View Full Version : Battlecomp Accuracy Testing
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 (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=60646&page=8) 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.
good question!
Just ordered one for my SPR... hope I did not f up...
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.
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.
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...
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.
jklaughrey
10-04-10, 12:33
Always have a Plan B, sometimes C. Besides Plan A never works anyways LOL.
My problem is that in NJ the muzzle device has to be perm'ed on a threaded bbl. So there is no plan B lol. Once I install it, its on there for good.
My problem is that in NJ the muzzle device has to be perm'ed on a threaded bbl. So there is no plan B lol. Once I install it, its on there for good.
You can take it off again. It ruins the comp, but does not hurt the barrel, so if you change your name on what comp you want on your gun, it's not that big a deal.
You can take it off again. It ruins the comp, but does not hurt the barrel, so if you change your name on what comp you want on your gun, it's not that big a deal.
$155 oops however... lol
Eh... Im looking for anything under 1moa at 100 yards with factory match ammo. Nothing special :eek:
I just finished an MA-TEN 16" Noveske rifle build.
I put a BABC on it. I know I can expect sub-MOA out of that barrel with FGGM 168gr ammo, period. Assuming I do my part.
If I'm not getting those results, I'll pull the BABC off and try again.
I'm shooting it for the first time tomorrow and will post up my findings.
I bet we find they have minimal impact on accuracy. If they do I will install a lock nut to torque against and adjust to find a sweet spot. You could always pin it once you "tuned" it a little at that point. Just a thought.
I just finished an MA-TEN 16" Noveske rifle build.
I put a BABC on it. I know I can expect sub-MOA out of that barrel with FGGM 168gr ammo, period. Assuming I do my part.
If I'm not getting those results, I'll pull the BABC off and try again.
I'm shooting it for the first time tomorrow and will post up my findings.
This is the kind of thing I was hoping for. I think the impact will be much less on your rifle due to the size of the projectile. I'm still hoping for input like this for 5.56 rounds.
Capt.Nick BCE
10-04-10, 15:39
Hello gents,
Thanks for all the informative and honest back-and-forth on the long-range accuracy issue. I will have some additional accuracy testing information before the end of this week. Preliminarily, I can tell you that I fired a 20-round (!) 100 yard group with my personal AR which, at the time of the testing, had a BCM 16" middy upper, stock nasty trigger, and 1.5 power compact ACOG. The group measured about 1.6". I wasn't particularly taking my time with each shot nor was I nicely sandbagged.
More importantly, as many of you have said, the BattleComp is NOT supposed to be a sniper rifle accessory. It is for CQB. We would prefer that folks send us back their BattleComps for a full refund before firing rather than have anyone be dissappointed because their rifles lost .5 MOA after installation. Customer satisfaction is our primary goal. We try very hard not to make any claims about our products that are not supported by facts and real-world feedback from end-users, and we aren't going to change in that regard.
Thanks again for all your support,
Nick
jklaughrey
10-04-10, 15:47
No worries Capt. most people know the true intended nature behind the BC, both in form and function. You guys are tops with the CS and support.
I just finished an MA-TEN 16" Noveske rifle build.
I put a BABC on it. I know I can expect sub-MOA out of that barrel with FGGM 168gr ammo, period. Assuming I do my part.
If I'm not getting those results, I'll pull the BABC off and try again.
I'm shooting it for the first time tomorrow and will post up my findings.
Looking forward to your results
Hello gents,
Thanks for all the informative and honest back-and-forth on the long-range accuracy issue. I will have some additional accuracy testing information before the end of this week.
Thank you for your active involvement on this forum and your willingness to answer all of our questions. It is one more reason I am interested in your product.
We would prefer that folks send us back their BattleComps for a full refund before firing rather than have anyone be dissappointed because their rifles lost .5 MOA after installation.
That is exactly why I am asking the question before I buy a BC 1.5. I think you have a good product, but it may not fit my list of wants for the rifle I am putting together. I'd rather find out first.
Hello gents,
Thanks for all the informative and honest back-and-forth on the long-range accuracy issue. I will have some additional accuracy testing information before the end of this week. Preliminarily, I can tell you that I fired a 20-round (!) 100 yard group with my personal AR which, at the time of the testing, had a BCM 16" middy upper, stock nasty trigger, and 1.5 power compact ACOG. The group measured about 1.6". I wasn't particularly taking my time with each shot nor was I nicely sandbagged.
More importantly, as many of you have said, the BattleComp is NOT supposed to be a sniper rifle accessory. It is for CQB. We would prefer that folks send us back their BattleComps for a full refund before firing rather than have anyone be dissappointed because their rifles lost .5 MOA after installation. Customer satisfaction is our primary goal. We try very hard not to make any claims about our products that are not supported by facts and real-world feedback from end-users, and we aren't going to change in that regard.
Thanks again for all your support,
Nick
For those that have been shot and the owner disatisfied you can then forward the returns my way, Nick. ;)
I ordered a v1.5 and cannot wait to install and try it out. The observed minimal recoil and claimed blast effects make it damned near perfect for a Home Defense carbine.
Okay, so the question should be; Will the Battlecomp 1.5 impact accuracy anymore than other muzzle brakes?
Okay, so the question should be; Will the Battlecomp 1.5 impact accuracy anymore than other muzzle brakes?
Fair point. Does anyone know the answer to that?
On the other hand, BCE is the only company I am aware of that cautions against light weight projectiles with words like "a baffle strike becomes possible". This makes me think that the BC 1.0 and 1.5 change bullet trajectory more than the average brake. Then again, I don't know squat, which is why I come here to ask you fellas who actually own/shoot/produce the things.
...or 1.5 done any serious accuracy or point of impact testing?
I have a 1.0 which replaced an A2 and I noted a POI shift of about 1.5" @ 50 yards. However, the POI change was not unexpected or an issue. Any time that a muzzle device is swapped the barrel harmonics and gas pressures on the bullet are changed and the POI is likely to change. Accuracy for my type of shooting remained the same. This is on a BCM 16" mid.
Capt. Nick was kind enough to take the time to do some accuracy testing in response to my questions. He posted the following in the "Battlecomp Teaser Pics" thread recently.
Hello everyone,
I spent some time at the range this morning to do a little accuracy testing of a couple of BC-equipped carbines since a few folks have been wondering about it. Let's begin by reiterating that the BattleComp was designed as a CQB device and NOT a sniper rifle accessory. OK, here's the preliminary stuff: Date: 10-08-10, Coyote Point Range in San Mateo, CA. 55F, no wind, 50 ft MSL. All shooting done at 100 yards from a bench and off a backpack.
Carbine #1: Olympic Arms lower, Bravo Company 16" middy upper. Chambered in 5.56mm NATO. 1-7 twist. Equipped with BC 1.0. I highjacked the Leupold 3X9 in a LaRue SPR mount off my homemade DMR-wannabe and did not rezero it for this test since it has already been put back on the rifle it lives on. I was only firing for groups. Thanks to the quality of the LaRue mount, it was only about a 6" different POI than when mounted on the other rifle with no adjustments made. I used 75 grain Hornady TAP (5.56) and Federal Tactical Tru Shok 64 grain SP (.223). Any "typos" written on the targets are mine. Shooter: Me
Results: Groups ranging from .56 MOA to .80 MOA.
Carbine #2: LaRue Stealth upper equipped with BC 1.0. Optic was 3.5X ACOG. Giselle trigger, fixed stock. Ammo was Hornady 75 Grain TAP (.223) Shooter: Scott Fritz (one of my snipers)
Results: 5-shot rapid fire group (5 shots in 5 seconds) nicely centered and measuring about .85 MOA.
These results indicate to us that the concerns expressed over adverse accuracy problems with the BattleComp were unfounded. If sub-MOA groups out of a fighting carbine aren't good enough, perhaps a dedicated sniper rifle is what is called for.
Thank you all for your continued support!
Capt. Nick
(Hopefully I can figure out how to attach some photos to this post.)
I am encouraged by the results overall, but the heart of the question was left unanswered. I was really looking to see if anyone has done or is willing to do a before BC1.5 vs. after BC1.5 accuracy comparison in the same rifle, with a variety of bullet weights. I knew it was a lot to expect, but a man can dream, can't he?
It looks like I will have to buy one and test it myself if I want the answer. Thanks to everyone for the input.
I'm going to dig up this old thread to see if a "before/after" on the same platform was ever demonstrated.
After installing a BABC on my MWS, I noticed improved accuracy from the rifle. I went from 1.5 MOA to 1 MOA at 200yd with cheap factory ammo. I believe the results are due to a more comfortable shooting weapon, since I was anticipating recoil and muzzle jump with the A2 flash hider.
