M4 - how is it different than other ARs?

Well the nitpicky on CGN will say that the M4 is a US Mil designation of a AR-type with select-fire.

I of course assume you mean M4-style, which would mean the shorter barrel but more importantly, M4 receiver ramp cuts.

Lower priced AR? I don't think there is such thing :p

Different manfacturers have different pricing, quality of manfacturing(not necessarily dangerous but rather fit and finish).

Mil-styled lowers have a Mil-spec sized receiver extension whereas commercial sized are larger in diameter.
 
The US government has inspectors at the Colt plant. All the parts and the complete rifle has to pass inspection before they can call it an M4.
 
bjjzak said:
Do I sense a poke??:evil::nest:
Click to expand...

Nope! I like Colt's too, and we continue to sell them to those who we can get a license for. I'm just stating a fact. Colt doesn't release anything that isn't fully serviceable for the task they are sold for.

Just saying, LE guns and parts thereof would not subject to inspection by DOD inspectors, because DOD isn't buying them. Only guns sold to the US DOD and inspected/approved by DOD inspectors are 'milspec'. Military inspectors reject items by the batch, this doesn't mean that parts that ARE serviceable can't be turned into other parts with other specs (GT, rehardened!). I am by no means saying or implying that all LE gun parts are mil rejects, (outside of semi auto considerations), but as said, parts in LE guns are not gov inspected, because the end user isn't Uncle Sam. Colt LE guns are good carbines. Colt makes good guns.

Lot's of tales get passed on as truth, such as LE guns being the 'same' as M4s.

How about another manufacturer of AR15s and parts who claim (when someone called them and asked them) to proof fire each bolt (check the internet chart ;) ), yet released a batch of bolts that wouldn't close on a barrel due as the lugs were out of spec. If they won't close into a chamber, how were the proof loads fired? :confused:

Again though, this shouldn't be anything that anyone should concern themselves with, NO new 'milspec' guns are available anywhere, because the US Govt doesn't sell them to civilians. Your gun might be perfectly servicable, but unless it was sold TO the govt, it isn't 'milspec', doesn't mean it isn't a perfectly good firearm.

Cheers,
DT
 
Last edited:
I believe I read that Bushmaster won a lawsuit against Colt for the rights to call an M4gery an M4... So technically Colt isn't the only manufacturer that builds M4s anymore.
 
ar

this is such a dated system. It is a continuation of a failure in american small arms development. There is so many superior systems out there. They are not effective for stopping "people in the desert region of the world" due to thier dehydration. It kills me to see the infantry being sent out with a less than effective system. I mean the rifle is accurate and that is fine . Look at the other systems AK FN SCAR hk 416 to mention some evem the XM8 was way better. I shake my head every exercise we go on. Sad really
 
tactical pete said:
this is such a dated system. It is a continuation of a failure in american small arms development. There is so many superior systems out there. They are not effective for stopping "people in the desert region of the world" due to thier dehydration. It kills me to see the infantry being sent out with a less than effective system. I mean the rifle is accurate and that is fine . Look at the other systems AK FN SCAR hk 416 to mention some evem the XM8 was way better. I shake my head every exercise we go on. Sad really
Click to expand...

o_O your fifth post and you'll need a flame suit already?! damn... while i agree that the reliability under normal stress are a issue (not the ones that are babied over here), the ergonomics are very good (perfect for hole in paper operations)...
 
Flame on.....

tactical pete said:
this is such a dated system.
Click to expand...
....the Kalishnikov design is older, but is still the most prolific AND the most reliable small arms designs of all time. Being "dated" has nothing to do with design success, engineering does.

It is a continuation of a failure in american small arms development.
Click to expand...
Really? So kindly explain to the CGN community why the rotating bolt, direct-gas impingment system that Eugene Stoner designed in the 50's has lasted as long as it has with very little re-engineering? :eek:

There is so many superior systems out there.
Click to expand...

According to who...you? :rolleyes:
Every small-arm system design is going to have advantages, and disadvantages. Weight, handling, function, accuracy, initial cost, supporting costs, on and on.
You only need to study small-arms development to understand that there is not one weapon that is all things to all armies. That's why all military orgs have individual, section and perimeter support weapons.

They are not effective for stopping "people in the desert region of the world" due to thier dehydration.
Click to expand...

Have you just returned from Afghanistan? Did you shoot a Taliban and have him bounce back up and shoot you? I'd love to hear the story if you have.

I have several friends currently in Kandahar, both REMF's and ENG's doing mine-clearing and looking for IED's; and four other techie friends getting ready for another roto.
They love their C-8's and swear by them. Of those people I have spoken to that have actually used their weapons in hostile action; you need not worry about anyone getting back up.
Granted the 5.56mm is probably not the best round for FIBUA with low obstruction penetration.....but personnel can carry alot more of it for longer sustained actions.

I mean the rifle is accurate and that is fine.
Click to expand...

Really? So it's better to have what......something that makes noise but you can't hit anything unless it's 2 feet in front of you? Small-arms engineering and design requires that you strike a balance between reliability (all modes), handling, accuracy and finally, cost. Regardless whether you agree or not, many nations believe that the AR system continues to meet that balance.

Look at the other systems AK FN SCAR hk 416 to mention some evem the XM8 was way better.
Click to expand...

Well, if you own/owned or had regular access to all of these systems and can speak from direct experience with use (including combat), I might find your comment to be informative. However, I would suggest that when you make offhand comments like this one, you should speak from first-hand experience.


Flame off.......
 
Last edited:
tactical pete you should just STFU and learn a bit before you pipe up. We use gun in real life not in video games 5.56 is and will remain the standar round and the AR is the most evolved and battle proven systeme using that round. We have member here that will tell you taliban go down just fine thank you
 
I'm curious how a 5.56mm bullet from a SCAR/416 would be any more effective on 'dehydrated' people than a 5.56mm bullet from a C7/C8???
Does the SCAR spray poison on them or something?
 
Considering that many countries Special Forces who can afford and use what ever they feel like are using the AR-15 platform in various configurations it tells you something. :)

Never mind most "alternatives" out there use the same ammunition as the AR-15 series of rifles, making it similar/the same when it comes to penetration etc.

Dimitri
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom