I got a good deal on a nice upper with a permanently attached Battlecomp 1.5 muzzle break....anybody have any experience with these muzzle breaks using a pvs-14?

-will the flash hurt the monocular under rapid fire?

-will the flash kill my exposed eye natural dark adaptation?

-is it worth sending to a smith to cut it off and add a FS?

-if the role of the carbine is just occassional use at night and a low round count, is the MB a practical option?

The monoculars I use are ITT Night Enforcers and TNVC L3 WP.

I can't answer on whether or not it will damage the NOD, I can say that I would have it cut off and a new device pinned and welded. JMHO.

@TNVC_Clasky
@TNVC_Sam
@Augee
Might have better answers

I can't say that I ever recall shooting with NODs with a Battlecomp, so I can't necessarily answer any of the specifics about that particular muzzle device...

Long story short, though--every light exposure is technically "damaging" your tube, that's why they have finite lifespans, and that's why it's recommended that you look at as few bright lights as possible with them.  That being said, I've also gone from utter darkness into brightly lit conditions with my NODs still on, and I've transitioned from NV to white light with my NODs still on before, too.  With good, gated tubes, it shouldn't be a huge issue, especially if it's going to be infrequent as you seem to imply.  

As to your other question about dark adaptation... on the one hand, I think the "blinding flash!" concern is vastly overblown by a lot of people who are impressed with high speed photographs of muzzle flashes that turn night into day, thinking that it's going to be like someone popped a flashbulb in your face, but camera flashes are actually designed to be relatively slow compared to a muzzle flash.  

At the same time--why wouldn't you want to minimize your muzzle flash as much as possible--especially if you're shooting at night?  Sure, you can work through muzzle flashes with NODs on--but less flash is still better than more flash, and while changes in your level of dark adaptation may not be as drastic as some seem to believe they are--it's also just as foolish to think that the flash will have no effect on your dark adaptation.  

As for your other questions...?

Yes, I would cut that thing off--but I'm not an advocate of muzzle brakes on carbines.  I know they've been hot for the last couple of years and everyone's on the "tactical flash comp" train... it's just not for me.  Send me an upper with a Battlecomp on it, and I'll show you an upper that's about to get a new muzzle device.

Of course--that leads to my other point... because honestly now, that new muzzle device is probably going to be a suppressor mount.   Get a can if you can, and it will make the rest of your questions a total non-issue.  

~Augee

Brakes on a 556 are a complete waste of $. Stick to an a2 flash hider or whatever sort of muzzle attachment is needed for the suppressor of your choice. I have been there with fancy muzzle devices, what a waste of my money.

Editing to add relevancy. The comp will not hurt night vision.

Good to know. I'm considering running a BC on a future night vision set up as well.

Awesome, thanks for the confirmation.

We will disagree this point. For some heavier calibers I think comps/brakes/fh are very effective. For the 5.56, I have tried many good and reputable muzzle devices and outside of proprietary suppressor adaptors, the only fh I use anymore is the A2. Nothing did enough more than the A2 to justify the cost.

I edited my previous post to provide an answer to the actual question.

I don't understand the viewpoint you and some others holding regard to recoil. Flash signature, yes.  But not recoil.

Sure, 5.55 recoil isn't as forceful as bigger calibers but why wouldn't you want to eliminate as much recoil from your shot as possible? It's almost all benefit with very little drawback. At least in most instances.

And I'm not sure if you're assuming but there are devices out that that beat the A2 in regards to felt recoil by up to 90%. That's huge. Not to mention a decent one can be had for around $17.

Search google and YouTube to see more than one test on the subject.

Having said this I run either a can or an A2 to minimize my signature as much as possible.

Brakes and compensators come with significant drawbacks.  More than flash, blast, concussion, and noise are all significant drawbacks in a fighting gun that may be used in close proximity to teammates and/or inside structures, some of which can echo badly, making it even more of an issue--ever shot a comp'ed gun in a small bay at an indoor range?  Shorter barrels make it worse.  

