Battlecomp Accuracy Testing

**Durham68** · 10-04-10, 11:29

I am excited about the Battlecomp 1.5 as it seems to have all the best attributes of the best brakes around without the noise and concussion that comes with the most efficient brakes. I think it would be the ideal muzzlebrake for my ban compliant BCM 14.5 LW middy.

I asked about any accuracy issues with the BC 1.5 in this thread and Capt. Nick gave a very reasonable response that left me bit wanting.

"As to accuracy, the BattleComp is designed as Close Quarters Combat device. All solid bottom compensators can have some effect on accuracy depending on the load, but 99% of the folks who use the BattleComp for its intended purposes will never -- repeat NEVER notice significant changes in accuracy -- especially if one uses the practical standard of what is acceptable for combat from 100-300 yards.

If it is important to maintain a .5 MOA standard for whatever reason, BCE, LLC recommends the use of a bare, crowned muzzle and NO muzzle attachment."
Capt. Nick

Has anyone who owns a Battlecomp 1.0 or 1.5 done any serious accuracy or point of impact testing?

**jklaughrey** · 10-04-10, 11:43

I think what Capt. Nick was stating is the BC primary focus is intended for a CQB/battle rifle where sub MOA precision is lower on the priority list versus target acquisition and more efficient/effective follow-up shots.

If your intended purpose is an AR platform designed solely for MOA/sub MOA shooting then you would be better served by Capt. Nick's suggestion.

First and foremost an AR is a fighting weapon and should be used and trained with as such...everything else and the varying duties be it DMR/CQB/SPR/impact weapon is a bonus to it's primary configuration.

These are my thoughts on the matter, I hope I captured the spirit of the intent of BCE's line of products.

**Alex V** · 10-04-10, 11:44

good question!

Just ordered one for my SPR... hope I did not f up...

**Durham68** · 10-04-10, 12:05

Originally Posted by jklaughrey

I think what Capt. Nick was stating is the BC primary focus is intended for a CQB/battle rifle where sub MOA precision is lower on the priority list versus target acquisition and more efficient/effective follow-up shots.

If your intended purpose is an AR platform designed solely for MOA/sub MOA shooting then you would be better served by Capt. Nick's suggestion.

I understood the response and appreciate what he said. I am still curious as to the specific impacts the Battlecomp 1.0 and 1.5 have on the accuracy of any given rifle with a variety of bullet weights. If I buy one, I will do the tests myself, but was hoping someone (BCE included) might have done it already.

I know no brake can "do it all" but this will be my only AR for a while and I won't mount a brake that has a significant negative impact on the accuracy of my rifle. I honestly don't know what would be "significant" enough to cause me to buy something else, I just wanted the info so I could make an informed decision.

**jwfuhrman** · 10-04-10, 12:06

I run BC 1.0's on my 12.5in BCM SS410 SBR and my 16in SS410 BCM RECCE(which is also my 3gun rifle). I have not noticed any difference in accuracy at 200yds with both guns.

**jklaughrey** · 10-04-10, 12:17

No problem, I would say go for it and see the effects yourself. And if you don't like it there are plenty out there who would take it off your hands. Or keep it for your next build, maybe in a Kino configuration.

**Alex V** · 10-04-10, 12:19

Originally Posted by jwfuhrman

I run BC 1.0's on my 12.5in BCM SS410 SBR and my 16in SS410 BCM RECCE(which is also my 3gun rifle). I have not noticed any difference in accuracy at 200yds with both guns.

encouraging...

**Durham68** · 10-04-10, 12:29

Originally Posted by jklaughrey

No problem, I would say go for it and see the effects yourself. And if you don't like it there are plenty out there who would take it off your hands. Or keep it for your next build, maybe in a Kino configuration.

That was plan B.