Reviewer's Comments:

The new version is a nice improvement over the previous one, particularly with the inclusion of full MHD magnetically forced simulation. I have a few minor comments that should be fixed up before acceptance. 

- Is equation 7 missing a bar{U}*b?

- After equation 12 it is written "...the corresponding expressions for the fluctuating terms the respective first version...". Is this a typo? Or if not, please reword and explain in a different way as it is confusing at the moment.

- Currently, the paragraph with equations 13-14 looks like it's part of "The kinematic limit", which presumably shouldn't be the case. Please add another heading (e.g., method of solution) to make this clearer.

- In section 2.6 or elsewhere, I couldn't see any mention of the numerical resolution used (aside from 64^3 in the appendix). Is this 64^3 for all simulations? Please add discussion of this and justify the choices (since if it is 64^3 this seems very low).

- Likewise for the Mach number. Although not thought to be important to the dynamo, since the paper insinuates that some of the differences between previous works arise due to incompressibility, this is presumably an important parameter for any FMHD case. It would be helpful to add to table 1.

- Typo "SMHDwhere" above equation 21

- It was nice to see the FKM case in figure 2, but now this is the only case in figure 2 not also shown in figure 1. Please include there for consistency and because it is important for the reader to be able to compare these more quantitatively.

- I presume (from figure 1 FK1b) that the small-scale dynamo is always stable in all simulations because of the low Re_M. But this is potentially important, so would be nice to clarify somewhere in the text.

- I also noticed on this second reading that the main comparison in figures 1 and 2 is given between SK1b, FK1b, but SKM1a - i.e., they have different Pm. All of the other simulations are at the lower Pr_M as I understand it. While I understand that the FK1a case was stable, which is presumably why this was motivated, in the spirit of comparing apples to apples, it is important to show SK1a and/or FK1a. I was left wondering if the observed differences are due to the magnetic fluctuations or the different Pm or something else. Please comment and ideally show one or both of these cases. 

- I didn't understand what was the purpose or the claim of footnote 4. What is an exclusively magnetic SC effect? And what does that have to do with the MRI. Please clarify or remove. Also, the simulations in Shi+ (2016) do not have a mean field, as claimed in this footnote.

- In the models section 3.3, it says (second to last paragraph) "but this could also be due to the SMHD simplifications." What does this mean? Because the conclusions here come from studying the 0-D model, the "simplifications" should be already contained within the measurement of the coefficients, I would have thought. Please clarify.