Jhonson and Jhonson is the only company that make’s Bandaids.and Colt is the only one who makes M4’s . my MT6400c (now 6920 spec) has M4 engraved on the reciever and it is not an M4 due to the large pins and 16 inch barrel, and the shelf and fcg . so even Colt doesn’t know what an M4 is .
That isn’t entirely true.
That is deceptive and misleading.
When I hear someone refer to an AR-15 and M16 being different weapons, that is a sign of an amateur.
If it aint Colt it aint…
Care to post details?
The latest SAR had an interview with the head dude at Colt and in that article it said Colt was doing the M4s exclusively and FN had the M16 (maybe not exclusively)
thanks!
Chad
Here is the most correct terminology.
The AR-15 is a family of weapons in which the M16 is apart of along with the M4.
An AR-15 is not a “semi auto only” version of a M16.
The AR-15 family consists of full auto, semi auto, long, medium, and short version of the same gun.
The M4 is not a “carbine version” of a M16. An M4 is a select fire AR-15 variant that is used by the military.
Furthermore, a full auto AR-15 variant does not make it an M16.
The models on Colts website are not M16s or M4s either. They are commercial/export models.
The only variants that are truly M16s or M4s say “Property of the US Government” on the side of them.
A common myth perpetuated in the firearms community is Colt no longer makes M16s, only M4s.
Colt has made M16s in continuous batches from 1964 until the present day.
Colt has made more M16A2s than FN.
Colt has made more M16A3s than FN.
Colt has made more M16A4s than FN.
The M4 (920) and M4A1 (921/921HB) carbines and their commercial counterparts (977, 978, and 979) are the modern day descendants of the Colt line of select fire carbine sized AR-15s beginning with the 65X series of carbines in the early 1970s.
I agree. I am most certainly out of my league here when it comes to keeping up with the minutae of these things, but the above quote from scottryan pretty well captures how I always understood it. The AR family of weapons, as originally conceived and designed by Eugene Stoner, were designated “Armalite Rifles” - 10, 15, 16 etc. and now have evolved to include not only the original Armalite Co., but Colt as well as many other different makes, types and variants.
I liken it to another well known service rifle, the M1 Garand. My analogy may be flawed, but a U.S. Service Rifle M1 Garand made by Springfield Armory, Winchester, Int’l Harvester, etc is still an M1 Garand is it not? What about a civilian made M1 such as those made by Springfield Inc? For descriptive puposes, they’re all Garands to me. Maybe we should call our rifles “Stoners”?
I dunno, but I tend to agree that, even though I’d like to be able to use one simple term to describe the weapons, it really does boil down to who you are speaking with and their level of knowledge in order to avoid confusion. I’ve tried everything, and usually get the “deer-in-the-headlights” look when I use anything other than the term AR-15 or M16.
To quote St. Ambrose “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”. So when I’m speaking with some dizzy-cow liberal, I try to refer to it as my “righteous defense implement” :rolleyes:
Amongst my associates and I, the term “AR” works fine for the most part, and we all know what it means, Colt, LMT or otherwise. If someone asks what kind of AR I have, I will describe it’s attributes further (ie. CAR-15, XM177, M4, etc)
Works for me.
whoa, army chief. can you dumb that down for us jarhead grunts. j/k.
btw,
quack quack pow (m4/m16 going off) kind of sounds like the martial art of ching chang pow.
Yep, I did get a bit verbose there, didn’t I? LOL Guess I just didn’t want this to digress into a pointless knife fight about who’s really got what, and why it’s emphatically right/wrong to use any particular term.
Since I’m a former grunt myself, here is the K.I.S.S. version as seen by yours truly:
AR-15(-type) rifle suggests a full length semi-auto.
M-16(-type) rifle suggests an NFA/select-fire AR-15.
CAR-15(-type) rifle suggests a 16" bbl and a telescoping stock.
M4(-type) in civil guise suggests a CAR-15 with a characteristic M203-stepped bbl.
While these are fairly generic, and in some cases, potentially misleading terms, I still think this trifecta covers the majority of what’s out there right now. Truth is, if we apply a more limited definition, correct as it may be, then this forum is named for a weapon that relatively few us of will shoot, and none of us will actually own (no, I’m not counting Post-'86 dealer samples for Title II SOTs, since that isn’t really ownership).
Now you know why I usually just say “AR carbine.” 
Chief
You need to change.
Whenever I’m working with somebody, and they have a select fire variant. I will ask to see their AR-15, if they correct me and say its not an AR-15, but an M16, then I know the knowledge level at which the said person is operating at.
I use this tell tail technique to find out how much one really knows.
LOL You’re probably right, but I guess we need to decide if we’re talking about broad-sweeping generalities or legitimate hair-splitting among semi-informed peers. I’m referring to purely colloquial/informal/slang usage, but as a matter of employing correct nomenclature, I agree entirely with your position.
Chief
But now that you told the unwashed masses about this, they will be able to deceive you into thinking that they know what they are talking about :eek:
But then, how important is the minutia? Does calling a 6921 an M4 make me ineffective with the weapon? At what point do I cease be helpful and start to be a nitpicky know-it-all?
Is a DPMS an M4? Nope. Nor do I want anyone else to percieve it to be. It is more important that my words convey meaning to the other person more than to satisfy myself that I know more about the TDP and Colt model numbers than he does.
I think that there is a vast gulf between “knowledgable” and “effective”, I would rather be considered to be effective;
effective communicator/effective shooter.
Still trying to improve on both.
Ok…Robb
what should I call my Carbine ?
Showoff! 
Yes I agree that most of this is being fast and loose with the terminology and I do that myself.
However, an informed person such as ourselves shouldn’t be thinking an AR-15 and M16 is a different weapon in their head.
I know what you mean. I operate with the fast and loose terminology most of the time.
What I have a problem with is people who can’t understand that an “M16” is an AR-15.
Understood and appreciated.
I have been guilty of incorrect mental separation of the two. I viewed the AR as a descendent of the M16, though as you point out, it is the other way around. So technically, it is even more of a sin to refer to anything other than a Gov Prop M4 as an M4 than I previously felt.
Maybe this all started with the identifiaction of a series of weapons as “civilian-legal AR-15s”, where suddenly the series was percieved as entirely civilian legal if it was an AR-15, whereas it is really a civilian legal series of AR-15s.
Maybe we should just go back to calling them all “guns”?