PDA

View Full Version : Featureless AR Build . . . Battlecomp 2.0?


AAShooter
07-06-2012, 5:16 AM
I am looking at a featureless build using the hammerhead. I am trying to figure out if the upper can have a Battlecomp 2.0 compensator installed and still qualify as featureless.

Any advice?

TZL
07-06-2012, 7:06 AM
Consensus is no b/c of the claimed flash hiding qualities of the battlecomp

Mossy Man
07-06-2012, 7:23 AM
I played it safe. Went with a thread protector.

shadowofnight
07-06-2012, 8:03 AM
I too passed on the battlecomp for my featureless builds, tried one of these...great comp.

http://www.aresarmor.com/install/ecom-prodshow/AA-EFFIN-AC556.html

http://www.predatorarmament.com/product_images/u/484/EFFIN-A_Compensator_Stack_and_Fine_Tune__68849_zoom.jpg


http://cdn5.thefirearmsblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/eacomp-tfb.jpg

AAShooter
07-06-2012, 8:04 AM
I may have to go that route. I was hoping just to move one of my other uppers to a featureless lower when I wanted to go that route. Sounds like a dedicated upper.

Prc329
07-06-2012, 10:51 AM
http://www.parallaxtactical.com/store/parallax-tactical-paracomp-gen2-1-5-muzzle-brake-1-2x28-2250.html

The guys at Ares make some good stuff but I would go with a paracomp.

mif_slim
07-06-2012, 11:01 AM
I always say this but might as well again.... I did stag arms comp to not break the bank at the time...still like it for the price. Can't beat a featureless with a 20 dollar comp....

Make it a 2 chamber and it'll work almost as good at the JP comp.

Chaos47
07-06-2012, 1:32 PM
No go on BC on a featureless.
It is a Flash suppressor as far as CA DOJ (https://sites.google.com/site/featurelessrifleguide/legal-background-for-determining-muzzle-devices) is concerned.

Check out my featureless guide, nearly 100 muzzle devices reviewed for their CA featureless legality.
https://sites.google.com/site/featurelessrifleguide/muzzle-devices

BTW Parallax Tactical ParaComp Gen2 Muzzle Brake is legal, has a similar look, better price, and is from a CA based company!
http://www.parallaxtactical.com/store/bmz_cache/f/fbda3e76156cef15a258c8f5646c51b9.image.234x250.JPG
http://www.parallaxtactical.com/store/parallax-tactical-paracomp-gen2-1-5-muzzle-brake-1-2x28-2250.html

AAShooter
07-06-2012, 1:34 PM
No go on BC on a featureless.
It is a Flash suppressor as far as CA DOJ (https://sites.google.com/site/featurelessrifleguide/legal-background-for-determining-muzzle-devices) is concerned.

Check out my featureless guide, nearly 100 muzzle devices reviewed for their CA featureless legality.
https://sites.google.com/site/featurelessrifleguide/muzzle-devices

BTW Parallax Tactical ParaComp Gen2 Muzzle Brake is legal, has a similar look, better price, and is from a CA based company!
http://www.parallaxtactical.com/store/bmz_cache/f/fbda3e76156cef15a258c8f5646c51b9.image.234x250.JPG
http://www.parallaxtactical.com/store/parallax-tactical-paracomp-gen2-1-5-muzzle-brake-1-2x28-2250.html

Good reference.

The Virus
07-06-2012, 2:24 PM
Consensus is no b/c of the claimed flash hiding qualities of the battlecomp

What is your source on this?

http://battlecomp.com/?page_id=2

There website has no mention of flash hiding.

spdrcr
07-06-2012, 2:27 PM
What is your source on this?

http://battlecomp.com/?page_id=2

There website has no mention of flash hiding.

You must not have read the website very closely then -



with flash comparable to an A2



which we know is a flash suppressor.

There are also many visual video displays available on YouTube

Fate
07-06-2012, 2:40 PM
The Battlecomp website is full of testimonials claiming superior flash suppression. And from their video section: This is the 1.0 which doesn't have the extra flash suppression tangs at the end.

u08yQo-ykgE


Anyone still want to dispute that this doesn't perceptibly reduce flash?

Chaos47
07-06-2012, 2:47 PM
What is your source on this?

http://battlecomp.com/?page_id=2

There website has no mention of flash hiding.

Seriously?

From my guide (https://sites.google.com/site/featurelessrifleguide/muzzle-devices):
Manufacturer Claims / Advertises:
"Minimal Flash Signature" BattleComp Promo Video (http://youtu.be/Kr433ma17a0)

Testimonials Page (http://battlecomp.com/?page_id=18):
“During the night shoots, it has no more flash than the A2.”
“flash comparable to an A2”
“works without the excessive noise and flash usually associated with compensators.”
“flash was similar to an A2”
“it does a MUCH better job controlling noise, blast and flash.”
“Night fire drills resulted in barely any flash”
“I have used another comp from the makers of a top tier flash suppressor and this is much better”

Claims on M4Carbine.net
“The manufacturer labels/markets/sells it as a compensator. In CA, this is sufficient to avoid triggering the evil feature aspect of state AW laws. I have testified as a court-certified expert in assault weapon/AR-15 pattern rifles in a case involving the legal definition of a muzzle brake vs. a flash hider. The primary design intent of the device is recoil and muzzle rise reduction, not flash suppression. It just happens to do a fairly decent job at that, too.”
- Sgt. Patrick Aherne (Unknown Department) Brother of Creator and Affiliated with BattleComp Enterprises, LLC

Claims on M4Carbine.net
“It is a compensator according to the manufacturer and his expert: me.
California law is rather unclear on the matter of what is and is not a flash hider. The best way to determine if the item is a FH or not is what the manufacturer calls the item. The name BattleComp was chosen for a number of reasons, one being that it clearly identifies the item as a compensator and not a flash hider, so that folks in states like CA can have cool stuff that works, too.”
- Sgt. Patrick Aherne

Claims on M4Carbine.net
“According to CA Department of Justice Firearms Bureau Chief Steve Buford, with whom I consulted to confirm Pat's statement; the BattleComp is a CA legal compensator.”
-Owner of BattleComp

Reason:
No CA DOJ letter is publicly available at this time.
Website claims multiple times of its ability to reduce flash
Remember All Flash Suppressors are legal on Magazine Locked rifles in CA notice they do not claim “California Legal Compensator and Muzzle Brake” for featureless rifles

Possible Failure of Both CA DOJ Steps 1 and 2

Heres a video that a Calgunner shot that clearly shows its FH capabilities

z0cW8O7MCSU

Prc329
07-06-2012, 3:03 PM
Seems like this battle comp argument pops up every few days we need a sticky.

AAShooter
07-06-2012, 3:06 PM
It sure would be nice to have a definitive letter from CA DOJ on this.

PEBKAC
07-06-2012, 3:09 PM
It sure would be nice to have a definitive letter from CA DOJ on this.
Might try writing them to ask. They've been more than willing to put their foot in their mouth of late so you might actually get something definitive back. :rolleyes:

Prc329
07-06-2012, 3:11 PM
It sure would be nice to have a definitive letter from CA DOJ on this.


I'd like Angelina Jolie to deliver a million dollars and a fully automatic M14 to my door naked . That will probably happen before we get a DOJ letter.

The Virus
07-06-2012, 3:22 PM
Seriously?

From my guide (https://sites.google.com/site/featurelessrifleguide/muzzle-devices):


Heres a video that a Calgunner shot that clearly shows its FH capabilities

z0cW8O7MCSU

Well there you go.

I do enjoy being educated.

Thank you very much.

AAShooter
07-06-2012, 4:06 PM
I'd like Angelina Jolie to deliver a million dollars and a fully automatic M14 to my door naked . That will probably happen before we get a DOJ letter.

