described are not minor modifications that can be unmade. They're specifically designed so that parts between the two rifles are NOT interchangeable. Having non-interchangeable parts is significant in defining them as different rifles.
>the two guns perform the same if you shoot in semi auto
You're going to have to define what "perform the same" means. Do all bolt action rifles perform the same? All pump action shotguns? You need to be more specific in your terminology to receive a precise answer.

Even if we're talking exclusively about trigger-pull, they're already different. The burst-fire trigger groups, in particular, are known to change the trigger pull quality even in semi-auto.

Based on my experience with my GF and female family, I honestly think some (most) women have trouble visualizing how firearms (mechanical devices in general) function. Nor do they care to know when shown 3d visualizations of the functioning. I find it necessary to have at least a basic understanding of a weapons function before feeling I am as proficient as I'd like to be

women literally suck at math and 3D problem solcing compared to men. this has been known ever since ppl got serious about making IQ tests. it's also why women suck at driving, it requirers 3D visualization and awareness in/of space on an abstract level.

There's a good reason women are underrepresented in mechanical engineering. Our brains evolved for different tasks.

Make stupid statements and you'll get treated like a simpleton. It seems like you are bragging about how little you know about guns. The question already got answered but here you are typing and not reading. That's the opposite of learning. That's being proud of your stupidity.

>user lists a bunch of minor technical parts, which I'm assuming are just slight modifications of the parts to prevent full auto fire

That's dumb. Read:
Since it's obviously tl,dr for you and your abilities, here is a summarized version:
No. the AR-15 you buy in a store isn't the same AR-15 rifle issued to you while in the military.

I can also confirm this is the case, though it also has to deal with their level of interest and investment in the topic. My gf was at first not very interested in shooting. I let her use my old 10/22, shooting cans at 10 yards. She was a little scared at first but by the end of the day she was having a blast.
It was after we got home that I sat her down and did a full disassembly and cleaning with a general explanation of what does what. She hung on my every word because by that time she was genuinely interested in the topic.

That was a year ago and now she wants to repeal the NFA.

This is like saying that a tank and a car are identical as long as you signal properly while driving the tank.

Jeep is a brand name, if it was like that for the AR-15 and M-4 it would be (Colt) C-15 and C-4
This

It doesn't matter, you simpering faggot. Civilians should be allowed to own weapons of war. Unregulated. Uninfringed.

Let's be honest: It's not like criminals aren't already roaming the streets with full-giggle firearms already. How many people have been murdered with registered pre-86 machine guns?

Attached: Ammon Hennacy on laws.jpg (887x566, 133K)

>immediately start spouting retarded hyperbole
The first user listed a bunch of minor parts. All of the other answer in this thread are minor parts. Basically the answer is "some minor parts of the firing mechanism are slightly modified, in order to prevent the gun from firing in full auto and to ensure that modifying it to fire full auto is too hard for the average civilian".
And I'm not even arguing about this shit, because it's pointless on Jow Forums. My question was if the two guns perform the same when fired in semi auto. Could you even tell the difference if you fired both? Hell, I'll even give you a precise and hyperbolic hypothetical, and hopefully you won't fuck it up.
>you're fighting the evil gubement trying to take your guns away (obviously pointless, but we all know how stupid libtards are, right guys)
>you've just sniped all the fucking commie soldiers in your area with your trusty AR-15, so it's time for a hamburger
>when you're fetching the mayonnaise from your trusty refrigerator, a nigger steals your AR-15
>at the same time, the 4th Tranny Brigade rolls up to your house, yelling about your white privilege and praising the nig nog
>you could get your Mosin Nagant, but it's upstairs and you're exhausted from all the exertion of making a hamburger
>luckily one of the dead commie soldiers is nearby and he has a a M4
>it has the exact same kit as your trusty AR-15, weirdly enough
>sadly the fire selector switch somehow broke, so it's stuck on semi
Now, when you'll be defending your constitutional rights with this specific M4, if you'd compare it to your AR-15 would it be any different? In terms of feel, performance, accuracy, etc.

Look kid, if you don't want to get your asshole completely blown out on the internet within four posts, then don't write stupid shit that people can fuck you in the asshole for. The river of blood spewing from your booty-chute right now is because of what you said, not what we said. You can get mad if you like, but it's not going to staunch the the iron aqueduct coursing forth from your ruined sphincter. Also, you're a faggot. Lol

I literally just told you that the trigger will feel different, ESPECIALLY if it's a burst-fire variant rather than a normal full-auto.

Lets see you put M4 internals in an AR, retard. In fact, film yourself doing it and upload it to the internet.

kys

Attached: jeep.png (567x578, 31K)

D A L L A S
A
L
L
A
S

?

Yet you didn't answer my question user.
Going on about unrelated shit is not blowing out my asshole.

Yes, I should have addressed this.
So the answer is an M4 shot in semi auto performs/feels almost precisely the same as an AR-15, it just has a shittier trigger?

It'll also have a slightly different recoil impulse because of the mass of the reciprocating parts.

There are also a bunch of adaptations made to it for full-auto fire that are really pointless on a semi-auto model, like the barrel profile and chrome lining over nitride. I'd suggest watching the faxon interviews InRangeTV did for more on that subject.

