I wish Tuohy did a review of the BCM comp, KAC 3T and MAMS too.
I own two BC 2.0s and a 1.5. The 1.5 was free and still in the package, one of my 2.0s hasn’t been mounted to a barrel in about a year and the other came with an upper that I got last week.
I actually didn’t like the downward force of the BC very much. I’ve definitely been favoring suppressors, FHs, and pure brakes now days.
Anyone else read the article and have thoughts on it?
Did you read the letter BC posted on Facebook from Colts testing? I like the Battle Comp and run one on my 20" rifle. Everyone has opinions about muzzle devices and every other AR related product.
No I hadn’t, but reading it now, it seems that on a .308 platform, Colt found that what I assume is a BABC allowed for significant improvements in target re-acquisition.
That doesn’t necessarily contradict what Tuohy found on 5.56 ARs.
What I found interesting about Tuohy’s test was that he actually brought numbers and a large field of other devices tested as well.
Yep. I like my Battlecomp very much and have no reason to get rid if it. It works well for what I want out of it. Just like Iraqgunz said, everyone has an opinion and everyone is always after whatever the latest rage is. Right now it’s the BCM Comp and everything else put out by BCM.
I’ve run a Battlecomp and a KAC TTT side by side for about 6 months.
I do not care for the Battlecomp. I felt the noise level increase and the weird downward push was more a negative for me. I felt that the TTT eliminated the downward push and cut the noise level way down as well. The TTTs recoil characteristics was a straight, easy rearward push with a very flat muzzle rise.
In regards to “noise” level with the BC: To my ear and several other shooters with me, the BC had this horrendous crack to it that was not present with an A2 FH or the TTT.
Both muzzle devices were run on identical uppers, Colt LE6920, DD RISII, fixed irons.
The engineer in me takes the article with a large grain of salt.
Missing from the article what rifle or rifle(s) we’re used for testing?
A 20" HBAR with a FSC556 is gonna feel, jump and recoil and flash less than a 10.3" LW with a BattleComp…
One can also make two identical rifles shoot differently just by changing carrier weight and/or buffer weight…
Type of ammunition? Same lot?
Wolf .223 or Rem UMC is gonna be quieter than say M855…the recoil and flash characteristics are much different as well…
Ambient temperature?
When the barrel and any comp is cold your gonna get more flash…
How were human factors excluded?
A shooter with a clear bias for or against can hold the rifle looser or firmer favoring or making one comp look worse than the other…
Love the CNN-like title of this thread.
Robb, the linked article is an opinion spun off a technical article which describes what was used and their test methods.
I’ve got two Battlecomps, the 1.0 and the BABC. I really hate muzzle brakes. I’d much rather deal with the recoil than the obnoxious concussion of the brakes I’ve tried in the past. Because of the reports I’d been reading about the Battlecomp and the videos posted, I decided to give it a try, although I remained very skeptical.
Recoil with the BC 1.0 felt softer but muzzle rise while using the traditonal bladed stance I’ve shot all my life (not claiming it’s the best stance, just being clear) pushed the muzzle to the right. A check of the BC showed it was clocked correctly. Others reported the same problem. I eliminated the right push by getting behind the rifle more. Guys with real aggressive stances found the BC pushed the muzzle down. Some were able to adjust their stance to resolve the issue, others got rid of the BC. The 1.0 was also more effective reducing muzzle rise on the 16″ barrel than the 20″. I let others shoot my rifle and stood next it at both indoor and outdoor ranges. The sideblast was more than the A2 but much less than pure muzzle brakes. The concussion also felt softer. I also asked other shooters I knew and others who were complete strangers. Some felt the sideblast was obnoxious, others didn’t feel it was any worse than ARs with the A2 mounted. We made it a point to shoot 16″ carbines with A2s alongside the BC. Flash was a little bit more than the A2 but inconsistent. It’d be barely noticeable for a few shots, then there’d be a shot where it was significantly more, like there was some kind of build up that needed to be burned off.
The BABC was mounted on an 18″ Para FAL and was compared to the same FAL with the Belgian combo device and with a bare muzzle. Recoil with the BABC was softer than with the Belgian combo device and the recoil with the Belgian device softer than with a bare muzzle. Muzzle rise was less with BABC than the Belgian and less with the Belgian than the bare muzzle. Side blast was softest with the BABC. Shooting the FAL indoors always got attention, regardless of muzzle device. I was surprised to note that the reacoil of the Para FAL is soft for a 308 battlerifle.
As for BC’s claims, I figure all advertising needs to be taken with a grain of salt. At the moment, I can’t think of any other muzzle device I’d use in it’s stead. All the others I’ve personally seen are either too obnoxious, produce more flash or are heavier. If my 1.0 blew up today and I needed a replacement, I’d either get another or go just back to the A2 and spend the difference in cost on ammo. But I like my carbine better with the BC than the A2. If my BABC on the FAL blew up today, I’d definitely replace it with another, although I’d grumble about the price.
