Printable View
Just wondering if any of you guys have done any comparisons between the BattleComp and the BattleComp vs. Griffin Armament M4-SD Tactical Compensator? I really like my BC and will most likely continue to buy their products, however just looking to see if anyone has tried the other. While not a direct copy, you can tell the design influence came from KAC & BC.
Hmmm, looks very similar to the BC. I wonder if BC has a patent on the design. Anyway, I'd be interested to know how this one compares. Maybe this will cause the prices to fall a bit... that would be nice.
I would most definately go with a battle comp. It looks like griffon armament is not only ripping off battle comp with their muzzle device but that they're also ripping off KAC with the way their can attaches.
It looks to me like another fly by night AR/Supressor company making shit products for cheap. Go with the battlecomp, it's a proven design.
We've had a provisional patent since before we opened, and our completed patent application was accepted at USPTO three weeks ago.
We are running three facilities to keep our costs where they are currently, and our distributors and dealers like G&R, Bravo Company and Rainier have MAP below our MSRP.
Thanks again for all the support.
They are probably fine on patent issues. VAIS comps have been out 20yrs or so and triple taps seem to have inspired BCs. Now we have the Griffin and soon Dynacomps. It probably won't be long before outfits like YHM have $30 ones.`Quote:
Originally Posted by captshiess
I have both the Griffin and the BC 1.0s and they are pretty similar in design and pretty similar in function. The Griffin "feels" stronger, heavier. The actual weight differences are 1.8oz vs 2.4oz. Griffin claims there comp is 479% stronger based on their tests. Griffin apparently has a standard width accessory groove and it is same position relative to the end as the A2 so it will work on all the silencers that mount to A2s. They are also a bit cheaper, mine was $95 shipped.
Design:
They are pretty much the exact same concept. On the closed area on the bottom they are very close, the area is ~1/8" wider on the Griffin. Hole openings on the sides are oval on the BC and round on the Griffin but they appear to cover a similar area and have a similar void space.
The area that does look different is the front opening because the BC has 4 holes and the Griffin has 6. I expected at first this may lead to the Griffin being quieter than but not quite as effective as a brake (by a small margin) but that did not prove to be true. If you take a closer look the bullet exit hole on the BC is larger. Also the 4 individual holes on the BC are also larger than the Griffin's holes. The net result is they probably have roughly the same opening space out the end of the comp. (?)
In the box:
BCs 1.0/1.5s come with crush washers and 2.0s with a shim set.
Griffins come with a peel washer.
Looks:
I think the BCs look better and I like you can get them in SS matte to match a SS barrel. I don't consider this a big deal though. If you need a something to pin on a 14.5" barrel only the BC 1.5 version will be long enough for you.
Performance:
I would expect them to perform pretty much the same, and they did. This is a small difference but the Griffin seemed to "walk" less was slightly easier for me to shoot quicker. However it seemed to have slightly more rear push. Also my Battlecomps have always worked best at 1'oclock (pointing logo to 7 oclock) or slightly over that and the Griffin I ended up turning back to ~12:30 (pointing center of void space to 6:30). I ran both with my Howard Leights on but I did not power them on, so they worked more like standard muffs. I could not notice a noise difference. Apparently others have tested on a AR-15 and found the Griffin 2db less, and another person found the BC 7db less on a Keltec 223 (edited, posted incorrect information the first time)). The differences were very small in performance. Since they pretty much have equal void space out the side and out the front, with roughly the same area blocked off, I guess that is what you should expect.
http://i52.tinypic.com/2lapxna.jpg
http://i52.tinypic.com/27ztpu.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/vxnuap.jpg
I like the fit/finish of the BattleComp.
Looks like lots of entries in that market.....I wonder how the new Dynacomp will compare.
Ryan S, great post! It's cool to see mfg's steeping their game up, competition never hurt anyone that wasn't willing to improve. I have yet to experience a BC or Griffon, so no comment on function.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wahoo95
How does a muzzle device have good "fit". It either threads on or it doesnt....:confused:
Sorry if my choice of words weren't the best for you. I should have simply said I like the attention to detail BC puts into their design as well as the extra attention spent on finish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Belmont31R
Has Griffin Armament ever had an original thought? Same guys that stenciled "Point Towards Arabs" or some crap like that on the muzzle end of their suppressors in an effort to copy AAC, right?