They (usually) fire the same ammunition. They use the same size magazines. They are available in the same barrel, stock and receiver combinations They are able to use/mount the same sights and accessories They are equally suited for any and all of the traditionally legal purposes for a firearm. Aren't they, for all practical intents and purposes, the same firearm?
Most guns today are "the same". However there is a main, and huge, difference between an M16 and an AR15. One is select auto-fire, the other is not. And due to that one is used by the military, while the other is not. In fact the AR15 was rejected for use by the military. There is no real functional difference between this .22 rifle: And this:
Well, for all practical purposes, sure. But then again, my Saiga 5.56 with an AR mag adapter is 'practically' the same as the AR as well, though not even a single one of the parts are interchangeable (except for the mag, obviously). And no one calls a Saiga an 'AR'. I often call it an AK tho, with which most of its parts ARE interchangeable.
Firing the same ammunition, having the same size magazine, the others are all good. But there are also 8 distinct differences between the two: M16 can be automatic or semi-automatic while the AR15 is intended to be semi-automatic. Special federal laws exist with automatic firearms in civilian hands. There is a history between the two. M16 has a distinct history with the US military since 1959 while the AR 15 has a history with Colt Manufacturing as the civilian version for those who may be called up in case the commies invaded the USA sort of thing. Each has a different purpose. The M16 is, by any and every definition, a firearm for war and to kill people as efficiently as possible. AR 15 has multiple uses, and unfortunately, some people to choose to think they are in the military and civilians who don't look, think, or act like they are the enemy. Magazines: although both can carry the same type of magazines, the magazine for the AR15 is slightly more lightweight than its military counterpart, at least originally the intention. Range and accuracy: The latest M16 can fire accurately upwards to 1000 meters whereas the AR15 is still designed to be accurate and lethal at 300 meters or less. Accessories: both can support various accessories, however, the M16 accessories are geared for actual, human combat. AR15 accessories are available more or less for asthetic purposes by the gun owner. Reliability: The AR 15 is probably more reliable than the M16, given both of its histories. The problem with the M16 is you need to clean this weapon constantly; otherwise, it is more frequent ot jam when firing high amounts of ammunition. Design. The Design of both are very similar, however, there are notable differences that the link describes. I think it is too cumbersome to list them or explain them unless you read the article embedded in the post.
While they are very close, the AR-15 has a feature that the M-16 does not. It has the ability to spark outrage in the ignorant even when it is locked in a case with no ammo.
Not at all. M16 fires FULL AUTO. Ar15 does not. AR15 requires a separate trigger pull for each round fired. That's the main reason why no military in the world uses AR-15 and many use M-16.
When I was in the army, the M-16s Army was using weren't fully auto, they had replaced it with a 3 round burst. They changed it after Vietnam. Mabe they changed it back at some point after i got out, i dunno. I'm fully auto M16s are still out there though.
The only real difference between the AR-15 and other semi-automatic civilian rifles is the and the fact that they come in a variety of calibers. You can get 30 round magazines for the Ruger 10/22. They're both a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable box magazine. But the AR-15 has the scary black features that the fear mongering politicians depend on the ignorant public to think makes it some sort of magically deadly rifle. Those features do not change the rate of fire or The lethality of the bullet
nope, modern military tactics have gone away from one shot one kill battle rifles to weapons many designed to suppress movement so heavier stuff can be used to takeout the enemy. in Nam, they were wasting 10,000 or more rounds PER CASUALTY. Most of the reason was suppressive fire, Now the guys who are using sniper rifles-those were designed for what you said Modern AR 15s with the right barrels are more accurate than the military issue. of course that can mean using the 78 grain national match level ammo
lots are being dumped into police armories. back in 1986, the then new Tactical Training Institute in Adams County Ohio (now called Tactical Defense Institute) had its first "assault rifle/tactical rifle class. Most were police department swat teams or members of the county wide swat team* and they used the course as a qualifier. I was one of two private citizens. Most of the teams had Nam era M16 rifles. One wealthy municipality had brand new MP 5 SMGs. we all got to shoot this stuff. I had a VALMET semi auto rifle and a Colt National Match AR 15 with a Leupold 3x10 sniper score. , John Benner (the SWAT commander and founder) paired me with the other private citizen who had an FN-FAL.SOme of the team contest involved 300 yard shots-that FN was far better than the M16s or the SMGS one of the swat guys said-hey captain can the "civilians"keep up. John laughed and said-they're going to cream you guys. We did, the other guy was a big game hunter and a top rifle shot and our rifles were far more accurate at long range. Anyway the cops were good sports and we got lots of time with their full auto rifles. John was a vet-said the M16s were probably in Nam when he was. *many of the small municipalities in Hamilton (Cincinnati) county couldn't field a full SWAT Team so each department dedicated one officer to a county wide team-the founder of TTI was the county SWAT Commander