"Felt recoil" with 5.56 fired from a fully equipped fighting gun is a little bit of a red herring, once LAMs and lights come into play, they tend to be pretty front heavy anyways, with a proper firing grip and control of the weapon, even a "90% reduction" is really kind of a minor difference--we're not talking about slicked down lightweight guns, I've fired ARs that I thought were "too light" up front that had some pretty "snappy" muzzle flip because I felt they were poorly balanced--but we're talking about things like a pencil barreled Colt 653 (M16A1 Carbine) replica here.  Beyond that, I don't take my shooting lessons from Google and YouTube.  

I know a lot of folks these days are really enamored with their "tactical flash comps," so I'm sure many will disagree with me.  That being said--there's a reason that almost every "staple" of competition guns has "made the jump" in one way or another onto fighting guns in the last couple of decades--from red dot sights, to free float handguards, to overhand grips, and beyond--except for compensators and brakes.  No, they're not totally unknown on serious fighting guns (I'm talking about 5.56 carbines specifically here)... but they're exceedingly rare compared to other former competition stables now frequently used on fighting guns.  

I know a lot of really experienced trainers have begun advocating for them as well--but by and large, those guys have been out for ten years or more, tend to run lighter-weight guns these days--often linked to one manufacturer or another, and often run 16" guns (or 14.5" pinned) so that they don't have to file 5320.20s whenever they go teach a class somewhere besides their home states.  Without taking anything away from their experience and the knowledge they have to offer, they have essentially become professional exhibition shooters whose income depends on them not only shooting good--but looking good while doing it, to entice you into paying them money in the hopes that you too, can one day shoot like them.  

About the only reason to have a brake/compensator on a fighting carbine (5.56), IMHO, is if you plan to run it 100% suppressed, and you're only using the muzzle device as a sacrificial blast baffle.  

This is my opinion.  Clearly there will be folks who disagree, while there may be others that agree.  My opinion could change tomorrow if I tried a new muzzle device that made my carbine feel like an airsoft gun that's not louder and... "blastier" than a good flash suppressor... but I haven't met one yet, and for the near term--I doubt I will.  

~Augee

In regards to the efficacy of muzzle devices, Vuurwapen blog had the best actual data on this I've seen: AR-15 Muzzle Device Comparison

Since this seems to be about a Battlecomp vs A2, let's look at that in particular:

The A2 vastly outperforms the BC for muzzle flash (no surprise):


When comparing rearward G force, the BC is slightly better, but not by much at all:


When comparing the BC with the A2 for downward force (arguably more important than rearward for follow up shots), they're practically tied:


The BC also scores much higher on sound pressure level. I don't personally see any way in which the BC would be preferable to the performance of an A2. If recoil force is your only concern, another brake would have more drastic results, and may be worth it. But the A2 performs well in all categories, including cost. I'll be sticking with the A2 as a muzzle device, and agree with other posters here that the data doesn't back up the claims of "90% reduction" for brakes. Look at the chart at the end of the article; even the best performing brakes don't get 50% off the recoil force of an A2.

If we are all talking 5.56mm here then, yes there is a significantly measured recoil but it is light enough that grip and stance and balance of the gun eat most of it. What is left over afterwards is minimal. I would not trade mitigation of that leftover recoil impulse for having my bro at my shoulder. That was the cost when I tried to run comps. If you are never going to shoot as a team then maybe it's irrelevant - but not to me.

I put my focus on rapidly acquiring my NPA so my grip and stance follow - pop, pop, pop and scoot. Sometimes, I admit, it gets ugly depending on how I have to work a barrier but, for the most part, 5.56mm lets me not worry about it.

5.56mm is far from a perfect round but I think it's closer to perfection than anything else. We give up a lot of advantages we could have had with other rounds so we don't have to worry about things like this. If we were going to wrap ourselves around the axle trying to eliminate the recoil from a round that already has so little recoil then we may as well have started with a larger round... and then we start all over.

This is eye opening and I have my fair share of brakes. May need to re-evaluate on the next build.

Like Augee said, it really depends on the balance and weight of the gun. I have a pretty lightweight BCM midlength where the A2 works fine. Conversely I have a heavier LMT that has a 16" carbine gas system with over 21k through it and it's very jumpy with an A2. It feels way overgassed at this point, probably due to gas port erosion. With a griffin flashcomp that thing shoots perfectly flat now. The flashcomp increases rearward recoil. Not all brakes reduce recoil. I didn't care about reducing recoil, just muzzle climb. Remember muzzle climb and recoil are not the same thing.