>Modified to prevent full auto fire

Jesus.
The civilian AR15 came first.
It is not a military rifle.
It was not designed BY the military.
It was not designed FOR the military.

Btw, there was a time when you could buy a full auto Thompson machine gun from the sear' catalog and have it shipped to your house.
It's easy as fuck to convert.

>So the answer is an M4 shot in semi auto performs/feels almost precisely the same as an AR-15, it just has a shittier trigger?

In the same sense flying the plane feels the same as walking when you get out of the plane and walk.

Doesn't your effort to remain ignorant become tiresome? Take a little siesta from your exhausting effort to remain dumb and try to learn something here. You can keep your ability to learn a secret, I promise.

Many AR15's are a better quality than military m4's, gun grabbers fail to notice this.

Thoughts on the Daniel Defense line of M4s? Also, which variant is best?

Attached: Gun-Room_Daniel-Defense-DDM4V4s-and-DDM4V7s_v1.jpg (1920x1080, 102K)

That's what I've always been saying.

>hurr dur anything that looks vaguely similar to another thing is obviously the same thing regardless of manufacturing differences and a lack of parts interchangeability
You're a retard.

Fully automatic, magazine fed intermediate rifle.

also most modern ar-15s don't have lowers milled to receive the parts for full automatic. That would be besides a couple holes but there is more material inside than an M4 receiver.

Fag

Attached: 8oCjPJ1528175545~2.jpg (263x191, 28K)

This is a satisfying answer, thank you user. But basically I was correct, in essence both guns feel/perform almost exactly the same, if fired in semi auto.
And before any of you other retards get triggered again, this simple fucking observation is in no way meant to support gun control regulations.

I know that, but you're absolutely correct. All of your other points are completely irrelevant to my question though.

>it's easy to convert
It's obviously not easy enough, otherwise the ATF would not allow it. If you can't easily replace the firing mechanism with one from a full auto version, or maybe just file down the catch that locks the bolt after squeezing the trigger, then it's too much work for your normal civilian.

>ask a question
>only one user is capable of actually answering it
>somehow I'm the ignorant one

>or maybe just file down the catch that locks the bolt after squeezing the trigger
Anyone who fucks with the disconnector on a trigger group is a fucking moron. You don't get full-auto, you just end up with the hammer riding the back of the bolt as it goes into batter, causing either a light primer strike or an out-of-battery firing which could easily destroy the gun and/or maim/kill you.

>But basically I was correct
... Except for all the differences we all pointed out. You clearly came here for confirmation, and not to actually learn anything.

You got me there, I know fuck all about mechanical conversions to full auto.
And how am I not correct? I asked if the two guns function basically the same if fired in semi auto, one guy said the difference is in a shittier trigger and a different recoil impulse. Sounds it's basically the same shit.

It is not easy. The ar15 lowers made now don't have a third roll pin hole above the selector switch for a sear and have extra material left in the fire control well to prevent a sear being added.

> a car offered in manual and automatic trans are the car.

Almost every AR on the market uses an M16 pattern full auto BCG.
Colt is one of the only companies that ever cared enough to make a semi only design.

They are the same shit except for the FCG and the lack of 3rd pin hole in the lower reciever.

>it's not easy to remove a small amount of aluminum
Maybe if you're crippled, blind, and retarded. If you can finish an 80% you could do it with no real effort.

>What is a milled receiver vs stamped receiver

>only one user is capable of actually answering it

No, only one answered how you desired the question to be answered. Several answered the question correctly. Many others are fully capable of actually answering it but won't indulge an idiot such as yourself.

> I asked if the two guns function basically the same if fired in semi auto, one guy said the difference is in a shittier trigger and a different recoil impulse. Sounds it's basically the same shit.

If you want those two guns to perform identically, turn the selector one more notch. Turn them both to the safe position. That gives both rifles the exact same firing capabilities as each other. It also gives the rifles the exact same shooting capabilities as a pop tart. It's like declaring a Ford Fiesta the same car as a Ford GT40 because they are about the same speed when the engine is turned off. Hey, my beater car is able to keep up with the fastest race cars in the world while the ignition is off. That must mean I have a race car. Durrrr....

Either you really are this stupid or /o/ is soon to get a thread where you're asking if there is really any difference between a Fiesta and GT40.

>Mechanically
Minor differences. Both use the same operating system and most civilian AR-15 use milspec parts. There are minor mechanical differences to allow for automatic fire such as an additional hole in the lower but they do not represent a significant redesign of the rifle.

>Legally
Extremely different. To acquire a M4 rifle one must become a registered firearms dealer who is in the business of selling or designing automatic firearms for police and/or military use. Meanwhile the AR-15 is readily available to virtually everyone and does not create the risk of dead doggos.

>Practically
Essentially no difference. The only practical difference is that the M4 has an automatic mode and that it has been in the military. The automatic fire mode is virtually never used and is mostly a holdover from the original concept of the assault rifle being a replacement for the SMG. Of far more practical import is that the rifle has seen years and possibly decades of military use/abuse, making it more likely to suffer malfunctions from delayed maintenance.