If you’re not supposed to judge a person by how they look, how can you judge a gun like that? Don’t judge if you don’t know.
The problem I have with this line of argumentation is that the difference between the top and the bottom is 50+ years of military engineering. Excluding some DMRs and dedicated sniper rifles, nearly every weapon issued to modern militaries have the characteristics of the bottom gun, and for a reason. If you say it doesn’t increase the effectiveness of the shooter, you’re letting your opinion on gun control color your reason and logic.
It’s just plain false to say it doesn’t make a gun more deadly at all, and you’re undermining your position by taking espousing such a blatant lie. A better argument is that the increase is so slight that it doesn’t warrant a ban.
The different furniture changes how the gun handles and does not affect how “deadly” either firearm is. You might be able to clear a room quicker with the lower rifle because it is lighter, but the rifles have identical sights, except the top one has a longer sight radius which means that it has a slight advantage with regards to accuracy, especially at longer ranges. If anything, the top firearm is more deadly because it has a longer barrel which would result in a higher muzzle velocity.
You might be able to get back on target slightly faster with the lower rifle if the flash hider is also a compensator, but the rifles are not fully automatic, chambered in 5.56 and the top rifle is heavier because of the furniture, so any advantage provided by a compensator in “rapid fire” conditions would likely be negligible or possibly nonexistent.
Yes, the rifles are different, but one is not deadlier than the other in general. They are merely better suited for different purposes.
If we’re talking about terminal ballistics, speed is a quirky thing. If the bullet is faster, it has more of chance of simply going through the target. If it’s slower, there is more of a chance of the bullet tumbling, i.e. how snipers with 7.62 rifles prefer to engage targets at 1000m+, as that’s when the round turns extremely deadly as it has slowed down. There’s actually evidence to support both sides, so it’s quite hard to say which is better.
A pistol grip + collapsible stock make the weapon shorter, and easier to conceal. A flash suppressor, if it is made correctly and not just decoration, greatly aides in concealment.
But going away from that, the list of
is literally what military engineers have spent the last 50 years installing in rifles, like the M14 series getting the EBR upgrade, the AR platforms superseding the Garand/M1/M14 as the primary infantry rifle, etc. They do add some benefits to the shooter, otherwise they wouldn’t be so prominent with frontline troops today.