Brownells 75th Anniversary - A Shooting Heritage

Shooting the Breeze with John Stankewicz of Battle Comp Enterprises


Shooting the Breeze

Battle Comp Enterprises, LLC, designed the Battle Comp muzzle device to virtually eliminate the crushing side blast and concussion common to most muzzle brakes.  This allows police partners and military personnel to deploy their rifles side-by-side, improving their rate of accurate fire without disrupting the shooter right next to them, no matter how close.

John M. Stankewicz, Vice President of Operations for Battle Comp, has both a military and law enforcement background.  John is a US Navy veteran and currently serves as the Commander of his local Veterans of Foreign Wars Post.  With over 14 years in law enforcement, John served as a Range Master, Patrol Rifle Instructor, Armorer, Active Shooter Instructor and Chief Firearms Instructor.

Thanks for Shooting the Breeze with John M. Stankewicz of Battle Comp.
Of the many questions submitted, John was asked to choose a total of 10 to answer for you. He kindly went above and beyond answer a total of 16. See the questions asked, and John’s responses, below.

So obviously, BCE is known for one of the best 'all-around' comps on the market for the AK, AR and 308 platform, and after teaming up with Mossie Tactics, the Midnight Mount. So what’s next? BCE doesn't seem like the sort of company to sit on its laurels, so when do we get to see what's next from the mad lab?
Thank you for your kind words.  Many new and exciting projects are in the works and on the horizon.  However, the beginning of 2013 brought massive changes in the industry. As we departed Shot Show 2013 in Las Vegas, we had no idea that the demand for our current product lines would be so overwhelming.  Most of this year has been dedicated to keeping up with that demand while still maintaining great customer service and a top quality set of products.  Our production facility has worked hard to keep up with the demand and we are just now finding some “Room to breathe” and attack several new projects.  At BCE, we are very selective about any new product we put out; the research, development and testing SHALL be rigorous and complete before any new product with the Battle Comp name on it is released.  We have been listening to our customer’s desires and suggestions though, and we hope to have some new and innovative items released in the not too distant future…Stay tuned.

While we were fortunate in the ability to produce the 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and BABC in the first six months of our company’s birth, we don’t believe in making new things just to make things new.  We want to solve problems AND have commercial success.  Sometimes we hit a home run; sometimes, not.

If I buy a .308 AR10 is there a Battle Comp product that will work with it?
Absolutely!  The BABC is “plug and play” with the AR10.  The BABC is actually designed for calibers from 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 7.62 NATO to .300 Win Mag. and .300 AAC Blackout.  Always check your barrel’s thread pitch though as the BABC currently fits barrels with 5/8 x 24 RH threads.

When can we expect to see an off-the-shelf AAC 51T or even 90T compatible battle comps?
We are exploring a number of options intended to make the process for the end user much easier.  We pride ourselves in listening to our customer’s needs and wants.  Stay tuned as this and many new projects are in development. 

Has Battle Comp given any thought to developing a muzzle brake for shotguns?  It would obviously be a departure in most aspects from the design of your AR/AK series of comps, but I think you guys could develop a great system particularly for slugs.
We have had that question come up before.  It has been extraordinarily difficult to keep up with demand of our current products since the beginning of 2013.  As I am sure you all know, the entire industry from firearms, to accessories to ammunition has been stressed to the limit.  Battle Comp is no exception, but we continue to listen to our customer’s suggestions. 

How many prototypes were created and tested before the fine folks over at Battle Comp Enterprises were satisfied they had created the best CQB break on the market?
I wish we had actually kept track of the numbers but, it was a lot, too many to count.  Prototyping and testing continues today.  It does not seem to get any easier with time but that is a price we are willing to pay to ensure anything with the Battle Comp Name on it is Top Quality. We are never satisfied.  We also don’t believe in messing with success.

How much research and development do you put into each new product before release?
Great question!  Frankly, it varies for each product.  Speed of development really depends on the consistency of the base platform.  If what we want to fit is consistent – life is easy.  When there are a lot of variables to isolate, it takes a lot more time.  What we have learned is that a massive amount of physical units are needed for the R&D process.  More importantly, massive amounts of time and patience are also required.  We try to make things we would use on our own firearms, and they are intended to solve the problems we encounter – and that approach may or may not work for everyone.  We believe folks should be able to use whatever suits their missions – it’s THEIR choice.  So, when you are creating a piece of equipment to manufacture and provide to the shooting community, the prototyping and testing process can be difficult, frustrating and seemingly never ending…but we wouldn’t have it any other way. 

Will the Mossie Midnight Mount have a release in other colors like Flat Dark Earth or OD Green, even if it is a limited release?
That is a great idea that bears further exploration.

What is the recommended torque for the AR-15 Battlecomp?
There isn’t a “true” torque specification for the AR15 versions, as there are tolerance stacking issues and different ways to affix the unit:  Split washers, crush washers, peel washers and shim kits.  For other items, like scopes and rings where specs are needed for repeatability after removal – that isn’t always the case with a muzzle device.  We just encourage folks use competent gunsmith familiar with AR15s, and don’t put so much torque on it you might distort the threads.  We like 15-25 lbs. with crush washer, but it isn’t a hard number.  There are too many variables in the hardness of the washers, etc. to set a specific number.  It needs to be secure, greater than hand tight, and not vibrate off.

