Featureless AR, muzzle break question

[Grumpyoldretiredcop]

I've been using the YHM 5M1, but it doesn't look like anyone has them in stock.

[strongpoint]

i like my good iron brake from smith enterprises.

[k1dude]

i like my good iron brake from smith enterprises.

How is the muzzle blast and noise with that? I was thinking of the Battle Comp for the lower noise and blast, but they're just too damn expensive.

[strongpoint]

How is the muzzle blast and noise with that? I was thinking of the Battle Comp for the lower noise and blast, but they're just too damn expensive.

nothing that i found offensive, but YMMV. it does a nice job of helping control muzzle rise. smith makes good products that, for some reason, appear to be slightly under the radar.

[Chaos47]

I was thinking of the Battle Comp for the lower noise and blast, but they're just too damn expensive.

Not trying to start a debate but most will agree that by the way the CA DOJ would define a flash hider that the Battle Comp would be considered a FH and not a MB. This only matters on featureless builds though..

That being said there are other similar options that are "cheaper" and are MB's

Spikes Tactical Dynacomp

http://www.spikestactical.com/new/z/muzzle-device-spikes-dynacomp-short-556-p-722.html

Griffen Armament M4SD (I remember it being cheaper.. maybe it went up)

http://griffinarmament.com/accessories/

[strongpoint]

Not trying to start a debate but most will agree that by the way the CA DOJ would define a flash hider that the Battle Comp would be considered a FH and not a MB.

elaborate, please -- it doesn't appear at all like a flash hider to me. (BCE's website calls it a "California Legal Compensator and Muzzle Brake," which is of course worth nothing on its own, but does go to how the company views its own device.)

[Chaos47]

They can claim that it is a "California Legal Compensator and Muzzle Brake" which it is for a Magazine locked rifle.
Notice they do not say California Legal Compensator and Muzzle Brake for featureless builds anywhere on their site.

Basically it comes down to that they have made claims that it functions as a flash hider. Silly I know but you know how California is...

Follow the link to see it in a better format and links to the original files so you can read it for yourself

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=14Sc8MNP9AO6JgHxcnqm5oR45LDLIhpqeBHsCN8-K4XU&pli=1

Flash Suppressor
VS
Compensator / Brake

978.20 Definitions
(b) “flash suppressor” means any device designed, intended, or that functions to
perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter’s field of vision.
From SB23 (PDF)


During Hunt v Lockyer it was determined that:
1. That the DOJ’s definition of “flash suppressor” exceeded the authority granted to them by the legislature.
2. That the definition of “flash suppressor” was unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous.


Durring the trial the DOJ filed a declaration by DOJ Special Agent Ignatius (Iggy) Chinn
Hunt v. Lockyer Declaration of DOJ Special Agent Ignatius Chinn (PDF)

Quote from Ignatuis Chinn’s Declaration:
7. Accordingly, DOJ determines whether a particular feature or device is a flash suppressor as defined in section 978.20(b) by inspecting the device, reviewing material regarding the device provided by the manufacturer or otherwise, and/or consulting with ATF. In particular, DOJ determines whether a particular device is a flash suppressor under the regulatory definition by following a step-by-step analysis. In nearly all instances to date, DOJ has been able to determine that the device in question is a flash suppressor in the initial stage of the analysis, without needing to proceed further in the determination process.
8. The first step is determination of whether the device in question is designed or intended to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision. The assigned Firearms Division personnel examine the device and review material produced by the manufacturer of the device to see what the manufacturer has said publicly about its designed or intended uses for the device. Manufacturer materials reviewed can include brochures and packaging provided with the device, advertising materials, websites, and point-of-sale or other marketing materials. If it is determined that the device in question was designed or intended to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision, then the device is determined to be a flash suppressor, and the inquiry is at an end.
9. If however, it is determined that the device in question was not designed or intended to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision, then the analysis proceeds to a determination of whether the device nonetheless functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision. If it is determined that the device in question does 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, and the inquiry is at an end.
10. If, however, at this stage, Firearms Division personnel were unable to determine whether a particular device functions to perceptibly reduce or redirect muzzle flash from the shooter's field of vision based on inspection of the device, they would consult with ATF.


So 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 Hider
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

BattleComp (1.0, 1.5, 2.0)

Risky at Best probably NO-GO (Highly Debated)
Manufacturer Designation: “California Legal Compensator and Muzzle Brake”
Manufacturer Claims / Advertises:
"Minimal Flash Signature" BattleComp Promo Video
Testimonials Page:
“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

[strongpoint]

well-documented. thanks for the info.

[Chaos47]

No problem!
Can't take all the credit, some of the basis of my guide is inspired from information posted by calguns user "Fate"

[k1dude]

That being said there are other similar options that are "cheaper" and are MB's

Spikes Tactical Dynacomp

http://www.spikestactical.com/new/z/muzzle-device-spikes-dynacomp-short-556-p-722.html

Griffen Armament M4SD (I remember it being cheaper.. maybe it went up)
http://griffinarmament.com/accessories/

The Spikes is $90. The Griffin is $130 - about the same as a Battle Comp.

I was aware of the Spikes, but the Smith is only $60, which is a lot cheaper.