Suppressor with a brake on it, does it help or not?

[viking78]

I am from Finland, and we have a long, well i would say medium time on the history in firearms, that we have been able
to use suppressor, and for sure they are made to reduce the muzzle blast and reduce the sound.
And this is the purpose of suppressor in these days too.
But in sport shooting, the spotting of the own shot´s in few different competition, or even on a hobby shooter, it is nice to able to spot your own shot´s.
I have seen quite many USA suppressor manufacturers, that offers the muzzle brake on the tip of the suppressor.
We have a coversation on a Finnish forum of this subject, and there are only me and one other guy that do think that the brake will
help to reduce the rest of the gas burst that come from the suppressor, since the suppressor by it self it is not doing the recoil reduce that much, it does
kind of push the gun, and not killing the recoil, like a pure muzzle brake on the barrel does.
But the thing is, how much does the suppressor with a muzzle brake on it reduce the recoil, is it proniment?
I have shot few suppressor that has a muzzle brake, and i can say that it does work.
But since you have more companies and users in USA these days, what is your thoughts of this?
Will the suppressor with a brake make the rifle more stable?

King by him self just made a video about this same thing yeasterday, and i would love to see a longer video from Frank about this subject.

 

[redneckbmxer24]

A typical suppressor will reduce recoil by about 30% and a suppressor with a brake about 40%.

The brakes work but it’s not as dramatic as a normal brake because the muzzle pressure is obviously way lower.

 

[ruger35]

It may not be as much as a normal brake, but it 100% reduces recoil more then just a suppressor. Have tested it back to back on the same gun with a Magnus S and S-RR. Have also compared the full size Magnus vs the S-RR on 7PRC and the RR was a clear winner.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

A typical suppressor will reduce recoil by about 30% and a suppressor with a brake about 40%.

The brakes work but it’s not as dramatic as a normal brake because the muzzle pressure is obviously way lower.

So.... 40% is 33.3% higher than 30%. That's fucking huge.

Of course, in your typical fashion, this is also a complete and total fabrication. I've seen them tested with recoil testing equipment, and the difference produced is inside the margin of error of the testing equipment, so the difference is statistically irrelevant.

Did you know that 67% of statistics are totally fabricated on the spot?

 

[Zak Smith]

A lot. In this graph the RR models have the brake on the end.

ETA: Also, the Ultra50 recoil reduction compared to a bare muzzle on 50BMG is 65% reduction.

 

[BurtG]

So.... 40% is 33.3% higher than 30%. That's fucking huge.

Of course, in your typical fashion, this is also a complete and total fabrication. I've seen them tested with recoil testing equipment, and the difference produced is inside the margin of error of the testing equipment, so the difference is statistically irrelevant.

Did you know that 67% of statistics are totally fabricated on the spot?

Uh. Huh

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

A lot. In this graph the RR models have the brake on the end.

ETA: Also, the Ultra50 recoil reduction compared to a bare muzzle on 50BMG is 65% reduction.

I'm really confused as I study this graph. I'll pick an example, please help me understand..

The first example is a (magnus S RR (with brake as I understand it)). It shows a 65% recoil reduction.

Same suppressor, no brake reduces recoil 15%?

So, unless im reading it wrong, it claims that the brake under the can offers you a 433% recoil reduction vs the can alone? That's just not true.

Am I reading this wrong?

 

[Zak Smith]

Yes, you are reading it wrong.

ETA-- you are dividing 65 vs 15 and turning into a percent and calling that reduction. That's not how any of that math works. What you are reading as "65" and "15" are the percent reductions in recoil energy from a bare muzzle (per the legend on the left). If Sams is selling brats for 65% off and Target is selling them for 15% off you don't say that Sams has "433% reduction" in anything. Does not make sense.

Also you said "brake under the can" when this whole thread is about external brakes at the exit end of the suppressor.

 

[ggmanning]

Yes they work. Much more noticeable on larger calibers. I use one on 300WM. I can definitely use more magnification on that gun and still see spash well with the brake vs without. I just don't need it on smaller calibers either.....308, 6.5 etc.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

Yes, you are reading it wrong.

