BattleComp vs. Griffin Armament M4-SD Tactical Compensator?

[HPLLC]

There are two suppressors I'm aware of that used a gas seal. One was the SWR Renegade's SAI gas seal lock mount. This is probably with little doubt the unit you are referring to as having a pin that goes inside the A2 comp. The "pin" is a funnel shaped device that operates like a tiny air fitting isolating the mounting system from hot exhaust gases.

The other is a patented product that makes use of a collet locking system which is discussed in Neil Parker's book "Firearm Silencer Patents" (this suppressor is probably extremely rare to the extent that I don't know what company ever made it for sale.)

The more common Gemtech, AAC, SRT, and Coastal units do not have that gas seal feature because it is unnecessary for function of the suppressor and is more likely important to the proper function of some mounting systems. In the future we're going to be deleting the forward flash hider stop because it is also unnecessary to function and does reduce compatibility with other devices such as YHM Phantom in favor of slightly enhanced ease of mounting (which I believe is nice to have, but isn't as nice as overall compatibility with market accessories).

If the BC2.0 groove were to be moved forward .025-.030" and made to be .125" minimum width, the device would be most compatible with the greatest number of devices IMO. The OD is also a little on the tighter side at .863, but that is more of an opinion statement as some may like the mounts very tight and others a little less so.

The battle comp videos make the A2 and Battle comp performance seem very similar as it pertains to flash, while our testing did not suggest that. So in that singular respect, it appears that the BC units haven't realistically been compared to A2's.

I do think that there is a lot of room for these devices to be an effective improvement in law enforcement use where gunfights are short, often accompanied by tactical lights and small numbers of foes, and mostly at close distances where rapid incapacitation is most important, but not so much in military use unless accompanied by a sound suppressor for nighttime use.

These devices would probably also be well suited to close protection of executives and diplomats because of their primarily daytime hours of operation and threat conditions that probably nearly mirror those of law enforcement.

[maxwell600]

I'm a big fan of supporting firsts... so BC for me.

[wahoo95]

I'm a big fan of supporting firsts... so BC for me.

So I assume you still drive a Model T...LOL.

No I know what you mean and I love my BC's, but it always nice to see some competition in the marketplace.

[mtdawg169]

So I assume you still drive a Model T...LOL.

No I know what you mean and I love my BC's, but it always nice to see some competition in the marketplace.

Competition is good, but I would recommend that HPLLC stick to discussing the merits of his design and quit comparing his product to the BC. Attempting to tell them how to make their product better or why he thinks it is made wrong, is better left to a private discussion among peers instead of posting here and alluding that his product is better.

BC's policy is a good one.

[militarymoron]

Competition is good, but I would recommend that HPLLC stick to discussing the merits of his design and quit comparing his product to the BC.

the title of this thread is "BattleComp vs. Griffin Armament M4-SD Tactical Compensator?"
any information that answers that question, whether it be from manufacturer or individual, is pertinent to the discussion.

it's natural for folks to ask questions about X vs. Y. as long as the discussion is kept professional (based on features, testing etc), and without blanket statements like 'ours is better', it's fine for manufacturers to chime in on threads asking about their products.

products are not designed in a vacuum, and it's normal for any design/manufacturing company to perform market research and study existing products to ensure that patents are not infringed on, and that some improvement can be made. this would include testing of existing products on the market.

the consumer is always going to ask the questions about X vs Y, just like when the BC first came out; folks were asking how it compared to the KAC TT, since a less expensive to the TT was what folks were looking for. the more information us consumers have, the better we can make our decisions.

[mtdawg169]

the title of this thread is "BattleComp vs. Griffin Armament M4-SD Tactical Compensator?"
any information that answers that question, whether it be from manufacturer or individual, is pertinent to the discussion.

it's natural for folks to ask questions about X vs. Y. as long as the discussion is kept professional (based on features, testing etc), and without blanket statements like 'ours is better', it's fine for manufacturers to chime in on threads asking about their products.

products are not designed in a vacuum, and it's normal for any design/manufacturing company to perform market research and study existing products to ensure that patents are not infringed on, and that some improvement can be made. this would include testing of existing products on the market.

the consumer is always going to ask the questions about X vs Y, just like when the BC first came out; folks were asking how it compared to the KAC TT, since a less expensive to the TT was what folks were looking for. the more information us consumers have, the better we can make our decisions.

Fair enough. The only reason I brought it up is because some of the comments made here, implying that BC has either improperly designed their comp or that they have somehow misrepresented it as having flash hiding capabilities equivalent to the A2. BC has been clear that their comp is a compromise design, offering better flash characteristics than most comps, but it is not as good as a flash hider. Taking these kind of pot shots at a competitor just doesn't sit well with me. Then again, that's just my opinion.

[MistWolf]

From what I understand, while BCE has made statements that the Battlecomps reduce flash as well as an A2 birdcage, they were not designed as flash suppressors but as a muzzle brake while minimizing the commonly encountered sideblast. That's why they are legal in California. Any flash suppression the Battlecomps provide is a happy side affect

[militarymoron]

...implying that BC has either improperly designed their comp...

seems like he was offering up some information about compatibility with different cans, that would help BC.

[militarymoron]

...they have somehow misrepresented it as having flash hiding capabilities equivalent to the A2. BC has been clear that their comp is a compromise design, offering better flash characteristics than most comps, but it is not as good as a flash hider.

as mistwolf pointed out, battlecomp does state that the flash is comparable to an A2.

[mtdawg169]

seems like he was offering up some information about compatibility with different cans, that would help BC.

That may have been the intent, but that's not how it came across to me. I don't want to derail the thread, so please PM me if you think we need to discuss any further.