Dang, if I have to choose, I am answering the doorbell instead of checking the mailbox. :D:D

Chaos47
07-06-2012, 5:52 PM
Well there you go.


Sorry that I came out both guns a-blazing.

Just kind of sick of people believing BC's blatant half truth about being a "California Legal Compensator and Muzzle Brake" They are playing fast and loose with people's freedoms so they can make a buck off you.

They know that it has Flash Suppressing ability and have admitted it numerous times in many places.

They claim they know how devices are determined and they claim that naming it a compenstator is enough to make it legal. (it's not)

Either they don't understand the how devices are determined or they some how didn't read the whole thing. Because it would be painfully obvious that its not just about the name but also claims made and the actual design and performance of the device.

In short the CA DOJ’s system for determining a Flash Suppressor is:
1. Examine the device and the claims made by the manufacturer.
If at step 1 the device is found to be a Flash Suppressor there is no need to progress to later steps and the device is determined to be a Flash Suppressor.

2. Test if the device does nonetheless function as a Flash Suppressor
If at step 2 the device is determined “not function to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision” then the device is determined not to be a Flash Suppressor

3. If unable to determine, consult with ATF

It sure would be nice to have a definitive letter from CA DOJ on this.

It would I agree. But unfortunately they have taken the stance that they will not review any product. The only way we will find this stuff out for sure is when someone gets arrested for it and becomes a test case.

Well no such letter has been brought to light and unless there is a major policy change I doubt we ever will see one.

AAShooter
07-06-2012, 6:01 PM
I have a RRA 6-position collapsible stock I plan to pin. Can I simply drill a hole through the stock and buffer tube and fix it in place with a roll pin? Does it have to be pinned/staked "blindly" (i.e. not accessible from both sides)?

I hate the uncertainty of all this stuff. I don't want to rely on judgment calls by local PD's to get this stuff right.

Chaos47
07-06-2012, 8:09 PM
Unfortunately there is nothing to go by to say what is enough.
Folding or Telescoping stock are not even defined in the law.

It is up to each of us to determine what is fixed. Personally I got a Vltor rifle modstock to play it safe (they are a great price and I like the looks too)

Many people consider the method you said enough. Some do it one side blind and some do it thru and thru. Some people even use a set screw and loctite instead of a pin. It's up to you to decide what is safe enough for you.

Prc329
07-06-2012, 8:35 PM
I think where the confusion with battle comp come in when they state it's CA legal. Well it is legal on a fixed mag rifle. Guys wanting to build featureless assume they mean CA legal on a featureless build. Battle comp is correct in saying the comp is CA legal but they never say its CA legal for a featureless build. Many people do not understand what a featureless build is let alone are making products they believe are legal on those configuration. Walk into your local gun store and ask. I bet you get blank faces.

AlexDD
07-06-2012, 8:38 PM
Sorry that I came out both guns a-blazing.




Remember that part about "CA Department of Justice Firearms Bureau Chief Steve Buford" in the above quote from the owner of Battle Comp on M4carbine.net? Allegedly Steve "Buck" Buford is a part owner of Battle Comp!
http://ww.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=8422212&postcount=21

Surely the Cheif of the CA DOJ Firearms bureau could get a letter for his own product seeing he's (part?) owner of Battle Comp right?

Well no such letter has been brought to light and unless there is a major policy change I doubt we ever will see one.


Isn't Buck, Buck Mossie who is a firearms instructor and LEO, designer of the Mossie mount? He is also a mod at m4. He teaches classes in the LA area.

This is the first I have ever heard of another Buck that is involved with Battlecomp.

Chaos47
07-06-2012, 9:36 PM
This is the thread I got that information form:
http://ww.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=8422212#post8422212

702Shooter says he knows who he is and talked to him at a Battle Comp event.
I have never heard of Buck Mossie.

If the information I have is incorrect then I will remove it

Acutally looking back I may have miss read what 702Shooter was saying. And maybe this is the Buck he is talking about