So you choose to highlight and stick by the one test that backs up your claim and ignores the others.  You're trying to argue physics. The link you provided onlyvtested a couple devices relative to the dozens tested in my link. And this is only one part of a three part test. Bottom line, they work. A lot.

Im sorry 73% it's been a while I remembered 90%



Getting your sights back on target is a huge benefit.

It's louder? This one is subjective because I hear people complain about it to no end and some dont think it's that bad.  You already have ear protection on. I never got this argument.

For the record the only break I run is the QD mount for my can for my 10.5. And without the can on it, it kicks like a mule even with a dbal d2 and a big Olight m22 warrior and quad rail on it.

Not to mention the best part of a break. When I'm forced to go to the range instead of the desert the tables on either side of me clear out

Clearly you don't get it...  

You answered yourself:

If you don't intend to ever fight as part of the team, and are only ever going to shoot in the wide open desert, then have at it, it's not not an issue for you and what you do.  If you ever will, might, or do, have to fight with others in close quarters, however, you will find that even if it doesn't bother you--and possibly doesn't bother you while you're behind the gun, it will bother those around you and those beside the gun.  

It's "brake," by the way.

If you understand the way muzzle brakes and compensators work--then you understand that the more effective it is, the more annoying it must necessarily be to be around, because the effects of the brake/comp are directly related to the way it redirects gases to "push" the weapon in one direction or another.  

The blast produced is unnecessarily loud, annoying, and even potentially dangerous to team members in close quarters in a way that flash suppressors or even flash hiders/diverters/linear comps are not.  If nothing else, running a brake/compensator will make you an extremely unpopular team member to be around--imagine, if your brake/compensator is clearing other shooters away from one bench over at a public range, conceivably, they too are wearing hearing protection--how they would feel about it if they had to be shoulder to shoulder with you.  A brake could reduce felt recoil and muzzle flip of the 5.56 by 100%, and it still wouldn't be worth having you stand next to me as opposed to another dude running an A2, which while "classified" as a compensator, is a fairly traditional flash suppressor design, and is considered as such by just about every one, because it just doesn't provide that much of a practical advantage, regardless of what its "theoretical" or "on paper advantages may be.  The brake/comp may allow you to put follow-up shots on target .05 seconds faster--but if it rattles my brain so much that I lose focus on my sector of fire and fail to engage my targets in a critical entry scenario, it's a liability for both of us.  

I'd rather learn to manage the recoil and flip of the rifle without a brake/comp, than to insist on using one, only to find that no one wants to be anywhere near me when the shooting starts because I'm an inconsiderate asshole.  

Back to these expensive, super duper tactical flash comps--if all you're doing is shooting alone in the desert, then why bother with half-measures and shitty compromise designs?  Buy a $30 Miculek brake that will make your rifle float, and save the rest of the cost of a Battlecomp for ammunition.  

And if you're only using a brake/comp as a mount for a can--cool, I got it, and for many people it makes sense--use the brake as a sacrificial blast baffle to increase your can's life, it's fine, if you intend to run your gun 100% suppressed at all times.  For a fighting gun, though, 100% suppressed is rarely a practical way to do things.  I love cans, I love shooting with them, I love using them, but they, like everything else, are a "time and a place" item.  There may be situations where you cannot, or it may not be practical or necessary to use the can.

Sometimes having the much shorter, lighter gun may be more of an asset than having it be quieter.  The suppressor might be off for repair/maintenance/servicing.  CONUS, the reality is, you might be in a place where it's simply not legal to have.  Also, regardless of what silencer manufacturers will try to sell you--using a suppressor will make your weapon less reliable.  That doesn't mean there aren't extremely reliable suppressor/rifle combinations--but all things being equal, a gun without a can will function more reliably than one with one, unless that weapon is a true dedicated suppressed weapon, which usually almost always means either an integral or direct thread can, and a weapon that literally won't run unsuppressed.  

~Augee

Not as good as a FS but should be sufficient for what you want it to do.  I had one for a few years...shot with it with NV 2 times.  My best advice is test it...then decide.  Better yet test it and have another option available to test...even a standard A2.  Then decide if any gain in performance is worth the price.