Estimated reading time: 3 minutes
Another day, another viral claim about the AR-15 and once again, it doesn’t hold up under even basic scrutiny.
In a recent breakdown, Colion Noir takes aim at a statement made during testimony supporting gun control legislation, where a speaker claimed the AR-15 is “more powerful” than the military’s M4.
That’s not just misleading. It’s flat-out wrong.
“In fact, the AR-15 is more powerful than the standard military issue M4,” the claim stated.
Noir’s response?
“No, that’s not just wrong, that’s confidently wrong.”
Let’s break it down.
The AR-15 and the M4 are essentially built on the same platform. They fire the same round, typically 5.56 NATO or .223. The key difference? The M4 has select-fire capability (burst or full-auto), while civilian AR-15s are semi-automatic only.
So if anything, the military rifle does more, not less.
As Noir points out, the logic completely collapses when you think about it.
If the AR-15 were truly more powerful, why would the military issue the M4? Why are civilians restricted from owning select-fire rifles, but allowed to own AR-15s?
Because the claim isn’t based on reality. But Noir goes a step further. And this is where the conversation shifts.
SEE ALSO: Breek Omni-Buster Review: The Suppressed AR Fix
He argues this isn’t really about ballistic facts at all. It’s about perception. Because when you compare calibers, the popular .308 round is significantly more powerful than 5.56. And it’s widely used for hunting across the country.
And yet, there’s no national panic over .308 rifles. Why? Because they don’t look like AR-15s. That’s a tough point for critics to answer.
Noir also addresses a common tactic in these debates: appealing to authority.
Just because someone is a veteran, he argues, doesn’t automatically make their claims about firearms accurate.
“Respect for your service and actually knowing what you’re talking about are not automatically the same thing,” he said.
That distinction matters. Especially when policy decisions are being made. He also pushes back on the emotional framing often used in gun debates.
While acknowledging the very real trauma described by the speaker, Noir makes it clear that emotional experiences don’t override factual accuracy.
“Trauma does not automatically make your conclusion correct.”
SEE ALSO: Home Defense Suppressors That Save Your Hearing
And then there’s the bigger point. The one that always seems to get lost. The Second Amendment was never about ensuring civilians had less capability than the government.
It was about the opposite.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Not “only if they’re weaker.” Not “only if they look less scary.”
Noir’s argument is simple: when policy is built on bad information, it doesn’t solve problems. It creates new ones.
And if the debate is going to move forward, it has to start with getting the facts right.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Available on GunsAmerica Now
Available on GunsAmerica Now
is a seasoned outdoorsman, lifelong hunter, and the kind of guy who’d rather track whitetails than scroll social media. As an editor for GunsAmerica, he’s got a sharp eye for spotting both solid gear and bad gun laws. Whether he’s deep in the woods or deep in editorial deadlines, Larry brings a no-nonsense, tell-it-like-it-is approach to firearms, hunting, and the great American tradition of self-reliance. If there’s a hot debate on gun rights or the latest in hunting tech, you can bet Larry’s got an opinion—and it’s probably backed up with both facts and field experience.
Experience:
– Licensed Bowhunter, Hunter, and Trapper – Experienced in ethical hunting and wildlife conservation.
– Concealed Carry Permit Holder (NYS & AZ) – Trained and licensed to carry in multiple states.
– 2A Journalist – Covering firearms legislation, Second Amendment issues, and gun rights for over a decade.
– Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) – Certified to provide emergency medical care in the field.
– Field-Tested Gear Reviewer – Hands-on experience with firearms, optics, and hunting tech.
Vet here. I was signal, just happen to like guns. We had a PFC in our unit ND into her leg at a range qual… being military means you were handed a weapon and fired one. Doesn’t mean you know anything about anything. There are most definitely weapon SMEs in the military however, they get that expertise from what they’ve done in the military, not from completing entry TRADOC.
I do wonder where these people get these claims/ideas from. The worst part of all this is that the M4 literally is an AR-15 itself, just like an M9 is still a Beretta 92, and a MK25 is still a Sig p226. The name “AR-15″ predates its various designations in the U.S. Military(and others.)
I’m actually curious what he meant by that. Like, was it a reference to the(generally) longer barrels on civilian ARs(i.e. 14.5″ on the M4, vs 16” being the most common barrel length for most civilian ARs?)
Ballistic wise, the AR15 is more powerful than the M4. Why? M4 barrel length is 14.5 inches and the standard AR 15 barrel length is 20 inches which means the AR 15 has a higher velocity than the M4. Standard rule of thumb is you lose 50 feet per second for each inch of barrel lost. Roughly 300 feet per second less with the M4 withe the same ammo. Close quarters combat that doesn’t mean anything. Reaching out to 300 to 400 yards does make a difference.
You’re saying that the “standard” barrel length for civilian ARs is 20″? That may be the original length of an AR-15 barrel(hence the 20″ barrel on the original(and current) M16), but most people today have switched to shorter barrels, especially on “pistols”, with barrel lengths of 10.5-14.5 being the most popular. But even ignoring pistols and SBRs, 16″ is by far the most popular/common barrel length for ARs made for and sold to the public, as that is the shortest barrel length allowed on a rifle(generally speaking) in the U.S. In fact, the second most common barrel length is actually most likely a 14.5″(with 13.7″ barrels becoming more and more common)with a pinned and welded muzzle device to make the overall length 16″.
