pbkid6974 1 Posted September 30, 2014 I never said it was the best. But it mitigates recoil acceptably and doesn't make you and the guys next to you deaf even tho you have plugs and muffs. Its is a decent all around comp. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vlad G 345 Posted September 30, 2014 And I didn't say it didn't I said it was outclassed. If it works for you, carry on. For me, there are better comps with less legal concerns. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shane45 807 Posted September 30, 2014 pbkid, again your missing the point. The point is not which characteristics you are looking for in a comp. Some offer more muzzle rise and less recoil, some more recoil but less muzzle rise, some are more effective and more side blasty, some less blasty but less effective. The point is you could easily find one that works the same or possibly better with non of the potential risk associated with the BCM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SgtToadette 59 Posted September 30, 2014 What's the risk with the BCM? People use the FSC comps without fear despite the fact that the FS stands for Flash Suppressing. Yeah the law is ambiguous because Flash Hider isn't defined, so there's risk associated with any compensator. I don't see the hesitation with BCM from a legal standpoint. If you want to err on the side of caution don't use a muzzle device at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shane45 807 Posted September 30, 2014 The PWS comps have a leg to stand on because they received a letter from the ATF stating its not a flash hider. The BCM came out post the ATF ending this practice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SgtToadette 59 Posted September 30, 2014 The PWS comps have a leg to stand on because they received a letter from the ATF stating its not a flash hider. The BCM came out post the ATF ending this practice. But how much weight that letter actually carries nobody knows. Nor is it in the majority of comps in having a letter. I still don't get the risk involved with the BCM. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shane45 807 Posted September 30, 2014 It is a letter from a federal agency charged with the laws of firearms after all... Again, the issue is in the description of a brake over a flash hider to LE. A brake is described to them as having a hole slightly larger than the bullet diameter. Not being circular could lead someone to the wrong conclusion. Keep in mind I don't care what anyone chooses for themselves, hopefully from an informed position, but when you advise others, what if it turns out to be bad advice? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SgtToadette 59 Posted September 30, 2014 It is a letter from a federal agency charged with the laws of firearms after all... Again, the issue is in the description of a brake over a flash hider to LE. A brake is described to them as having a hole slightly larger than the bullet diameter. Not being circular could lead someone to the wrong conclusion. Keep in mind I don't care what anyone chooses for themselves, hopefully from an informed position, but when you advise others, what if it turns out to be bad advice? Kinda comes with the territory of taking advice from the internet. The fact is that it's conjecture either way. I don't see the BCM comp as an issue at all, and if people are too scared to risk it I say they avoid comps all together. I don't have to preface everything with IANAL. We're all adults (or oversized children) here. People can make up their minds either way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shane45 807 Posted September 30, 2014 Which is why I asked the question as to what information he was basing his info on. Mine is based on talking to LE INCLUDING those at the NJ state police FIU... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SgtToadette 59 Posted September 30, 2014 Which is why I asked the question as to what information he was basing his info on. Mine is based on talking to LE INCLUDING those at the NJ state police FIU... That's great, but it's not a standard people will be able to apply to every comp on the market for obvious reasons. Since we can't get feedback from the FIU on every comp, we have to use our best judgment. Being a gun owner in this state is in and of itself a risk and I'm not going to work myself up over a comp. Other's can do their research and decide for themselves what level of caution they're comfortable with. You're not wrong at all and I know there are some devices I myself wouldn't use. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shane45 807 Posted September 30, 2014 Sgt, I think we are fully in agreement. I think the key here is we agree on informed decisions on individual acceptable levels of risk. I have concerns about pbkids position and implore him to make sure he gives complete information to those he advises on this particular comp. Regards, Shane Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vladtepes 1,060 Posted September 30, 2014 at the end of the day.. the only thing that matters is the law.. not my opinion.. the opinion of PB... or even the opinion of a single LEO even if they are in the firearms investigation unit... the ONLY thing that matters is this.. "flash hiders" are an "evil feature" NJ law does NOT define "flash hider" those are the facts.. that means that any overzealous LEO, and or prosecutor COULD try to bring a case based on any muzzle device that reduces flash claiming that it is a flash hider.. it will then be on you to argue that it is not.. SO you can do one of the following.. roll the dice.. and play the odds assuming you will never be put in that position or pick a more traditional comp that is obviously a brake and not a hider this horse could be beat to death with a thousand more posts.. but those are the only reliable facts.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,256 Posted October 2, 2014 That's great, but it's not a standard people will be able to apply to every comp on the market for obvious reasons. Since we can't get feedback from the FIU on every comp, we have to use our best judgment. Being a gun owner in this state is in and of itself a risk and I'm not going to work myself up over a comp. Other's can do their research and decide for themselves what level of caution they're comfortable with. You're not wrong at all and I know there are some devices I myself wouldn't use. Well, that's where understanding how comps and flash suppressors work. Comps usually concentrate and redirect gas. Falsh suppressors do one or more of three things: 1) act as a heat sink. 2) turn gas velocity into kinetic energy in the form of sound (i.e. act as a tuning fork). 3) diffuse gas. All of these things take energy, and velocity out of the gas. This reduces flash. The BCM diffuses the gas through slots, and has ribs into the opening that are very similar in positioning, if not in size, to the internal fins on an A2 flash hider. Do I think either of these will work very effectively? No. But there are a ton of comps on the market that don't do this. The PWS FHS mostly just redirects the flash out of the shooters eyes, but it also does a small bit of diffusion with the little "tongues" in the vents that vent the high pressure chamber. Then of course we have the set of guidelines NJSP have said they use, which are pretty sketchy IMO, but the BCM straddles the line of ambiguous. We've also seen NJSP rely on marketing material to make judgements, and BC DOES claim it reduces flash. If judged rationally, I would say 100% a comp that redirects the flash with negligible reduction of said flash. What the powers that be would say? I dunno. If stopped and examined what would the average officer think of it? I also don't know. Would I bother wading into that mess given it's performance and price? No. Does that mean you will get in trouble for it? No, of course not, just like with every ban and restriction before, there's a slew of people who opted to say FU to the law and are keeping their mouths shut. It's surprisingly effective. In general I like to provide the reasoning behind my opinion on why something is gtg or not. I didn't here because we've done that thread already, but the above is my reasoning. If I have to formulate an affirmative defense, the BCM comp doesn't leave me with a solid argument from the realm of physics, nor does it provide a clear defense in terms of the "metrics" (and boy do I use that term loosely) that the NJSP have admitted to using. That leaves the only real opportunity to formulate an affirmative defense to be a multi angle, extended exposure, night shot photo with a scaled grid and measuring flash volume. On this last one I think you could get resonably favorable results based on what I have seen in videos. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob0115 1,105 Posted October 20, 2014 I know that a lot of people depend on PWS FSC compensators having the BATFE letter station it doesn't reduce flash. I don't think that'll be very helpful in a court (of course only my opinion) given the description on the website: http://primaryweapons.com/muzzledevices/fsc/#.VERSPt33aK0 The first thing it says is flash suppressing comoensator. My thought is the product description from the manufacturer will inevitably prevail. The BATFE test was a point in time and who says that the product hasn't changed or the definition of flash suppression? Couple that with the fact that NJ doesn't itself define what they consider the characteristics of a flash hider. I don't car what you have pinned on the end of your barrel on an AR in this state as it could be challenged. I find the BCM product description to be the same. Does that mean I'd tell someone its legal? No. I'm not sure you can say definitely any brake, comp, what have you would be definitively be accepted in NJ as a compensating non-flash hider. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites