Does the number of ports In a brake matter if it's inside a suppressor? Will a two port brake mitigate recoil more in this situation than a single port brake? I feel like there's an insemination joke here somewhere.......
Suppressors Dum question
- Thread starter Jack's Dad
- Start date
Recoil? No... But, I would imagine that just like anything inside of a suppressor...The more things that disrupt and displace the gasses, the better (quieter/more effective) it will be.
Last edited:
No, will have no effect on recoil. It’ll essentially just be another “baffle” before your cans baffle stack.
Brakes and comps work by Newton’s 3rd law, which would be completely mitigated by a suppressor.
this pervasive “sacrificial baffle” argument never made much sense to me. The muzzle blast goes into the blast chamber regardless of the muzzle device. If the brake ports somehow interfaced with the suppressor to create another baffle it would be a fine argument but simple blowing gas into the blast baffle doesn’t create another baffle.
i suppose with an overbored baffle stack, a brake might help trap gas in the blast chamber but this would be minimal at best.
pretty sure the manufacturers include brakes w their suppressors to sell flash hiders, since the reverse would be unlikely to generate sales of brakes.
/rant
this pervasive “sacrificial baffle” argument never made much sense to me. The muzzle blast goes into the blast chamber regardless of the muzzle device. If the brake ports somehow interfaced with the suppressor to create another baffle it would be a fine argument but simple blowing gas into the blast baffle doesn’t create another baffle.
i suppose with an overbored baffle stack, a brake might help trap gas in the blast chamber but this would be minimal at best.
pretty sure the manufacturers include brakes w their suppressors to sell flash hiders, since the reverse would be unlikely to generate sales of brakes.
/rant
Last edited:
In short machine guns, they're a sacrificial baffle.
demonstrating erosion on a muzzle device unfortunately doesn’t answer anything other than
1. erosion is real
2. confirmation bias is also real
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia
—
Would a FH with the same level of use demonstrate less erosion? the only method to answer this question would be to prospectively study baffle erosion with FH vs brake…if the data exist then great but I haven’t seen them.
A flash hider, naturally directs the flash away from the shooter. In a forward direction. When you stuff the FH inside a can, its still doing the same thing; directing the blast forward.demonstrating erosion on a muzzle device unfortunately doesn’t answer anything other than
1. erosion is real
2. confirmation bias is also real
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
—
Would a FH with the same level of use demonstrate less erosion? the only method to answer this question would be to prospectively study baffle erosion with FH vs brake…if the data exist then great but I haven’t seen them.
The forward blast will certainly increase erosion of your blast baffle, due to the constant battering of flame and hot gasses.
A brake is designed to mitigate recoil, not throw the flash out ahead of the shooter. When the blast hits the brake faces, gas is directed out the sides, and up. When stuffed in a can, the gasses are doing the same thing. This keeps more of the initial blast off the face of the blast baffle, as well as help fill your blast chamber with expanding gasses. The brake faces will naturally erode after use, because of their role in the firing sequence. Once in a can, the gasses and blast are more direct, as well as hot. This will potentially cause the brake to erode more, or faster. Another great reason why the mounts are not suppressor parts; you can replace them when/if worn. You can not replace baffles (without proper SOT)
I hope this helps explain. Even without a suppressor; one would be able to notice erosion much faster on a brake vs flash hider. This is simply due to the nature of how they work; one catches blast and uses it, the other forces it out of your life.
Also, the data does exist. And many of suppressor users have either made the mistake, or done the required research. It sounds to me as the "confirmation bias" is coming from your end. Research, data, and opinion, have all been disregarded by you, in favor of YOUR OPINION on brakes vs flash hiders. Study the effects of these devices OUTSIDE of a can, and that will help you validate an opinion of which to use INSIDE a can. Or just get your SOT/FFL, perform the tests, and please, by all means, report back with your findings.
Short answer: get a good brake, mount your can, enjoy life shooting suppressed.
Last edited:
I have heard it is minimal by some, and that it is a legitimate help by others. I've never been convinced there is no difference at all.
One line of reasoning is that if the suppressor has a high quality blast chamber and blast baffle, like inconel, the benefit is too small to consider... fair assessment.
