What makes the M4/M16 type rifles more deadly besides the select fire trigger?

[arakboss]

I often hear the gun grabbers say we don't need military style weapons in civilians hands. The firearm supporters often fire back saying the AR15 is not a military style weapon. Besides the select fire trigger system of the M4/M16, what would make a higher end AR15 less capable than an M4/M16? It seems to me that we can get higher quality and more accurate barrels for our AR15s compared to the typical M4/M16 barrels. Wouldn't improved accuracy give us a more capable firearm especially at farther distances.

Read More

 

[SrMachoSolo]

Sounds like you're trying to apply facts, logic, and rational thought to a feelings fest...



-Robert

 

[nwslopoke]

Gun grabbers are the least informed group on the subject. Let them prove those statements.

 

[arakboss]

I am trying to understand what is so special about the M4/M16 rifles. I see no difference besides the select fire capability.

 

[LDmax]

In addition to being select fire, M4/M16s feature redundant systems, such as F15s, nukes, hellfires, banks, the media, my feelings, and the president's approval ratings. They also cost more money, which is part of what makes them so lethal. AR15s are like video game consoles, but louder and slightly more attractive depending on who you ask.

 

[arakboss]

This gun grabber argues that the AR15 is as capable or maybe more so than a full auto M16.

Disambiguating the “assault rifle,” the AR-15, and other guns.

“Assault weapon” and “assault rifle” may seem like natural, technical terms to gun-control advocates, but to a gun-rights advocate, these…

mcgrudis.medium.com

 

[nwslopoke]

AR15s have no spec or standard and can still be an AR15. Someone can hamfist a polymer 80% lower to the cheapest upper and call it an AR15. Or purchase a quality Daniel Defense and still call it an AR15.

I argue neither is better than an M16. Each commercial product less capable because it is not select fire and might be built to a lesser standard.

 

[P7M13]

Put 100 guys in a group, teach them trigger control to effectively shoot 2 or 3 round bursts. Of those 100, you might find 30 who can repeatedly hit the 18" steel torso target with all burst rounds on target, all in .2 sec or less.
Take those same 100, with a Geissele Super Duty retrofitted with a S3G trigger, and you might get ONE who can keep three rounds on target in under 1 second.

 

[Hueco]

I always used to laugh at some of the Mil-Spec climbing gear that I'd see people use...the commercial market always had better: stronger, lighter, more weather resistant. Sure, you paid a premium for it...but that's not really the point.

Point is: the commercial markets excel at producing the absolute top of the line equipment. There are plenty of YouTube reviews out there from service members stacking their issued M4 up against their own kitted out AR and the review usually goes something like: I'll take my AR at the end of the day.

So, on one hand, we (as a community) don't get to claim that the AR does in fact have many merits over the M4 while also retorting "it's not a weapon of war drrr drrrrr drrrr."

The point we should be driving home is, as my gal Inara Serra says, "we're fragile creatures." The mystique of the AR needs to be taken away from an anti-gunner by pulling the argument out from under them: is the AR somehow uniquely better at killing people than any other arm? No - because they will all do the job and many, many rifles will do it better. We are, in fact, very lucky to have not seen a mass shooting whereby a 30-06 or 45-70 was used.

Given that, what argument is left? It's either that we shouldn't own guns at all (good luck with that one) or we shouldn't have access to 30 rounds on tap. Plenty of self defense situations and the statistics around missed shots are credence as to why one would want as many rounds in the gun as possible if they ever found themselves in that situation.

At some point, the argument will steer toward smaller mags opening up opportunity for people to "tackle the shooter." I love it when people volunteer to run a few yards to tackle an active shooter during a mag change and to defeat them with their bare hands...except these folks don't volunteer. This is speculation and in their scenario they are volunteering someone else to take that risk, never themselves...and why should I be bothered with the self defense opinions of someone who has only ever volunteered others to deal with that risk of confrontation with death? As far as I'm concerned, it's an argument based on pure fantasy and should be thrown out just as whimsically.

 

[OldBroad44]

I am trying to understand what is so special about the M4/M16 rifles. I see no difference besides the select fire capability.

Its the owner. He's an ornery cuss. Even if he had no ammo he would still beat the bad guy to death with his Get Off The Lawn sign.

 

[Stomper]

I always used to laugh at some of the Mil-Spec climbing gear that I'd see people use...the commercial market always had better: stronger, lighter, more weather resistant. Sure, you paid a premium for it...but that's not really the point.

Point is: the commercial markets excel at producing the absolute top of the line equipment. There are plenty of YouTube reviews out there from service members stacking their issued M4 up against their own kitted out AR and the review usually goes something like: I'll take my AR at the end of the day.

So, on one hand, we (as a community) don't get to claim that the AR does in fact have many merits over the M4 while also retorting "it's not a weapon of war drrr drrrrr drrrr."

