Suppressors Are Muzzle Brakes *actually* better than other devices inside a suppressor?

[UpSideDown]

I know that brakes are considered to be the way to go as a suppressor mount because, in theory, they're a sacrificial baffle, and they help with the initial expansion inside the expansion chamber. What I want to know is if this is actually proven, or if it's just one of those things that sounds like it makes sense so we all just keep repeating it. Griffin has some commentary on Brake vs Flash Hider having no tangible effect on sound. I have to imagine an A2-style flash hider isn't that different from a brake in a certain respect in that the bullet is still sealing the forward path and the gases have to exit the sides, like a brake. I think it's probably pretty agreeable that either a brake or flash hider is probably better than just a direct thread adapter.

I want to know if there is actual science, or even anecdotal experience behind the idea that a brake is the way to go. I'm sure I'm not the only guy wanting to put a flash hider mount onto an AR instead of a brake in case I shoot it unsuppressed, and I want to know if it really will matter.

 

[Reload10]

Tbac has cb brakes and cb flash hiders. I wiuld bet they have data on each for dB rating

 

[Zak Smith]

What I want to know is if this is actually proven, or if it's just one of those things that sounds like it makes sense so we all just keep repeating it.

With regard to durability, yes, we proved this in the Dominus-SR testing (and other "worst case firing schedule" testing on the CB system). But that applied in heavy firing schedules. In bolt guns you are unlikely to see a measurable difference in baffle wear unless we're talking many tens of thousands of rounds.

With regard to sound, they meter the same.

 

[UpSideDown]

With regard to durability, yes, we proved this in the Dominus-SR testing (and other "worst case firing schedule" testing on the CB system). But that applied in heavy firing schedules. In bolt guns you are unlikely to see a measurable difference in baffle wear unless we're talking many tens of thousands of rounds.

With regard to sound, they meter the same.

Fantastic, thank you for the info!

 

[larryh128]

With regard to durability, yes, we proved this in the Dominus-SR testing (and other "worst case firing schedule" testing on the CB system). But that applied in heavy firing schedules. In bolt guns you are unlikely to see a measurable difference in baffle wear unless we're talking many tens of thousands of rounds.

With regard to sound, they meter the same.

Thanks for the continued info. Appreciated.

 

[Whiskey 2-1]

I certainly noticed the “sacrificial baffle” effects of a brake when running the AAC M4-2000 with its break on my old 9.25” work carbine. That gun would see 500 round range days pretty often when we were teaching carbine and active shooter classes. The wear that the brake sustained was pretty impressive. I think I replaced it twice. I remember being able to drop a 7.62 projo easily through the originally 5.56 brake. Erosion on that thing was nuts. The can held up well.

That‘s not the newest tech, so things may have changed some. I dont do that anymore so my newer stuff isn’t abused as much.
Doc

 

[UpSideDown]

I certainly noticed the “sacrificial baffle” effects of a brake when running the AAC M4-2000 with its break on my old 9.25” work carbine. That gun would see 500 round range days pretty often when we were teaching carbine and active shooter classes. The wear that the brake sustained was pretty impressive. I think I replaced it twice. I remember being able to drop a 7.62 projo easily through the originally 5.56 brake. Erosion on that thing was nuts. The can held up well.

That‘s not the newest tech, so things may have changed some. I dont do that anymore so my newer stuff isn’t abused as much.
Doc

That's good to know. I frequently do 700-1200 round days between pistol and rifle.