I have a strange knack for observing and remembering odd details. This is offset by my inability to recall vitally important dates, names, and information. Anyway, here are two things that made me chuckle recently.
First, the guy who wrote this, George Hill, now works for an AR15 manufacturer.
Next, in this video, Rob Pincus tells us that free floating a barrel will deliver greater accuracy. He shows two targets with the label “Normal vs. Free Floated Barrels,” but the bottom of the left target is labeled “M16A4” and the right target labeled “SDMR.” He does not describe the differences between the two rifles. Most notably, the SDMR has a heavy, fluted, stainless steel Douglas barrel, while the M16A4 has a relatively thin chrome lined, chrome moly vanadium barrel not meant for match or extreme accuracy purposes. If he wanted to demonstrate the benefits of free floating an AR barrel, this was not the way to do it.
Details schmetails………..
I would love a blow by blow (or a gloss) rebuttal of the linked article on Ar-15s. I need the laugh.
Well, no rebuttal I could write would be better than the fact that he now works for a company manufacturing AR-15s with the exact features he denigrated in his article:
– “Tolerances too tight for a combat weapon”
– “Soft alloy receivers”
– “Fed from flimsy magazines too weak to operate properly when loaded to full capacity”
– “The rifle defecates where it eats thanks to itâs direct gas impingement system”
– “The gas tube itself can warp or break from overheating due to sustained firing”
– “a tiny gas tube and a horrible breach design that is impossible to clean properly”
– “The extractor design is puny and weak, but worse yet is the spring loaded ejector”
– “5.56MM is another name for .223 basically. In essence, itâs just a big .22 rifle”
ALL of these things a) form the basis of his article, and b) are characteristics of Crusader ARs.
I notice how your comment on his youtube video page is a month old and there is no reply to it.
George Hill is a boob.
I did write that, like, a hundred years ago. In internet years. Seriously, over a decade, and AR’s have come a long way.
None of the details you complained about in that article have changed.
I look at stuff I wrote on TFL or GT thirteen years ago and think “Stupid kid. If I could buy her for what she was worth and sell her for what she thought she was worth, I could retire today.”
And I’m sure I’m confidently writing $#!+ now that will make the me of ten years from now cringe…
I once wrote an essay called “America Kicks Ass.” For a 400 level polisci course. It was cringeworthy, as you might imagine.
But ten years later, I’m not writing essays called “Death To America” or trying to profit from an ideological standpoint exactly opposite of that essay.
I think a more direct comparison would be if you DID begin writing essays called “Death To America”, but claimed it was only because America had changed (even though nothing you wrote about in America Kicks Ass had changed one bit).
The issue here is not that an ill informed essay was written (or that the author is now working for an AR builder). The issue is the ridiculous suggestion that there has been a major change in the M-16 FOW within the past 10 years, and the implication that “Why I Hate the M-16” was solid truth and sound logic at the time it was written.
Yeah, that’s what I was driving at: It’s good to be able to look back at one’s previous statements and own the fact that they were… well, dumb.
Some people seem to have a hard time doing that. Some people get a little too invested in their internet persona. 😀
No they have not. All military weapons still conform to the Colt Technical data package. The armorer working on your rifle had no idea what he was doing…there was no mention of swapping critical components such as gas rings, extractor/extractor springs, buffer springs…you know things that have to be replaced on a regular basis….even on B.S piston Ar-15’s. (With the exception of gas rings…granted if you are running a piston you are going to have a lot more expensive parts to replace around the 15k mark). Then you bring up a Bushmaster which in many cases is simply a bad copy of the real thing. Bushmaster which brought us the “commercial size receiver extension” and stocks. Bushmaster who’s guns traditionally have been so far away from the Colt Technical Package and continue to exacerbate the myth that properly built Ar-15’s/M16 are not reliable. Your arguments are soft at best. I have never spent more that 5 minutes cleaning my Ar-15’s and thousands of round later the only malfunctions I have ever had have been attributed to bad ammunition. I truly hope you have learned a thing of two since you wrote that abomination of an article.
On the Crusader website…”The breadth and depth of George Hill’s experience and training has built a unique skill set and wealth of knowledge….” Okay…So tell us what you have learned about the Ar-15/M16 platform since writing your article?
Thank you Andrew for once again keeping it real.
The whole time I was reading that, I kept thinking “typical troll…typical troll” then this gem revealed itself: “When you shorten the barrel of a rifle, your reducing itâs velocity and the only thing the M-16 has going for it is velocity. After chopping it down, your velocity is now just average. Letâs be quite frank⦠there are some .22LR loads that can almost catch up to it.”
I couldn’t stop laughing for a while.