I don’t think the Battlecomp is the final word in muzzle devices. I don’t think any of them are. Is the Battlecomp dead? I don’t know and I don’t care. Everyone has their own needs and preferences. The BC fits mine
I just installed the BattleComp 1.0 a few days ago, and finally made it to the range for the first time with it, yesterday. Initial impressions are: it’s noticeably louder, and I got the weird downward push that everyone mentions (had to do a double take as it took me by surprise; its one thing to hear about it happening, but its completely different when it happens to you for the first time ever). I’m gonna try it again a time or two, and see if I can adapt to it and figure out if I’m gonna keep it or not. I do have thousands of rounds of muscle memory built with a Carbine Length Gas 16" w/ standard A2 so I will have to learn a new habit so to speak.
I also noticed the Flash as well, and this was about 45 minutes before the Sun was down, so didn’t really care for that either. Ammo was Independence and Federal M193. Never honestly noticed it before with A2 on there (but to be fair, I was probably actually looking for it, whereas with the A2 I never payed attention to it, if it did exist).
But obviously, the one big plus that I did notice, is I could hammer between two targets, one at 10 Yards and the other at 30 Yards…it was definitely noticeable that I could controlled pairs while moving back and forth on them, much quicker than with the A2.
I love KAC products but for $400 plus the TTT should be hands down better than anything out there.
That may or may not have been intentional >.>
Personally I find that BC lets me double and triple tap targets quicker, and I don’t find that a bad thing at all. Regarding it being loud, I’m pretty aware guns are loud in general, I’m good with that as well. On the idea that it has muzzle flash, shucks, I guess I figured that out when it wasn’t classed as a flash suppressor.
This is my personal opinion…
I’ve used the BC, TTT, MB556K, AAC Breakout, FSC556, Rainier comp…
Out of all of those, the TTT performed the best for me and my shooting style. I will not use it on a SBR because the concussion is way too much. 16" barrels and up are pretty much the cats meow.
I have moved away from the comps and went back to the A2 FH. For my current needs/wants, it works out the best for me.
LOL at the sheeple posting the comments on his page. It’s like reading comments from Huff or CNN. Holy cow, if anything this dude just proved a point - that his little bar graphs can sway the minds of the simple. I’m sorry, some of those “findings” of his, simply do not match my personal, repeated experience with some of those products. No matter how scientific his tests appear to be, my body, eyes and ears have told me different.
I have no brand loyalty when it comes to MDs. I’ve dumped one for another after a single range session numerous times and thrown them up for sale.
Good post Robb, and actually, I have removed a BC from one of my rifles and replaced it with another brake because it behaved a little strange on that particular rifle/barrel length. Conversely, on two other rifles (different setups/barrel lengths) the BCs perform better than other brakes.
Something smells fishy here - and it stinks.
You’re correct that guns are loud. I don’t think that’s being debated. I made the comment from my experience while using the BC. To my ear, shooting out in the open and from cover or indoors, I find that the BC adds more noise.
I guess the best way to describe it would be the crack of the rifle is more pronounced with the BC.
Oddly enough, I made my comment from experience with the BC as well. I don’t discount that it adds more noise, that is a byproduct of being a brake unless you are going with something like the KX3/ KX5 which is directing the sound forwards. My comments weren’t directed at your or your post, sorry if it came across that way for some reason.
I think if anything this article points out that BC has been lagging behind in development and testing while other brake/comps have come to market. BC was first making these claims back when they WERE the best in the game and one of the only tactical comps on the market, they just haven’t done much since then so that now they appear to be dishonest.
I’m surprised to see that the A2 tested as more effective than the BC. I had an A2 on my 16" midlength for a long time before I got a BC, and I was pleased enough with the BC to change to it. In my experience, the BC provided better muzzle control (in MY experience, in MY gun), and the recoil impulse was different, but not necessarily “better”. I was not concerned with muzzle flash at all, and I’m still not. I wanted a comp that got me back on target faster, all other benefits were secondary.
As a whole, comparison tests help everyone and drive innovation and product improvement. I don’t see much use in attacking BC over any other company on that graph.
Curious to see if an explosion of BC’s appear on the Equipment Exchange due to this thread.
Last upper I built for a guy who had shoulder issues so I was really trying to limit weight and recoil. Used a 16" light weight, mid length gas system. I tested with an A2 a BC 1.0 and a BCM Mod 0. The gun being so light I figured that any negative qualities of any of these would be greatly exaggerated vs. on a heavy gun. The BC 1.0 exhibited the downward push(there was basically zero muzzle rise), but felt recoil was very minimal. The A2 was as expected, decent, but nothing to write home about, had the most felt recoil. The BCM Mod 0 had no downward push although it kept muzzle rise to an absolute minimum(kept front sight inside the 8x8 target at 50 yards), and the felt recoil was also basically non existent. On this ultra light gun, the BCM won. On a heavier gun the BC 1.0 might be the winner. I like keeping several muzzle devices around to test and see which one works best on which upper. I like my 51t Brakeout on my 10.5" mostly cause it throws 3’ of fire out each port and scares children in the next county.
No worries brother! No stick pokin here at all. Good values to all comments and questions.