I'm sure a good number of you have heard about the Battle Comp 1.0 from BCE. I've read through the pages and pages on M4C and AR15 (and other random links on the interwebz), and the word seems to be that the manufacturers cannot confirm whether or not the Battle Comp is NJ legal:

(In response to a question from rauchman, a member here as well):

As to NJ legality, we are not attorneys, so we cannot provide legal advice. We do know the BattleComp is a compensator, and not a flash hider, and just about anyone who uses one can confirm that. How that shakes out in NJ is difficult for us to determine, since ATF does NOT issue letters anymore, as they no longer have jurisdiction after the sunset of the Federal AWB.

 

We would encourage interested folks to contact their state's Dept. of Justice for a determination, if CA Legal Compensator is not sufficient. We are confident, once tested, that any decisions would be in our favor -- but when it comes to such issues, the best advice is always from someone who is licensed to practice law.

 

Sorry we could not be more definitive, but we'd rather not sell a BattleComp than get a single person into hot water, legal or otherwise. We made the BattleComp for people to count on it, not to get them into trouble.

 

Has anybody contacted NJSP or any other authorities regarding the legality of the comp? I'm holding out for the 1.5 (as I have 14.5bbl), but I don't want to get my hopes up if its not legal to began with. TIA.

Without the ATF letter stating it is a comp and not a FH... not worth the trouble to me. Also looks like it would be a pain to clean.

We discussed this briefly on here a month or so ago.. and yeah.. there's no clear cut answer. To me, it has all the basic characteristics of a comp, so my gut wants to say yes, it's ok. But since NJ doesn't do any of its own testing and there's no ATF letter, there's no way to know for sure.

And I was a part of that convo too, jeez, my apologies for bringing it up again.

 

It seems like it'd be GTG, but yea, I'm not going to put myself through that hassle at this point. What really intrigues me about the BC is that if I ever had to use my rifle in-doors in an HD scenario, I wouldn't inadvertently daze myself. And, on a normal basis, at the range, esp indoors, I'm not a PITA to everybody else. I didn't realize how loud my current brake is until my buddy took a go at it.

 

Oh well, sorry for bringing it up again. Hopefully we'll hear something definitive soon.

The funny part is you could probably install it and no one would even ask you about it cuz, to me at least, it looks like a comp. But you never know.. and who needs headaches like that.

 

I love my FSC556, but I could do without the side concussion. Isn't noticeable when I'm shooting.. but when I've had other people shoot my ARs, I notice how not nice it is to stand to behind and to the side. I can't even imagine what it would be like inside my house :shock:

The funny part is you could probably install it and no one would even ask you about it cuz, to me at least, it looks like a comp. But you never know.. and who needs headaches like that.

 

I love my FSC556, but I could do without the side concussion. Isn't noticeable when I'm shooting.. but when I've had other people shoot my ARs, I notice how not nice it is to stand to behind and to the side. I can't even imagine what it would be like inside my house :shock:

 

 

Agreed. I will never buy a rifle with a comp again unless it's in a caliber that warrants it. Maybe SWAT teams or tactical people find it helpful for social work, but for my intended uses it's just an annoying noisemaker.

Sigh...its a tough call. I was never a fan and most of my AR's where without but when I picked up my Colt with a surefire..... :shock: :twisted: . It allows me to be so VERY fast with follow up shots and transitions on target. Watch the muzzle on my AR.....

 

I will never buy a rifle with a comp again unless it's in a caliber that warrants it.

I'm kind of the opposite.. Even tho I find the concussion to be obnoxious at times, I definitely notice the difference in muzzle rise on an AR with a comp vs. one without. But my ARs are for the outside zombies.. not the inside zombies

Watch the muzzle on my AR.....

And that's the big advantage right there, which is why I love my FSC556s...

 

Nice job SOTM, btw

Very nice. Which Surefire Comp are you using? The MB556K?

 

 

Sigh...its a tough call. I was never a fan and most of my AR's where without but when I picked up my Colt with a surefire..... :shock: :twisted: . It allows me to be so VERY fast with follow up shots and transitions on target. Watch the muzzle on my AR.....

 

Thanks for the compliments. Yes its a MB556K. I like the PWS too! In fact Im ordering one for my 308

Sigh...its a tough call. I was never a fan and most of my AR's where without but when I picked up my Colt with a surefire..... :shock: :twisted: . It allows me to be so VERY fast with follow up shots and transitions on target. Watch the muzzle on my AR.....

 

 

For starters :text-bravo: , nice shooting!!! Where does one go to do that type of shooting in NJ? I'm up north, anything up this way would be great!!!

 

To the OP, I had a thread going on this also. I got the same exact response that you did when inquiring if the BattleComp was NJ legal. I'm going to try calling the NJSP and see what they say. I would think this would be ok for NJ, but in this case being wrong could have serious ramifications. Has anyone ever tried calling the NJSP on matters such as this? Any pointers?

I am not sure where in north NJ but I believe that Old Bridge hosts 3 gun events as well. The one I go to is an hour SW of me and Im exit 63.

I called the NJSP today to ask about the legality of the Battlecomp.

 

I s/w an officer DiPoulo (spelling?). I explained the Battlecomp was advertised as a compensator/muzzlebrake and is CA legal. According to the officer, if it's advertised as a compensator/muzzlebrake, that's what NJ would consider it. When I mentioned it was CA legal, he said it would definitely be NJ legal as well.

