Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: BattleComp vs. Griffin Armament M4-SD Tactical Compensator?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    420
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    If I wanted to save money hell I'd spin my own but for the time it'd take me to calculate the areas and port angles and dicking around on a machine I'll just spend it on a BC.
    Prefer the looks of the BC slots over all them pissing holes anyways so I'll be going with them.
    I'm sure grifin will have plenty of business with all the arfcommer's trying to save a nickel.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    9,936
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    If the BC is quieter, I will pay the extra coin for them (I have a 1.0 and 1.5 now).

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,352
    Feedback Score
    14 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by glocktogo View Post
    If the BC is quieter, I will pay the extra coin for them (I have a 1.0 and 1.5 now).
    Not sure if its posible for the human ear to detect a 2db difference.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    4
    Feedback Score
    0
    I too, like the slot design on the BC better. That being said, competition will generate a healthier industry, and more choices for the consumers.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    CONUS
    Posts
    4,209
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    i've been using the griffin M4-SD for the past couple of months. it was designed to be used inside a can, which explains the thicker walls and holes configured in rings (to prevent expansion of the comp walls inside a can). performance (felt recoil and muzzle movement reduction) feels the same as my battlecomp 1.0 to me.
    concussion to the shooter and observers to the side is also similar - i don't notice a difference.

    when the battlecomp came out, people were looking to it as a less expensive alternative to the triple tap, and it's done very well since. i've swapped out two PWS FSC556's for battlecomps. the griffin just provides another choice for the consumer - like all the other brakes and comps out there. the consumer can only stand to benefit from having more choices.


  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    60
    Feedback Score
    0
    I don't want to send this thread anywhere positive or negative, but would like to relate the results of our evaluation of the sound and flash performance of the BC2.0 and GA M4SD comp just as an FYI.

    Our evaluation was confined to 12.5" barrel use with M855 ammunition. The choice of the 12.5" barrel was simply to have a barrel that produced more flash than a 14.5" M4 barrel or 16" barrel.

    The battle comp had about 25-30% less flash, and open muzzle had probably double the flash of the M4-SD comp. The A2 compensator was vastly better than either device for flash reduction, though both comps reduced flash to the extent that it did not cause shooters to have short term aiming issues from temporary night blindness- a phenomenon that did occur when the shooter fired the 12.5" barrel with no muzzle device mounted.

    Our B&K 2209 meter was used for sound comparison. At the location of the shooters right ear, the unsuppressed open muzzle SPL was 163DB. Both mounted devices pegged the meter (or were over 170DB at this location). This represents at least 7DB gain at the shooter's right ear.

    The Battle comp had 2DB increase from open muzzle at the Mil-STD testing location (1meter left of the muzzle)

    The M4SD had no net gain over open muzzle at the same Mil-STD location.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    19
    Feedback Score
    0
    Very informative thread!

    What i would really like to know is for sure which suppressors will work with the BattleComp 2.0, is it only the Halo and that is all?

    It is hard to imagine that BC could have missed the measurement that was mentioned that makes it not work with all the other "A2" style suppressors. (the ones that will fit an A2 Flash Hider).

    But, I have asked this in the BC thread and no one from BC seems to want to touch this subject. I also note that they go out of their way to not mention what will work on their website and blogs.... i.e, "The BattleComp 2.0 SCV is an excellent compensator many of us have grown to love, and gives the user flexibility for suppressors and silencers meant for the A2 flash hider."

    I just wish someone at BC (or an independant reviewer) would say one way or another concerning this subject.

    OH FWIW, I own 2 BC 2.0 comps. But not knowing for sure it will work with all the "for suppressors and silencers meant for the A2 flash hider" as originally promised makes me have doubts.

    Due to this alone I am considering gettting some Griffin versions since they seem to be able to confrim what works with their version or not, as compared to BC which seems to be very "non-transparent" about this important subject.
    Last edited by 928M4; 04-13-11 at 17:23.
    Dave

    DD M4A1 14.5 Middy
    DD MK18 10.3 Pistol
    DD M4A1 18 S2W (build in progress)

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,781
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Many comps/brakes don't have the same dimensions as the A2. The MSTN QC brake isn't, the JP tank brake isn't, the Noveske pig brake definitely isn't

    A2 attachment compatibility was probably not a design criteria when BC 1.0 and 1.5 were drawn up.
    Roger Wang
    Forward Controls Design
    Simplicity is the sign of truth

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    266
    Feedback Score
    11 (100%)
    The BC 2.0 were designed for the Gemtech Halo's
    Kentucky Regional Training Group

    Shot placement is power- Stephen A. Camp

    I'm aware my avvy does not stand for Heckler and Koch

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Occupied Territory
    Posts
    1,212
    Feedback Score
    19 (100%)
    The BC2.0 is also compatible with the AAC Omni.

    Unfortunately, we do not have access to all suppressors made to be compatible with the A2, and we do not speculate on fitment or compatibility unless we have vetted such matters ourselves. We have encountered at least one A2-compatible silencer that uses an indexing pin inside it, which is intended to fit inside the face of an A2. Since BattleComps have closed faces, this particular A2-compatible silencer would NOT work with our device, even though it works with an A2; therefore, we don't say we work with all A2 silencers.

    If anyone has questions, we encourage you to contact Capt. Nick at nick@battlecomp.com or Marty at marty@battlecomp.com, and either or both of them will do their best to answer your questions.

    Sometimes, we won't have an exact answer, because simply, we just don't know everything. We've been learning, too -- and the folks here at M4C have been very helplful with advice and telling us what to make next. We do our best to listen, and to give back.

    We also never compare ourselves with other muzzle devices other than the A2. That is our official policy and it continues to be.

    Other suppressor adapters are in the pipeline, and our AK BattleComp will be in production very soon, to add to our BC1.0, BC1.5, BC2.0 and BABC line-up.

    Again, thanks to everyone for their support and confidence. We truly appreciate the faith and kindness we have received since we opened last June. Don't forget our Tax Day giveaway ends this Friday at noon, for your chance to win up to two BC2.0s.

    Be safe, have fun and shoot straight.
    Alan
    Battle Comp Enterprises, LLC
    World Class Tactical Compensators
    California Legal Compensators
    100% American Made
    www.battlecomp.com
    sales@battlecomp.com
    (650) 678-0778

    1 Samuel 17:49 / Romans 13: 1-4 / Isaiah 6:8 / Psalms 144:1 / Matthew 12:30

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •