View Full Version : BattleComp vs. Griffin Armament M4-SD Tactical Compensator?
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.
captshiess
04-12-11, 20:49
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.
Mr. Goodtimes
04-12-11, 21:02
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.
PRGGodfather
04-12-11, 21:07
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.
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.
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.`
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.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
04-12-11, 21:30
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.
Belmont31R
04-12-11, 21:31
I like the fit/finish of the BattleComp.
Looks like lots of entries in that market.....I wonder how the new Dynacomp will compare.
How does a muzzle device have good "fit". It either threads on or it doesnt....:confused:
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.
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?
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.
If the BC is quieter, I will pay the extra coin for them (I have a 1.0 and 1.5 now).
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.
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.
militarymoron
04-12-11, 23:01
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.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/militarymoron/griffin.jpg
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.
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.
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 :p
A2 attachment compatibility was probably not a design criteria when BC 1.0 and 1.5 were drawn up.
The BC 2.0 were designed for the Gemtech Halo's
PRGGodfather
04-13-11, 17:20
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
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
04-15-11, 07:53
I'm a big fan of supporting firsts... so BC for me.
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.
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
04-15-11, 12:59
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.
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.
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
04-15-11, 14:49
...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
04-15-11, 15:02
...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.
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.
militarymoron
04-15-11, 15:10
no prob - will do.
I'm a big fan of supporting firsts... so BC for me.
If you want to support firsts, you may want to dig a little deeper into your wallet and give KAC $430 for a Triple Tap brake.
I agree the devices are in a similar class, but none are direct copies of each other, in the same way that the Dynacomp is not at all a copy of our M4SD comp and shouldn't be seen as one.
We live in a world where different products will exist that will have conceptual relation to each other. Take vacuum cleaners, ballpoint pens, engine oil, or lawnmowers as examples.
People will buy the product that is right for them.
MM - I think the comment about never being truly compared to an A2 was a dig. Without that sentence I think HPLLC's post was fine. I wouldn't have posted something that commented on a competitors design personally but it is acceptable to do so. I think it shows bad form. The best companies typically tell you how great their stuff is and don't waste time telling you what is wrong with their competitors (in public at least).
edited. Maybe I was wrong.
My impression was always that from the posts I'd read in long threads about the battle comp and from the videos comparing flash on the BC website, that Battle comp was trying to suggest the BC2.0 compared favorably with the A2 as it relates to flash suppression.
I didn't realize that there was no intention of making that connection, and it was probably the combination of that video and the comments of other posters [not affiliated with battle comp] that gave me that idea.
I just wanted to pass along the results of our testing.
edited. Maybe I was wrong.
My impression was always that from the posts I'd read in long threads about the battle comp and from the videos comparing flash on the BC website, that Battle comp was trying to suggest the BC2.0 compared favorably with the A2 as it relates to flash suppression.
I didn't realize that there was no intention of making that connection, and it was probably the combination of that video and the comments of other posters [not affiliated with battle comp] that gave me that idea.
I just wanted to pass along the results of our testing.
I think the intent may have been to imply that the BC was unlike other comps and more similar to an A2 than traditional comps & their flash characteristics. Its funny, how people perceive things differently. For example, before placing my first order with BC, I looked at the lengthy discussion thread here and numerous online videos. When I received it, the BC performed exactly as I expected it to. Yes, it has slightly more flash than an A2, but MUCH less than any comp I tested or used before buying a BC. And I think that's the point, it does a great job as a comp without the flash & concussion normally associated with an effective comp.
It sounds like the M4-SD may have a greater flash signature, but could be a better option for those who own an A2 compatible suppressor. How would the use of a FH other than an A2 affect a suppressor warranty?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.