ETA-- you are dividing 65 vs 15 and turning into a percent and calling that reduction. That's not how any of that math works. What you are reading as "65" and "15" are the percent reductions in recoil energy from a bare muzzle (per the legend on the left). If Sams is selling brats for 65% off and Target is selling them for 15% off you don't say that Sams has "433% reduction" in anything. Does not make sense.

Also you said "brake under the can" when this whole thread is about external brakes at the exit end of the suppressor.

Tell me you don't understand the chart you shared without telling me that you don't understand it. A 15% reduction in recoil and a 65% reduction in recoil would be a factor of 4.3, or 433% as I originally stated. If a person pulls the trigger and has a 15% reduction, followed by adding a brake to the end of the can and getting a 65% reduction by adding the brake, then that would mean the reduction is 4.3x the non-brake vs the brake. Again, thats a load of shit.

Either neither of us are reading it correctly, or it's bullshit.

 

[dgheriani]

Tell me you don't understand the chart you shared without telling me that you don't understand it. A 15% reduction in recoil and a 65% reduction in recoil would be a factor of 4.3, or 433% as I originally stated. If a person pulls the trigger and has a 15% reduction, followed by adding a brake to the end of the can and getting a 65% reduction by adding the brake, then that would mean the reduction is 4.3x the non-brake vs the brake. Again, thats a load of shit.

Either neither of us are reading it correctly, or it's bullshit.

I'm pretty sure he understands the graph, given that his company did the research and published it... also, I've heard you get more recoil reduction if you use a crush washer

 

[chase723]

Short answer, yes they work. They work the best in something like a 419 Maverick short configuration. Call it a “can/brake” or whatever you want. Compared with a muzzle brake alone you get way less concussion, almost none, but you still get a marked brake effect that’s better than a pure suppressor. The recoil impulse is also slower like a suppressor. For comps, I shoot a can brake since we are all wearing ear pro. For everything else, I shoot purely suppressed. Shorter can brake designs typically have better recoil reduction because they are dependent on the exiting gas velocity to work. Longer ones have less concussion but don’t reduce recoil as much…that said concussion from either is substantially less than a raw muzzle brake.

 

[Zak Smith]

Tell me you don't understand the chart you shared without telling me that you don't understand it. A 15% reduction in recoil and a 65% reduction in recoil would be a factor of 4.3, or 433% as I originally stated. If a person pulls the trigger and has a 15% reduction, followed by adding a brake to the end of the can and getting a 65% reduction by adding the brake, then that would mean the reduction is 4.3x the non-brake vs the brake. Again, thats a load of shit.

Either neither of us are reading it correctly, or it's bullshit.

That's not now "reduction" works.

If a bare muzzle has an amount of recoil energy that is normalized to 100 units, then:

Device A has a 65% reduction, so it has 35 units of recoil energy.

Device B has a 15% reduction, so it has 85 units of recoil energy.

I think you are trying to calculate how much better device A is than B. Do do this, you would divide 35 by 85 to say that device A has 41% the recoil energy of B, or put in other terms: A has 59% less recoil energy than B.

 

[Hecouldgoalltheway]

That's not now "reduction" works.

If a bare muzzle has an amount of recoil energy that is normalized to 100 units, then:

Device A has a 65% reduction, so it has 35 units of recoil energy.

Device B has a 15% reduction, so it has 85 units of recoil energy.

I think you are trying to calculate how much better device A is than B. Do do this, you would divide 35 by 85 to say that device A has 41% the recoil energy of B, or put in other terms: A has 59% less recoil energy than B.

Alright sir, I'm not an engineer, so please bare with me while I attempt to understand this.

If we use your method to explain this, and we say that with no muzzle device, we have 100 units of recoil.

With a suppressor sans brake, we have a reduction of 65 units, or 35 units remaining (which is very impressive to my mind by the way).