The point we should be driving home is, as my gal Inara Serra says, "we're fragile creatures." The mystique of the AR needs to be taken away from an anti-gunner by pulling the argument out from under them: is the AR somehow uniquely better at killing people than any other arm? No - because they will all do the job and many, many rifles will do it better. We are, in fact, very lucky to have not seen a mass shooting whereby a 30-06 or 45-70 was used.

Given that, what argument is left? It's either that we shouldn't own guns at all (good luck with that one) or we shouldn't have access to 30 rounds on tap. Plenty of self defense situations and the statistics around missed shots are credence as to why one would want as many rounds in the gun as possible if they ever found themselves in that situation.

At some point, the argument will steer toward smaller mags opening up opportunity for people to "tackle the shooter." I love it when people volunteer to run a few yards to tackle an active shooter during a mag change and to defeat them with their bare hands...except these folks don't volunteer. This is speculation and in their scenario they are volunteering someone else to take that risk, never themselves...any why should I be bothered with the self defense opinions of someone who has only ever volunteered others to deal with that risk of confrontation with death? As far as I'm concerned, it's an argument based on pure fantasy and should be thrown out just as whimsically.

Just like playing Dungeons & Dragons obsessively as children….. stupid little Betas.

 

[Jonnyuma]

This gun grabber argues that the AR15 is as capable or maybe more so than a full auto M16.

Disambiguating the “assault rifle,” the AR-15, and other guns.

“Assault weapon” and “assault rifle” may seem like natural, technical terms to gun-control advocates, but to a gun-rights advocate, these…

mcgrudis.medium.com

Ot was an interesting article. The writer apparently sees the stupidity of the current anti-gun arguments and wants to elevate the discussion (or change the subject) out of the idealogical pig pen where the antis live. He thinks that if the antis just appear more knowledgeable, we will be dazzled by their brilliance and get on board... or something.

Sorry, dude... it ain't gonna happen. The argument is structured so that ignorant and vapid can play along at will, with simplistic ideas and bumper sticker slogans. NOBODY will embrace nuance or facts because it's too hard. You're stuck with the current arguments and the army you brung.

BTW, l loved this quote so much that l stopped reading after this;

"The Marines live and practice off of the one shot one kill mentality. It seriously mindphuks our enemies."

Semper Fi.

 

[Longwalkhome]

Gungrabbers are not concerned about the power of the guns, they are concerned about the power of gun owners. They just can't stand it that folks under the 2nd Amendment can say "no you wont".

 

[arakboss]

I watch this video last night and while they describe the AR15 as "drastically different" from it's military cousins. The only difference they address is the trigger system. I have never handled an M16 or M4 but I am guessing that the select fire trigger system is the only part of the rifle I couldn't legally duplicate in a build for personal use.

 

[RX-79G]

Put 100 guys in a group, teach them trigger control to effectively shoot 2 or 3 round bursts. Of those 100, you might find 30 who can repeatedly hit the 18" steel torso target with all burst rounds on target, all in .2 sec or less.
Take those same 100, with a Geissele Super Duty retrofitted with a S3G trigger, and you might get ONE who can keep three rounds on target in under 1 second.

All true. But the people that want to ban ARs aren't concerned with their effectiveness in accurate military type use, but whether their lack of full auto makes them any less effective for indiscriminate mass murder. Which seems to be the case.

 

[arakboss]

All true. But the people that want to ban ARs aren't concerned with their effectiveness in accurate military type use, but whether their lack of full auto makes them any less effective for indiscriminate mass murder. Which seems to be the case.

What seems to be the case?

 

[P7M13]

All true. But the people that want to ban ARs aren't concerned with their effectiveness in accurate military type use, but whether their lack of full auto makes them any less effective for indiscriminate mass murder. Which seems to be the case.

They are less effective for indiscriminate mass murder, which is why most mass shootings are with pistols.

 

[P7M13]

He thinks that if the antis just appear more knowledgeable, we will be dazzled by their brilliance and get on board... or something.

If anti's were more knowledgeable, they would abandon their ideas and buy weapons. Alas, the social programming is deep.

 

[American123]

I often hear the gun grabbers say we don't need military style weapons in civilians hands. The firearm supporters often fire back saying the AR15 is not a military style weapon. Besides the select fire trigger system of the M4/M16, what would make a higher end AR15 less capable than an M4/M16? It seems to me that we can get higher quality and more accurate barrels for our AR15s compared to the typical M4/M16 barrels. Wouldn't improved accuracy give us a more capable firearm especially at farther distances.

Both arguments are dumb. The 2nd amendment was about the people having military style weapons.

Some of the left thinks they can create a utopia, some of the left wants to dominate, some of the right acts like these are not weapons, or that they can placate the opposition. Well that goal post just moves, these guns are weapons, and it's what the 2nd amendment intended.

Reading history, there is not a good track record of what happens when a group of people lack effective weapons when another group of people want to take advantage of them. Another fundamental flaw in the human thought process is to believe that we have evolved as a species beyond such depravity. This seems to be common in western cultures because we have been secluded from the reality of this for several generations.

 

[arakboss]

Both arguments are dumb. The 2nd amendment was about the people having military style weapons.

I agree.