So even if we go with the standard 16″ barrel, that’s only a 1.5″ increase in barrel length, and thus according to your own figure of ~50fps/in, that is a gain of only 75fps on a round going nearly 3000fps. Not exactly something to write home about, and not something most people would consider worth bring up at all, especially without context or clarification.
It sounds like a case of stolen valor to me. Either that, or he is the reason for all the jokes about how dumb Marines are.
Perfect example of the “Useful IDIOT”
That “vet” is an idiot and people fall for his fuddlore.
He probably has a long history of stretching the truth 🤥🤥🤥🤥🤥. He earns five out five Pinocchio’s. It’s good to see someone call him out for that nonsense.
The ONLY way this makes sense is barrel length… The M-16 A1 & A2 had 22″ barrels, the M4 has a 16″ barrel. My A2 was a tack driver out to 300 yards easily. The M4 was redesigned for shorter ranges of around 100 yards. Now, I haven’t shot an M4, but I have shot AR’s with 16″ barrels. And personally, I’ll take my 22″ A2 with it’s higher velosity “power”… 16″ or 22”, it’s still a varmint round. I’ve always preferred 7.62mm.
The M16, M16A1, and M16A2 had 20″ barrels to optimize the velocity of the 5.56 x 45 round. M4s were developed as the M16 series of rifles were found to be unwieldy in CQB, urban, and vehicle operations. It is consistently accurate out to 300m, and even beyond when an optic is used.
Not sure if it’s lt’s old age setting in or what, but I would swear on a stack of bibles that my A2 had a 22″ barrel, but the specs say 20″… Same with the A4 at 14.5″…
you are correct the M16/A2 had 22″ barrel. the original M4 had a 16.5″ barrel and then went to a 14.5″ barrel. the army was testing a hotter round which gave it more distance but i guess it also lessened service life.
paul “I make up my own facts” is wrong, which is par for the course. The barrel length for all M16 configurations A1 through A4 is 20 inches.
The lineage of the M4 is from the Colt XM177E2, which had an 11.5 inch barrel. The Army’s Armament Research and Development Center recommended lengthening the barrel to 14.5 inches during testing and development.
well skippy i will trust my memory more than your wikipedia expertise!
Well your trust is obviously misplaced. Have you tried Prevagen? Your confidence greatly exceeds your competence. Provide just one legitimate source that backs up your “memory” and I will concede your assertion. If you are actually correct, it shouldn’t be that hard, should it?
Well, my .308 AR-10 does look like an AR-15 (a bigger version).
But, it’s only 10/15 = 2/3rds as dangerous as an AR-15.
Clever!
Viet Nam vet? Maybe he was a orderly room clerk operated a lethal typewriter.
My late Father used to refer to them as
” Remington Raiders ” .
He served 1962-63 in the 57th Transportation Co.
out of Nah Trang .
The M4 has a 14.5 inch barrel.
An AR-15 has a 16 to 20 inch barrel.
A longer barrel produces higher velocity and more foot pounds of energy.
That is the power to which the gentleman refers.
The difference in muzzle energy between a 14.5″ barrel and a 16″ barrel (all other things being equal) is about 7% at best – hardly cause for concern.
“That is the power to which the gentleman refers.” He does? Where in his statement does he make the distinction or did you you just speculate it?
“An AR-15 has a 16 to 20 inch barrel.” Really? Someone should let all the manufacturers of AR barrels with lengths ranging from 7.5 to 24 inches know this.
the guy is clearly wrong about an ar15 vs m4, but why do you use colion noir as your backbone? he doesnt even use his real name and he claims he lost all his firearms in a boating accident, I do not value either opinion
Why does him not using his real name make him less trustworthy? His real name isn’t easy to say or remember so it makes perfect sense to use something else on YouTube. The boating accident is common joke in the firearms community used by thousands of people, why so bunged up over those two things. I don’t always agree with everything Colion Noir says but he’s a committed pro 2A activist and respected attorney and we definitely need people like him with our governments, state and federal, constantly trying to violate our rights.
Why respect some guy, alleged veteran or not, who wants to take the Constitutional Rights away from fellow Americans??? No sir, I don’t and wont. What he did as a young man has nothing to do with him being a traitor now.
The M193 fired from a 1/12 twist 20 inch barreled M16 was the deadliest combo ever served up in the M16/M4 series. It creates explosive wounds out to 150 yards or so. Under 150 yards the lightly stabilized round from the 1/12 twist barrel will tip upon impact causing a catastrophic break at the cannelure which allows two pieces of ragged bullet fragments to do tremendous damage. The slow twist rate caused rounds to tumble upon impact at longer ranges which resulted in the urban legend that that M193 round tumbled in flight. The 14 inch barreled M4 with a 62 grain bullet and 1/7 twist has less velocity and is over stabilized to the extent it generally makes very neat little holes causing much less damage than the 1/12 M193. The M4 is supposedly outfitted with the 1/7 twist in order to stabilized the M856 tracer round, which in my opinion is stupid as it degrades the terminal performance of the bullet and I don’t believe many troops are putting tracers in their M4 to begin with.
THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS GUY BENG A VIET NAM VET SHOULD BE CHECKED. I CANNOT THINK OF ANY CAREER FIELD OF ANY BRANCH OF THE SERVICE THAT HAS BEEN TO VIET NAM OR ANY OTHER PLACE NEAR VIET NAM THAT WOULD NOT KNOW THAT!
Didn’t Mayor Pete spout the same crap ? My sincere, and humble thanks to anybody who served in our armed services, but I’m sorry to say that just because someone serves in our country’s armed forces does not automatically convey any sort of guarantee of knowledge, or even genuousity . I have met quite a few veterans that will spout this crap. Whether it is out of ignorance, or disingenuously spurred by political allegiance, I don’t know, but it is there, and because of who is spouting it, it lends credence to the veracity of this crapulousity with those that don’t know any better . My thanks to Colion for pointing this out. Maybe his article may educate some who would otherwise believe this crap. Those that are spouting this out of political allegiance will never change, and are no better than any other liars .
the AR 15 is JUNK that 5.56 or 223 is a Frigging Varmint Round NOT s HUMAN Round, the Military selected that round to make sure the Vietnam war lasted for as long as it did. They didn’t want to give rifles that worked to win a war they wanted an army that could not fight back so they could keep Americans at home mad that so many American troops were getting slaughtered, give them M-16 with a Varmint round that would deflect at every blade of grass and palmetto it hit, that tiny round in Jungle warfare is a Damn JOKE, put that 308 or any 30 Cal bullet to reach out and put the enemy down, but there is NO MONEY in winning a war, gotta keep that war going to to fill the bank accounts of the Politicians.
Okay, you know about as much as the marine giving testimony. Just be quiet.
Benedict Arnold was a Wounded Warrior veteran, too.
AR more powerful?
One must be careful about making statements such as as this. Just the fact that both use the same round negates the “facts”,
Perhaps one could compare the same round shot and measured from two different guns. One rifle being a bolt action, the other being a semiautomatic rifle. There would be a difference between the two rifles.
One would lose energy due to the fired round blows back the bolt and is ejected. The other round fired from the bolt action, all of the combustion is going out the barrel without loss of energy.
Apple’s to oranges. Even barrel lengths has an impact on energy efficiency.
So… When did the government ever concern itself with facts?
NEVER in my 68 Years on this earth.
As a civilian, I shot mostly the less expensive 55 grains through the AR-15 while the military was generous enough to issue 63 grains to US Marines. I don’t have a ballistic calculator; my guess would be that the 63-grain projectile would produce more energy transfer than the 55-grain all other factors being equal. Unless there is a secret governor switch somewhere on these various rifles that they don’t want you to know about?
63 grain ammo is available to the public. When you bump up the mass, for the same energy potential, initial velocity is lowered (energy is half mass times velocity squared), but the inertia (mass times velocity) retains more of that velocity, both in the air and in the meat. It will hit a little harder. There are factors with things like the gas being bled off to work the action, but that is true for both the AR-15 and the M4 – to the point that these parts could interchange between the two models, if the specs are compatible. But – the ammo is available.
Yeah, I don’t get what this guy is saying either. I don’t know why the AR-15 would be any more or less powerful or lethal than an M4. Maybe he means changing out to like a .300 Whisper or .450 Bushmaster?
the reason for 63 gr (m855) ammo is that the UN wanted it in the guise of being more humane, with head shots.
Did you provide the veteran in this article with technical advice that he used to make his statement? No such thing as a 63 gr M855. And please do provide a reference for what the “UN wanted”.
In 1970, NATO members signed an agreement to select a second, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge. Of the cartridges tendered, the .223 Remington (M193) was the basis for a new design created by FN Herstal. The FN-created cartridge was named “5.56×45mm NATO” with a military designation of SS109 in NATO and M855 in the U.S.
The Belgian 62 gr SS109 round was chosen for standardization as the second NATO standard rifle cartridge which led to the October 1980 STANAG 4172. The SS109 used a 62 gr full metal jacket bullet with a seven grain mild steel tip to move the center of gravity rearward, increasing flight stability and thereby the chances of striking the target tip-first at longer ranges, in part to meet a requirement that the bullet be able to penetrate through one side of a WWII U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yd (457 m) (which was also the requirement for the 7.62×51mm NATO). An actual helmet was not used for developmental testing; instead, an SAE 1010 or SAE 1020 mild steel plate was positioned to be struck at exactly 90 degrees. It had a slightly lower muzzle velocity, but better long-range performance due to higher sectional density and a superior drag coefficient.
i ain’t giving people answers y’all can research for yourself and i stand by what i said which is m855 and why!
did anybody bother to check this guys claims of service? i can order a custom service cap from an ad in my VFW magazine issues.
the up side is my M4 shouldn’t get banned…..oh wait it’s a civilian one so it’s more lethal then a select fire mil issue one.