The Battlecomp really enhanced my performance with the rifle and I'm pleased with the purchase.
After installing a BABC on my MWS, I noticed improved accuracy from the rifle. I went from 1.5 MOA to 1 MOA at 200yd with cheap factory ammo. I believe the results are due to a more comfortable shooting weapon, since I was anticipating recoil and muzzle jump with the A2 flash hider.
The Battlecomp really enhanced my performance with the rifle and I'm pleased with the purchase.
It could also be that the different weight of the BABC happened to 'tune' your barrel to the accuracy node of the factory ammo you're using.
So despite the fact that linear-type comps like the BC do not actually reduce recoil (due to lack of rearward facing ports), you are experiencing less perceived recoil/ more pleasant recoil?
It could also be that the different weight of the BABC happened to 'tune' your barrel to the accuracy node of the factory ammo you're using.
So despite the fact that linear-type comps like the BC do not actually reduce recoil (due to lack of rearward facing ports), you are experiencing less perceived recoil/ more pleasant recoil?
Yes, perceived recoil. With the stock flash hider, the muzzle would really jump when shooting from the bench or prone. Now with the BABC, the rifle is much more comfortable due to the reduction in muzzle rise.
It could also be that the different weight of the BABC happened to 'tune' your barrel to the accuracy node of the factory ammo you're using.
So despite the fact that linear-type comps like the BC do not actually reduce recoil (due to lack of rearward facing ports), you are experiencing less perceived recoil/ more pleasant recoil?
The harmonics thing is an excellent point.
I'm somewhat interested in trying a BABC on a bolt gun (in my perfect world, they'd make a version of the BC with no holes on top, just equal holes on either side -- for precision rifle from a supported position, I don't want any net thrust from the muzzle device, just the recoil reduction, definitely want to keep the BC's lack of "blast" though).
If I get around to doing so, my test plan will be to work up a load both with and without the BC installed -- I handload for my bolt gun, so I judge accuracy in terms of the best load I can work up in a particular configuration with the bullet I want to use.
How the device effects the accuracy of one particular load means nothing to me, and in my opinion is not indicative of the true "accuracy effects" of the device.
RogerinTPA
12-29-10, 22:46
I'm very interest to know what kind of feedback BattleComp recieved when they T&E'd them. Anyone at BCE care to share?
PRGGodfather
12-29-10, 23:37
SOCOM has about 4,000 rounds through their T&E BC1.0, but several deployments disrupted their training cycle. They advised they expected to have complete results by February.
Since SOCOM is doing us a favor by doing a longevity test, we really can't press them to go faster. So far, reviews have been very favorable, and we have positive reviews from members of the 82nd Airborne and SEAL Team 5, as well as Team Viper in Arizona.
I am told our review on Military Times is pending, and that David Fortier is reviewing us for Guns & Ammo. We don't have any hard dates when to expect anything, and it's not our style to push folks evaluating our kit.
Rob S. also has a T&E model to be tested during his scientific testing, and I am sure he will post his results once he is finished with his "sled."
Simply, we're very happy with all of the BCE models we have on our own personal guns, and with nearly 3,000 BCE units sold since we opened just this last May, we're inclined to believe a lot of folks agree. Our claims are based on our personal observations, and so far our observations are about 99.9% consistent with our customers' own experiences.
Of course, as always, BattleComps aren't for everyone -- and truthfully, we didn't design them for bolt guns per se. It doesn't mean they won't work or that the technology won't translate -- it's just that we had the BSA and CQB philosophies in mind when the BC1.0 was designed, and our accuracy testing has shown our personal ARs are STILL printing sub-MOA after mounting. Given combat accuracy is more like "minute of soccer ball," we feel the BC's impact on overall accuracy is negligible; although as always, YMMV.
Happy New Year!
eternal24k
12-30-10, 10:08
SOCOM has about 4,000 rounds through their T&E BC1.0, but several deployments disrupted their training cycle. They advised they expected to have complete results by February.
Since SOCOM is doing us a favor by doing a longevity test, we really can't press them to go faster. So far, reviews have been very favorable, and we have positive reviews from members of the 82nd Airborne and SEAL Team 5, as well as Team Viper in Arizona.
I am told our review on Military Times is pending, and that David Fortier is reviewing us for Guns & Ammo. We don't have any hard dates when to expect anything, and it's not our style to push folks evaluating our kit.