 

How this would stand up in an NJ court of law, I can't absolutely say for sure. However, for myself, I have no hesitation in purchasing this unit for my AR's.

rauchman, I fully agree with your feelings. However, heres the issue. We already know for a fact that the AG office has dissallowed the state police from offering legal advice to citizens. Which by my estimation is what you recieved. So what you really have is one mans opinion. I feel this offers you no legal protection. To make matters worse, the battle comp claims to have flash hiding properties. Without a ruling from the ATF saying it is not a FH, its a comp, I feel you get left with very little to defend yourself with. The ONLY thing I see that gives you some ground is the closed face of the battle comp. That is distinctly a comp characteristic. Just my opinion. I want to try one myself

I called the NJSP today to ask about the legality of the Battlecomp.

 

I s/w an officer DiPoulo (spelling?). I explained the Battlecomp was advertised as a compensator/muzzlebrake and is CA legal. According to the officer, if it's advertised as a compensator/muzzlebrake, that's what NJ would consider it. When I mentioned it was CA legal, he said it would definitely be NJ legal as well.

 

How this would stand up in an NJ court of law, I can't absolutely say for sure. However, for myself, I have no hesitation in purchasing this unit for my AR's.

 

FWIW a M-1 Carbine is CA legal! :angry-soapbox: You'd need a letter from the Office of the Attorney General perhaps? Something stating it's legal?

FWIW a M-1 Carbine is CA legal! :angry-soapbox: You'd need a letter from the Office of the Attorney General perhaps? Something stating it's legal?

No offense, but, you're comparing something that is explicitly banned in writing in NJ with something that is vaguely defined in NJ.

 

Without a ruling from the ATF saying it is not a FH, its a comp

I'm curious (and this question isn't directed specifically at you Shane - altho if you know the answer, feel free ), but what comps aside from the PWS FSC556 have something in writing from the ATF?

I really dont know, Ive seen it for a few. BC would likely have it too but the ATF simply stopped giving rulings on the matter. I just combed through BC's site and ya know, I didnt find anywhere them making a claim of flash reduction actually.

I'm glad I'm not buying any ARs anytime soon, cuz I'd be real tempted to throw on a BC and hope for the best

I'm glad I'm not buying any ARs anytime soon, cuz I'd be real tempted to throw on a BC and hope for the best

Aye, me too! Though, I might have an investment in the Winter/Spring that could benefit from the BC... 8-)

For me Im REALLY tempted because the rifle I have inbound is a 16" 308 :shock:

For me Im REALLY tempted because the rifle I have inbound is a 16" 308 :shock:

Does it rhyme with 'SCAR-H'?! :shock:

Hehe no actually. After MUCH deliberation between the SCAR-H and the LMT-MWS I went LMT. I know, I know its not a piston gun but.... several things swayed me.

 

1. Quality of the LMT is reportedly through the roof

2. Mags! Getting mags for the SCAR is going to be a wait measured in months and probably 2x$ a normal mag

3. After market support. They are already planning barrels in 260 rem

4. Supposedly the LMT beat the SCAR-H and the HK 417 in the British trials EVEN for reliability!!! I havent found any scources close to the trials yet to confirm.

 

The only real major factor that the SCAR won out big over the LMT was weight. And if I was that worried Id go loose 40 lbs

Ah-ha, I was thinking SCAR or OBR, but, after reading, the MWS is quite nice (and cheaper from what I can see 8-) ). I'm actually shying away from the SCAR myself for some of the same reasons. Between the mag issue and number of proprietary parts-- the SCAR would be a huge PITA to maintain.

I have another recent design in mind though. Sure, its 5.56, but I could toy around with 6.8 again... 8-)

Does it ryme with *CR

Does it ryme with *CR

. If the BC is NJ compliant, I could get one for the 5.56 barrel and 6.8... but yea, the more I'm reading into things, and the figuring out how Bushmaster (civ-version), Remington (MIL/LEO customers), and Magpul (basis) all play into its development-- I'm really digging the ACR.

Does it ryme with *CR

. If the BC is NJ compliant, I could get one for the 5.56 barrel and 6.8... but yea, the more I'm reading into things, and the figuring out how Bushmaster (civ-version), Remington (MIL/LEO customers), and Magpul (basis) all play into its development-- I'm really digging the ACR.

 

I'd be more into it if it didn't weigh as much as my SOCOM did. I'm sticking with a Stoner gun for now.

Don't SOCOM II's weigh around 10lb? Whereas the ACR basic is around 8? Factor in the weight of the different ammunition, and that seems like a pretty significant difference. Albeit, I haven't held an ACR myself yet (have held an M14-- not sure how much that differs from the SOCOM II).

Had a good chat with BC today. I am confident it is Jersey legal at this point (but dont take this as legal advice, just my opinion). I think at some point I will give one a try.

 

As to weight, well theres weight and then theres feel. My XCR and my Colt weigh about the same but my Colt feels lighter. Same thing with my FAL and my LMT. Now a socom2 felt heavy as sh!t to me but I know its within a pound of the DSA. If I had to make a guess, its where the weight is carried. If its out at the extremties it will feel heavy, if its "mass centralized" it wont feel so bad.

That's a good point about the weight/feel-- I've never thought about it in an active sense. I guess my bias was because most/all of my firearm experiences were with generally the same platform. Thanks for that insight.

 

As for the news on the BC, anything more you're willing to share, Shane? I know its not legal advice, nor would I take it as such. I just wouldn't mind getting some more pieces of the puzzle so I can assess the situation some more. And I feel it would be redundant to bombard the BC guys with more of the same (as I could imagine they've been blitzed by the same type of question from residents of post-ban states).