I meant in no way to denigrate the rifle. My friend who served two tours in Iraq, said he never had any issues with his M4. He just said to keep it clean.TLE2 wrote: So, it's not an M4-gery, it's an AR-15. An M4-gery in my view would be a cobbled AR-15 with an automatic function. My AR doesn't "auto". And it's .223 not 5.56 military.
Just wondering. If you denigrate the rifle, why buy one, rather than save your money ( for a long, long time) and by an M-4.
JMHO.
If he had said it sucked (or the others in this forum thread), I would have bought a hunting rifle, or an ak-47.
But by my own definition, "M4-gery" would essentially be the civilian version of what the U.S. Military uses.
"M4-gery" would be the semi-auto vs the full auto (or burst). I just don't have any interest in a fully auto rifle, most of the other rifles I have owned/used, were bolt-action. So I'm used to firing, cycling, and re-acquiring my target. It will be nice to fire a rifle with a 30 round magazine, still having my sights (for the most part) still on the target. I simply wanted something for home defense, and maybe some hunting (feral pigs in particular).
Plus making it "Tacti-kewl."
I bought the Bushmaster Texas carbine (what the TxDPS is using), I guess this would be more of a true AR-15. I'm planning on upgrading the handguards, adding a mil-dot scope, and vertical grip. Maybe a light and laser; getting rid of the A2 front sight, and adding a different gas block.
After these upgrades, I would consider it a true "M4-gery."