Will the SAS 338 can reduce recoil as much or more than the Savage break?
Suppressors Recoil reduction SAS 338 can vs Savage muzzle brea
- Thread starter utahcybercowboy
- Start date
Re: Recoil reduction SAS 338 can vs Savage muzzle brea
Any brand of suppressor will reduce recoil better than a brake.
Any brand of suppressor will reduce recoil better than a brake.
Re: Recoil reduction SAS 338 can vs Savage muzzle brea
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kino</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any brand of suppressor will reduce recoil better than a brake.
</div></div>
Well that is really caliber dependent. Not so much on the big bore cans. The 408, 50 BMG and sometimes even the 338 can turn your recoil into a straight back push more so then a sharp jolt that is common with a brake on the bigger calibers.
But on standard calibers the cans help quite a bit. They also take out the flinch that a lot of shooters battle from the percussive blast you get with a naked muzzle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kino</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any brand of suppressor will reduce recoil better than a brake.
</div></div>
Well that is really caliber dependent. Not so much on the big bore cans. The 408, 50 BMG and sometimes even the 338 can turn your recoil into a straight back push more so then a sharp jolt that is common with a brake on the bigger calibers.
But on standard calibers the cans help quite a bit. They also take out the flinch that a lot of shooters battle from the percussive blast you get with a naked muzzle.
Re: Recoil reduction SAS 338 can vs Savage muzzle brea
What KYS said but for the absurdly curious.....
Rifle recoil has two primary parts; Primary recoil based on the mass of the bullet as it moves through the barrel and Secondary recoil based on the final escaping of the propellant gas from behind that very same bullet. Interestingly, they do not occur at the same time, but are staged.
First comes the recoil based on Momentum Conservation (Newton's body at rest/ body in motion and equal and opposite reaction.) To understand this we first have to recognize that it only occurs while the bullet is still in the barrel. The exploding propellant is the force that takes the relatively small mass of the bullet and moves it in a linear fasion (with minor rotational or Angular Momentum.) For that brief period of time the bullet mass plus its increasing speed will need to be equaled by the rifle's mass and its inevitable slight movement (high mass, low speed) rearward.
Here we go - Neither a can nor a brake can effect this projectile based part of the recoil equation.
So what is left? What can be effective when it comes to either break or can? Only the manner bywhich we manage and/or potentially harvest the energy of the exploding propellant as it finally reaches the end of the barrel and blasts around the projectile for the first time.
When the bullet finally leaves the crown or end-cap the gases can get around the bullet. That creates a rocketing of the the rifle mass rearward. And here is where it gets intersting. In a can we can bleed those very same gases off of the projectile and slow them down until they have a very small net accelerating effect when they finally reaching the open atmosphere. That is the "braking" effect of the can.
Simularly, using a brake to actively redirect those same gases, we can redirect (if the brake is made to high tolerances: an "efficient" brake) those gases to project the rifle forward, thereby counteracting the rearward motion.
We should note that only a brake can provide directional movement (muzzle rise cancellation) as the can's effect is, at worst, the same jetting as a muzzle crown.
So it is a dance. Large bullet masses/ small bullet mass...subsonic vs extraordinary velocity, heavy vs light hosts, efficient brake or sloppy flash hider, and on and on.
We can add a few more dimensions to this:
1. KYS's observation that operators tire from the very real concussion and noise impact and the resulting flinch effect.
2. The cans deteriorating gas direction effect based on heat buildup of FA or even heavier firing schedules. Note that a brake does not in any way have this issue. In other words cans work best for recoil in slow fire mode. Machine guns have their recoil best handled by precision brakes.
What KYS said but for the absurdly curious.....
Rifle recoil has two primary parts; Primary recoil based on the mass of the bullet as it moves through the barrel and Secondary recoil based on the final escaping of the propellant gas from behind that very same bullet. Interestingly, they do not occur at the same time, but are staged.
First comes the recoil based on Momentum Conservation (Newton's body at rest/ body in motion and equal and opposite reaction.) To understand this we first have to recognize that it only occurs while the bullet is still in the barrel. The exploding propellant is the force that takes the relatively small mass of the bullet and moves it in a linear fasion (with minor rotational or Angular Momentum.) For that brief period of time the bullet mass plus its increasing speed will need to be equaled by the rifle's mass and its inevitable slight movement (high mass, low speed) rearward.
Here we go - Neither a can nor a brake can effect this projectile based part of the recoil equation.
So what is left? What can be effective when it comes to either break or can? Only the manner bywhich we manage and/or potentially harvest the energy of the exploding propellant as it finally reaches the end of the barrel and blasts around the projectile for the first time.
When the bullet finally leaves the crown or end-cap the gases can get around the bullet. That creates a rocketing of the the rifle mass rearward. And here is where it gets intersting. In a can we can bleed those very same gases off of the projectile and slow them down until they have a very small net accelerating effect when they finally reaching the open atmosphere. That is the "braking" effect of the can.
Simularly, using a brake to actively redirect those same gases, we can redirect (if the brake is made to high tolerances: an "efficient" brake) those gases to project the rifle forward, thereby counteracting the rearward motion.
We should note that only a brake can provide directional movement (muzzle rise cancellation) as the can's effect is, at worst, the same jetting as a muzzle crown.
So it is a dance. Large bullet masses/ small bullet mass...subsonic vs extraordinary velocity, heavy vs light hosts, efficient brake or sloppy flash hider, and on and on.
We can add a few more dimensions to this:
1. KYS's observation that operators tire from the very real concussion and noise impact and the resulting flinch effect.
2. The cans deteriorating gas direction effect based on heat buildup of FA or even heavier firing schedules. Note that a brake does not in any way have this issue. In other words cans work best for recoil in slow fire mode. Machine guns have their recoil best handled by precision brakes.
Re: Recoil reduction SAS 338 can vs Savage muzzle brea
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kino</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any brand of suppressor will reduce recoil better than a brake.
</div></div>
I've not found that to be true on any rifle.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Kino</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any brand of suppressor will reduce recoil better than a brake.
</div></div>
I've not found that to be true on any rifle.
Re: Recoil reduction SAS 338 can vs Savage muzzle brea
^ Yea, I don't know what reasoning goes behind that thought, Basically a brake works by stripping the propellant gasses to the side at least, and ideally rearward, as this counteracts the forces that it imposed in the first place. A suppressor can only slow down that energy, and then release it slowly but still exiting to the front, and while this results in a smoother kick, it still produces some muzzle flip and back push. So in terms of kickback, a break is better then a suppressor.
Note: The new QDL suppressor that Barrett makes has a muzzle break after the suppressor, so it includes the best of two worlds. I really like that, its just the price tag that's slowing me down
^ Yea, I don't know what reasoning goes behind that thought, Basically a brake works by stripping the propellant gasses to the side at least, and ideally rearward, as this counteracts the forces that it imposed in the first place. A suppressor can only slow down that energy, and then release it slowly but still exiting to the front, and while this results in a smoother kick, it still produces some muzzle flip and back push. So in terms of kickback, a break is better then a suppressor.
Note: The new QDL suppressor that Barrett makes has a muzzle break after the suppressor, so it includes the best of two worlds. I really like that, its just the price tag that's slowing me down
Similar threads
Suppressors TBAC 338 Ultra VS Barret MK22 can?