Wow. As all that follow this great blog know, one testing a Free-Floating Barrel over a Non Free-Floating, should use the same rifle or two of the same from the same manufacture. When I did using 2x BCM A4’s one was classic and the other I put on the Daniel Defense Omega 12 and used a Leupold LR M3. When I extended the “Cone” of range to 250 yards it became just noticeable, at 400 yards It became VERY noticeable.
Good Article again brother.
So….
Do you not have any opinions of gear, guns, manufacturers, etc. that have changed over the last ten years? Gear can and does improve, and opinions on such things can change.
If this is a matter of a change in opinion, why is Mr. Hill claiming that the AR is what has changed?
I didn’t start commenting on this article trying to be mean, but the seventeenth random apostrophe’ just broke me. It is: it’s not that hard, seriously.
“The design uses tolerances that are way too tight for a combat weapon. ”
Is it just me, or does he mean “clearances” here?
“FACT: AR-15/M-16 based rifles SUCK.”
Oh, well, he’s convinced me then. You can’t deny FACTS.
“I’ve yet to get an email from a real combat veteran who has seen more than a single instance of action who thinks the AR-15/M-16 family of rifles is a good weapon.”
“In related news, can someone help me recover my email password?”
“I don’t consider myself to be taken to task by zit faced, roll-playing, counter-strike addicted pussies.”
Yeah, take THAT Andrew. Is ‘roll-playing’ like gymnastics with a lot of tumbling? ’cause that sounds super gaaaay.
This one was a quote, but it was too wonderful to pass up:
“Let’s do this quickly without all the bureaucracy typically associated with change… Just look how fast we were all issued the ‘highly coveted’ black beret or the digital uniform”
And let’s hope the new rifle is as satisfactory as both of those acquisitions. With our top three requirements being Fabulosity, Looking French, and Doing It Quickly With No Oversight, what could possibly go wrong with our new rifle? In fact, right now is the perfect time to replace our stock of M4s with the FAMAS; I hear they’re selling them off cheap, for some reason.
I think what he means is Opinions about AR’s have come a long way. Also, in the past ten years we’ve learned the correct usage of ‘itself’.
I stopped taking that crusader arms site seriously when I saw they were selling 870s with cerakote and an extended tube for a thousand dollars.
I dunno ’bout their guns, but I’ve yet to find a slicker gun lube than that Slipstream stuff they crank out.
Internet drama. Didn’t expect to see that seeded here. Classy.
You’re welcome, Terry. Glad I could be of service.
Andrew making friends as usual.
Thinking a bit more about it, the Rob Pincus critique was at least constructive. The comment on George just seemed like a snarky jab. I have to wonder why the disparity.
I too see the conflict between that post and his current position, and I’ve said as much to him in the past (he’s a personal friend of mine). For whatever reason though he chooses to own his words and ignore the fact that the Internet gun community will eat people whole, and any level of transparency will only hasten the dinner bell.
Somewhere on his old blog in the About section it used to say something to the effect, “I’m opinionated and full of contradictions…”. Caveat emptor I guess.
The man changed his mind. It’s not like he made some anti-2A remark. Give him a break. Jeez.
Clearly he hasn’t changed his mind. He claims that the AR15 has changed.
I see. Historically I haven’t really noticed nitpicking Internet contradictions and unprovoked bashing of random bloggers to be a VB forte. I hope this isn’t a trend forming. I’ve had a lot of respect for your professional writing and positive attitude thus far.
The entire portion of the article relating to your friend was as follows:
“First, the guy who wrote this, George Hill, now works for an AR15 manufacturer.”
Wouldn’t you find it funny that someone who once viscerally hated something now makes money selling that same thing? I did. And that’s why I wrote this.
This was not an “unprovoked bashing of a random blogger,” it was a simple and incontrovertible statement of fact which I found amusing. Now, I certainly take issue with the way he has attempted to spin his involvement by saying that it’s not that he was wrong ten years ago, but that the rifle has changed (hint: it hasn’t). So in that regard, he has deserved every bit of scorn you see in the comments here.
But you read a hell of a lot into one factual sentence. My advice to you would be to get your panties out of their current, twisted state. This was not what you are making it out to be.
Alrighty then. Thanks.
How is this “internet drama”? Your friend is simply being held accountable for a very ignorant post he wrote. I was just getting into Ar-15’s when that post came out and I remember reading it. I had a lot of doubt concerning the platform until I was properly trained. It was a serious case of the blind following the very blind.
Unless I missed it the Crusader Weaponry website is lacking the technical data of their rifles…I see specs concerning form but very little on function. Like all the other Ar-15 shops popping up I am just going to assume they suck until proven otherwise. At Least Battle Rifle Company listed their specs…or at least the specs they try to meet…unless they can’t source it then they hopefully Brownells has something that MIGHT work…
I don’t agree with his post, nor do I agree with every word the guy ever said. He’s a friend, that doesn’t mean I have to kiss his ass. I’m only disappointed at the random unprovoked jab. Not that my opinion matters. I’m just some guy.
As to Crusader, I’m not sure how they’re relevant to the stab at George in any more than a footnote way.
A lot of people read that post. I don’t care if it was yesterday or 10 years ago. That post really had an effect on the Ar-15 industry as a whole and has contributed to a lot of the myths concerning the Ar-15/M16 platform. It is very frustrating for SME and armorers to constantly hear critics of the Ar-15/M16 platform repeating your friends post. That post caused a lot of people to go out and buy stupid accessories and waste a lot of money on things they did not….specifically piston retrofit kits. His points were weak and his response was absurd. The fact that he works for Crusader..which at the moment doesn’t list technical specs makes sense. In all honesty when SME’s or armorers (who have gone through an intense mil type armorer program) see companies that don’t list technical specs, the company simply appears to be selling sub standard products and ripping off hard working Americans. There are maybe 6 -7 companies out there right now making a mil – grade Ar-15’s. The rest…fine for plinking and hunting but I would never trust my life to one. People buy these guns, which ultimately fail then blame the Ar-15/M16 platform…not the substandard parts or the “loose nut” on the assembly line.
Your a good guy for getting your friends back. I would love to see him write an article telling the industry that He was wrong and why the Ar-15/M16 platform is a good weapon… and specify what is needed to properly build one, parts that need to be replaced/maintenance schedules. This information is common on the internet thanks to guys like Andrew and Mike Pannone.
Take care.
Yeah, I don’t know how many people have tried to link to this in order to prove to me that the AR15 is bad. It did have a major effect on the industry, or at the very least it affected peoples’ buying habits, and it was all…horribly…wrong.
I’ll second this. I would also like to read such an updated article.
This is less an observation on this thread than on this blog as a whole. Andrew is clearly being read by those whom he critiques. That he then gets responses back is a testimony to his credibility. All in all, good work.
Speaking only as a layman who has built his own ARs (learning the hard way), the only issues I’ve had have been with ammo, and then only with Wolf steel cased sticking in the barrel (nasty stovepipe there). I can see the room for the criticism, but the love/hate over the platform always puzzles me. It’s tool like any other, and it’s a lousy mechanic who blames his tools. Until we all have magic rail guns or BFGs or Glock 7s, every system is a bunch of compromises.
I always took his writeup with a grain of salt (also because it made me laugh). If you had asked me about the AR-15 after my first issued M-16A1, I probably would have told you the same thing. As we got better rifles (newer A2’s and better magazines), my opinion changed for sure. I trust my AR-15’s to work these days, but I still won’t be throwing them in the mud and peeing on them 😉
Andrew, I see the humor in pointing out someone who vehemently bashes one thing, only to side with or profit from the exact same thing in the future.
I used to see a lot of the same when I went to an automotive trade school. The all american car guys would joke the imports and when any one of them sold their american iron for a rice burner, they had little to say when anyone asked what changed their minds.
The problem inherent with a great percentage of people with high and mighty opinions about things is a that they rarely have a factual platform. Its mostly here say that they amplify into what seems like an arguement.
The same can be said of people who sing great praises of one product over another ( as Rick Taylor amusingly makes light of ) with only one word from a trusted figure. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t a great product. It simply isn’t a great product because certain people endorse it.
Except for Snake Oil⢠. Buy that stuff by the barrel and dunk every weapon you own in it. I’ve started to shower with that stuff.
I could care less if Mr. Hill bashed the AR in the past and is profiting from it now. Opinions change, especially as we learn more.
What is shameful is that he is pretending his opinion never changed, but rather ARs did. Take this quote I ran across on Facebook:
“Vuurwappenblogger just fisked my decade old anti-AR15 article. I guess he is too young to remember how they were back then. Kids these days”
Good grief man, it’s ok to admit you were wrong. I used to think Limp Bizkit and Blink 182 were cool.
I lol’d a little at the irony brought up in the original post ( “the guy who wrote this, George Hill, now works for an AR15 manufacturer”). That’s funny and harmless. I would have hoped when it came to his attention, if he said anything at all, it would be along the lines of “haha, yeah, I’ve learned a lot since then”. Rather he’s taken the most ridiculous approach possible and decided to insist that he was right back then and he’s right now, the AR-15 is what has changed not his opinion.
Don’t tell me your only complaint about Pincus is that video 😉
Maybe it was his first gun? Maybe a lemon? I had a Mini 14 and M1 carbine and those particular guns that I had were just plain awful.
Or maybe this guy just let his Id and frustrated subconscious loose on the WWW