Then, if we remove the brake, shooting suppressor only, we now have 15 units of reduction, or 85 units of recoil remaining.

That's a 242% improvement in recoil reduction vs the suppressor alone. Is that correct? I'm ready to be wrong, no shame there. I've just never heard of any of these causing any measurable effect in the tests I've seen, although they weren't tbac cans I saw tested.

 

[Zak Smith]

The way to say that would be: Device B has 2.43x the amount of recoil energy vs. Device A.

But bottom line, yes, the RR brake does have a dramatic effect on recoil energy compared to the same suppressor without.

Also note that that particular graph is data from 300WM. Data from 308 is a little different as can be seen from the other infographic that BurtG posted. In the case of the Magnus-S or Ultra-7 sized suppressor, 300WM is "almost" overwhelming the suppressor (you can see the K and 5" cans have zero reduction). This is not so bad on 308 since the gas volume is much less.

 

[viking78]

I have shot with 2 different, a Norwegian company suppressors, that has a muzzle brake end of the suppressor.
This one is the old version, that has a normal type of brake ports on side, only PITA was these ports timing, there is a nut on the suppressor thread, that you need to tweek and then tighten it, when the ports were equal to side, but then when you did that, the suppressor did moved a bit, and having the ports 50/50 on each side, it was a nerves wracking job.


The new version of this suppressor has a no timing on the brake, and i can not say, that it is a brake no more, kind of a
muzzle device that blast the gas 360 degrees, it does work, but not if you do shoot from the prone, it does throw the dirt and
stuff all over, including to the shooter face, this is not good, and it should be a PRS suppressor.


I did received a prototype from a Finnish manufacturer, i did shooted once, and it needs to go back to the design table, it was a
proto type anyway, but there were only a ports in one direction, it was made like those 9mm carbines, that the ports are up, and
no other ports.
6.5 Creedmoor etc has so much more gas and pressure coming from the suppressor, that the brake is pushing the barrel downwards, you really can feel that, it was like a punch, the rifle did almost like jump a bit of the ground

I hope that i am receiveng the package from South-Africa at next week.

APW Warbird suppressor that has a muzzle brake on the can, it is designed on PRS shooting, and i have seen videos of it, and it does look good, killing the last recoil, also moving the gas out of the field of view, so that the vision thru the scope is clear all the time.

In Finland, i hope that some one would also start doing these braked suppressor, for sure these are not for every one, but those
who want´s to have a can, that has a brake, that will make the rifle as stable as it can be, who would not want that??

Since the suppressor is reducing the sound pressure, the brake on the suppressor is not making more sound to the shooter
ears, i kind of like that there would be a option, you could mount it by your self, if you need it, and if not, you would not need to get one.
But then again, how easily it could be mounted, there are so many type of people, some of these can do it right, but then there are
also people who do not know what they are doing, even they do think so by them self, and then the excidents can happen.
So would it be best that it is mounted in the factory, or a service on the local gunstore, where some one who has the license from the manufacturer, that can do it and do it right.

PS: sorry if my English is not the best one, but i hope you do get the point of my writing.

 

[GenericBadGuy]

But bottom line, yes, the RR brake does have a dramatic effect on recoil energy compared to the same suppressor without.

Also note that that particular graph is data from 300WM. Data from 308 is a little different as can be seen from the other infographic that BurtG posted. In the case of the Magnus-S or Ultra-7 sized suppressor, 300WM is "almost" overwhelming the suppressor (you can see the K and 5" cans have zero reduction).

Do the newer .375 size TBAC cans just have a larger internal diameter? If I were to use one on a 6.5cm would that not have enough gas to really have any recoil reduction benefit?

 

[DeathBeforeDismount]

Braked cans are the future if you care about spotting your shots. There is a reason everyone is migrating to them for shooting sports and hunting.

 

[Zak Smith]

Do the newer .375 size TBAC cans just have a larger internal diameter? If I were to use one on a 6.5cm would that not have enough gas to really have any recoil reduction benefit?

It will still work quite well.