I am torn between buying one of your devices, the PWS FSC556 and the newer BCM Gunfighter comp.  I have shot carbines with your device, and I love it.  I have also had a small amount of experience with the BCM device.  My question is, do you feel that spending the extra money for your device will give me noticeably more control than the aforementioned devices? I am currently running a BCM 16 inch mid length gas system with an H buffer.  I can already control this gun very well with the standard A2 device and using an aggressive grip and stance, so I am not quite sold on the idea that your device will give me more control than the cheaper devices.  Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to your reply. 
Well, in our opinion, of course we believe it!  Still, we are sensitive to our industry partners and we truly appreciate the varied needs of our end users.  We have great respect for PWS and BCM.  Everyone is different, and every mission has different needs.  And we firmly believe Murphy is a member of the team and goes on every mission!  What fits your budget and your mission is more important to us than any opinions WE might have.  Use what works for you, and if you like it, we support it. We are happy with what we have made and it suits us very well, but we don’t hard sell it to folks who don’t want it, need it or have budget concerns. Do we think we make the best device?  Absolutely – and we believe just as firmly -- the opinion of the person using it is what matters the most!

It seems like everyone and their brother is designing a "better mousetrap" muzzle device.  What design elements integrated into the Battle Comp distinguishing it from the rest of the pack?
The BattleComp was specifically designed to bridge the gap between the flash hider and the muzzle brake to give the “good guys” an edge when it really matters – and we appreciate whatever success we have achieved is due to the overwhelming positive reaction we received from our customers.  We owe it all to them.  We have a published Patent Pending and we expect it to issue soon.  In our research, we found out that slots really do matter from a fluid dynamics perspective; yet, that said – it’s really up to the end user to determine what suits them best.  If concussion is not an issue, there some excellent brakes you can choose.  If flash is the priority, we would encourage a true flash hider for that purpose.  We don’t really claim to be the best in any one area – we just strive to have a good balance, and in this case, we think we achieved it.  Just like when the tennis racquet went oversized – we wanted to increase the “sweet spot.”

What are the main differences between the different Battlecomp devices?
Performance wise, there is no difference between the 5.56 comps.  All Battle Comps are made from 17-4PH stainless steel bar stock.  ALL BATTLE COMPS ARE MADE IN THE USA.  For the AR platform we produce three models the BC 1.0, BC 1.5 and the BC 2.0:

  • Our 1.0 is the original BattleComp and, like all of our 5.56 Battle Comps, fits all barrels with 1/2 x 28 RH standard threads.  It was specifically designed for 5.56 NATO and .223 Rem ammunition. 
  • The Battle Comp 1.5 has been extended and pre-drilled for permanent attachment on 14.5" barrels needing 16.1" overall length.
  • The BattleComp 2.0 is compatible with GemTech HALO and AAC Omni suppressors. This comp comes with a shim kit instead of the standard crush washer for optimized concentricity. Professional installation using Rocksett is required for those who will be using sound suppressors.

For the larger calibers we developed the BABC…Yes the rumors are true, it stands for “BIG A** BATTLE COMP!”  The BABC is a multi-caliber compensator designed for calibers from 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 7.62 NATO to .300 Win Mag. and .300 AAC Blackout.  The BABC currently fits all barrels with 5/8 x 24 RH threads.  We are working to add other pitches, like 9/16 x 24 RH for many 6.5G barrels, as soon as we are no longer consumed with production demands.

With respect to side blast and concussion effects, how does the Battlecomp 2.0 for 300 BLK compare to the AAC compensator specifically built for its AAC 300 BLK AR?
We have never compared the two items side-by-side, so we really cannot say.  We are of the opinion the BattleComp has the very mild concussion, yet some are more sensitive to concussion than others.

What is it about the Battlecomp that makes it quieter than other compensators while still reducing felt recoil?
We were fortunate in development to hit a “sweet spot” for the force factors we were attempting to address.  The internal expansion chamber, while difficult to machine compared to straight-tube designs, does much to mitigate muzzle rise and control expanding gas in a fashion that scored a “B+” in all categories for us.  We weren’t looking for straight A’s – because there is no perfect device.  To maintain the size of the A2, gains in one area meant losses in others – so again, we were looking to strike a balance.

Do you make a Battlecomp for the M1A or have plans to do so in the future?
The Smith Enterprises 5/8x24 adapters works very well with the BABC.

How does your comp compare to a competition comp in long range accuracy i.e. muzzle rise and kick? I am not happy with the effect my comp has on the person shooting next to me.
Third party testing, most notably by Colt Manufacturing, indicates no loss of accuracy while having significant muzzle rise mitigation, especially in 7.62 NATO.

Does a compensator have any effect on the ballistics of a bullet?
Chronograph testing of the BCE revealed a slight increase in muzzle velocity (1-5 fps), which is consistent with some of very best silencers.  There have been no other appreciable differences.