As soon as anyone posts videos of Hickock as proof of anything I vomit a little in my mouth.
Anybody with any time behind a gun knows that there are too many variables to deal with to make any sort of rational judgement on something like "muzzle flip" by watching a few videos of that old geezer. For starters, it's blatant that he's not even holding the guns the same in both videos, which would be a basic requirement of evaluating muzzle rise on the two guns. I mean, come on...this is grade school stuff.
Show me a video of the same person, holding the same gun (or guns set up similarly), holding it the same way, with information on the ammo used, from a camera angle that can even evaluate muzzle rise, with a backdrop of a color that contrasts the gun and preferably has horizontal lines for reference. Something like this (skip to 3:10 if you want). This video is useful. Hickock is not.
And that video brings up another good point....Anyone who has any muzzle rise at all with an AR ONLY has muzzle rise because he wants to. You can build a 5.56 AR with NO muzzle rise and you can build a .40 pistol with NO muzzle rise, so the whole debate is kinda silly.
This is a S&W 16" gun that I carry daily and it has almost no muzzle rise (and it's not even a "race gun").
____________________________________
Or rather than watching all those videos a better option is to ask the advise of a known good guy (TWR) and ignore the ramblings of a known troll (sherp).
This approach will save you a lot of time and keep you from having to watch old men miss steel on youtube.