But, it makes sense to me, that some solid particles, like unburned powder, will impact the break instead of the first baffle and gasses redirecting will lose energy. Every picture I have seen of erosion has the biggest opening on the first baffle and consistently less on each going forward. It seems to me that since there can be erosion on a break that only gets used with a suppressor attached, it has to be taking some erosion instead of the first baffle. I have experienced this on several of my rifles.
Enough to have a major impact? No idea, but a break is the same cost as a FH, so I use breaks on my 5.56 heavy rate of fire SBR builds because thay have a reputation of being hard on suppressors. If it is a slow fire precision or longer barrel, I do whatever. Chances are, I will not notice it in my lifetime.
I don't have data, this is just my personal experience, opinion and what I've heard from people who I think know what they are talking about. Some were engineers who design suppressors, some rented out full-auto guns at their ranges and others were just NFA stamp collectors like I am.
One line of reasoning is that if the suppressor has a high quality blast chamber and blast baffle, like inconel, the benefit is too small to consider... fair assessment.
But, it makes sense to me, that some solid particles, like unburned powder, will impact the break instead of the first baffle and gasses redirecting will lose energy. Every picture I have seen of erosion has the biggest opening on the first baffle and consistently less on each going forward. It seems to me that since there can be erosion on a break that only gets used with a suppressor attached, it has to be taking some erosion instead of the first baffle. I have experienced this on several of my rifles.
Enough to have a major impact? No idea, but a break is the same cost as a FH, so I use breaks on my 5.56 heavy rate of fire SBR builds because thay have a reputation of being hard on suppressors. If it is a slow fire precision or longer barrel, I do whatever. Chances are, I will not notice it in my lifetime.
I don't have data, this is just my personal experience, opinion and what I've heard from people who I think know what they are talking about. Some were engineers who design suppressors, some rented out full-auto guns at their ranges and others were just NFA stamp collectors like I am.
From an interview with the VP of engineering at Q.
We were paid a visit by, in our opinion, one of the most well-known silencer moguls, Ethan Lessard. Currently the VP of Engineering at Q, his accolades span back to engineering at Sig Sauer and Advanced Armament Corporation.
Q: Do muzzle brakes actually act as a sacrificial baffle? Is there a noticeable delta for the blast chamber?
A: All the times that blast baffle erosion really matters, it’s on short barrel 5.56 and you put a flash hider on it anyway. Muzzle brakes is not a thing, generally, for these kinds of guns. The 10 inch [HK 416] creates the most hellacious blast baffle I’ve ever seen when you put a flash hider on it. I don’t know of anybody that’s said “good thing we replaced that muzzle brake because it saved that silencer” like, I’ve never seen that in real life… it helps some, but to me, it’s not worth considering.
This is from the CEO of Q in a different interview:
Kevin Brittingham:
Our cans are titanium, so the muzzle brake is 17-4 Stainless steel and that’s your sacrificial blast baffle.
These kinds of statements are common from leaders in the industry. There are instances where the differences are relevant, and not.
We were paid a visit by, in our opinion, one of the most well-known silencer moguls, Ethan Lessard. Currently the VP of Engineering at Q, his accolades span back to engineering at Sig Sauer and Advanced Armament Corporation.
Q: Do muzzle brakes actually act as a sacrificial baffle? Is there a noticeable delta for the blast chamber?
A: All the times that blast baffle erosion really matters, it’s on short barrel 5.56 and you put a flash hider on it anyway. Muzzle brakes is not a thing, generally, for these kinds of guns. The 10 inch [HK 416] creates the most hellacious blast baffle I’ve ever seen when you put a flash hider on it. I don’t know of anybody that’s said “good thing we replaced that muzzle brake because it saved that silencer” like, I’ve never seen that in real life… it helps some, but to me, it’s not worth considering.
This is from the CEO of Q in a different interview:
Kevin Brittingham:
Our cans are titanium, so the muzzle brake is 17-4 Stainless steel and that’s your sacrificial blast baffle.
These kinds of statements are common from leaders in the industry. There are instances where the differences are relevant, and not.
Similar threads