Rob S. also has a T&E model to be tested during his scientific testing, and I am sure he will post his results once he is finished with his "sled."
Simply, we're very happy with all of the BCE models we have on our own personal guns, and with nearly 3,000 BCE units sold since we opened just this last May, we're inclined to believe a lot of folks agree. Our claims are based on our personal observations, and so far our observations are about 99.9% consistent with our customers' own experiences.
Of course, as always, BattleComps aren't for everyone -- and truthfully, we didn't design them for bolt guns per se. It doesn't mean they won't work or that the technology won't translate -- it's just that we had the BSA and CQB philosophies in mind when the BC1.0 was designed, and our accuracy testing has shown our personal ARs are STILL printing sub-MOA after mounting. Given combat accuracy is more like "minute of soccer ball," we feel the BC's impact on overall accuracy is negligible; although as always, YMMV.
Happy New Year!
congrats, that is very exciting for your guys. Looking forward to reading some results..
RogerinTPA
12-30-10, 20:06
Thanks for the update PRGGodfather. I'm looking forward to reading those reviews. I think we as Battlecomp owners have put it through the ringer ourselves, but I am curious as to what SOF users think.
On a separate issue, would the device be compromised or it's current characteristics diminished, if you guys could reduce the flash signature to an A2 FH?
PRGGodfather
12-30-10, 22:19
It's kind of a balancing act, and what we gained in one area, we often lost in another. Given that ammunition selection (milspec ammunition with flash retardant) can reduce the flash to almost nil (in many cases we got NO flash with the BC and good ammo), we went with the current config to give us as much as we could in the major areas of muzzle rise, recoil, flash and concussion.
When we tried to reduce the flash more, we gave up some compensation, and when we wanted more compensation, we increased the flash. Head to head with an A2 we found the flash is comparable -- although since the BattleComp works like much the first baffle of a suppressor -- once the barrel and gas tube get really hot, the first round after a pause in the action tends to be brighter (and inconsistent ammunition creates the occasional fireball, even with the A2). This first flash after the pause artifact is consistent with many suppressors as they get hot, too.
It's not a perfect device, but for what we intended it -- CQB and BSA -- it was a well-rounded balance of what we wanted in a device; so we could get more rounds on target in a shorter amount of time without significant increases in flash, sound or concussion.
If you want a device to really do it all (we do have a working BC model that actually eliminates flash, but producing it affordably is a bear), the answer for most folks is a true sound suppressor, and even that will increase OAL and POI shift. AND, as we found from our HALO testing -- once you mount the can, the muzzle will rise more than with the BattleComp 2.0 alone...
And yes, Marty wants to make BattleComp that does it all. He might just pull it off.
YMMV.
It's kind of a balancing act, and what we gained in one area, we often lost in another. Given that ammunition selection (milspec ammunition with flash retardant) can reduce the flash to almost nil (in many cases we got NO flash with the BC and good ammo), we went with the current config to give us as much as we could in the major areas of muzzle rise, recoil, flash and concussion.
When we tried to reduce the flash more, we gave up some compensation, and when we wanted more compensation, we increased the flash. Head to head with an A2 we found the flash is comparable -- although since the BattleComp works like much the first baffle of a suppressor -- once the barrel and gas tube get really hot, the first round after a pause in the action tends to be brighter (and inconsistent ammunition creates the occasional fireball, even with the A2). This first flash after the pause artifact is consistent with many suppressors as they get hot, too.
It's not a perfect device, but for what we intended it -- CQB and BSA -- it was a well-rounded balance of what we wanted in a device; so we could get more rounds on target in a shorter amount of time without significant increases in flash, sound or concussion.
If you want a device to really do it all (we do have a working BC model that actually eliminates flash, but producing it affordably is a bear), the answer for most folks is a true sound suppressor, and even that will increase OAL and POI shift. AND, as we found from our HALO testing -- once you mount the can, the muzzle will rise more than with the BattleComp 2.0 alone...
And yes, Marty wants to make BattleComp that does it all. He might just pull it off.
YMMV.
Wow, awesome post - thanks for the info! I've got a either a BC or BABC on every AR I own. They're amazing, simply put. Keep up the good work and keep pushing yourselves!
$155 oops however... lol
Eh... Im looking for anything under 1moa at 100 yards with factory match ammo. Nothing special :eek:
Take the rifle, and the battle comp to a range in a neighboring state, assemble, test fire, disassemble and go home?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.