Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

[HPLLC]

We wanted to comparison test some common muzzle devices on the market.

We tested 5 rounds and these still images are the best and worst of the 5 round string fired.

We used settings that replicated as closely as possible human eye. We manipulated aperture and ISO settings to directly correspond with eye visible light levels. I don't have the camera card handy, but the settings were the result of multiple tests to determine exact correspondence with human eye visible signature, and remained the same for all photography. These images represent what you would actually see- rather than blowing the F stop to 1.2 and iso to 3200 which would catch a lot of light that night vision would not even gather. We also did record night vision using a video camera and it was ~40% more sensitive to light pretty much accross the board which is reasonable because night vision is picking up some of the near infra-red and short wave infra red spectrum which is not human visible. In other words some heat outside of the human visible spectrum creates light that is visible to night vision. Muzzle flash is light from hot or burning particles of powder, so this is to be expected.

<span style="font-weight: bold">There are a couple more images on our facebook page (Griffin Armament) but we are only able to reliably link about this many images.</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">7.62mm devices were tested with M118LR ammunition
The Griffin Armament 7.62 tactical compensator produced about double the flash of the A2 which performed admirably on the 16" .308 barrel.</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">5.56mm devices were tested with M855 ammunition.</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">While producing ~50% more flash than the A2, the M4SD II muzzle brake was about on par with a Battle Comp 2.0 for flash signature</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">The M4SD Compensator produced more flash than the A2, but the signature was still reasonably managed on the 16" platform.</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">The M4SD II Flash Comp produced flash signature roughly equivalent to the A2 on the 16" platform.</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">The M4SD II Flash Comp produced about 40% less flash than the Battle Comp 2.0:</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">16" A2 vs 16" M4SD Flash Suppressor:</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">10.3" M4SD Flash Suppressor vs 10.3" A2 flash suppressor:</span>

<span style="font-weight: bold">10.3" Flash Comp vs 10.3" Battle Comp 2.0:</span>

 

[scatterbrains]

Re: Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

ok thats damn cool

 

[Sean the Nailer]

Re: Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

Thanks for doing this, and sharing it. Will you be doing more testing with M118LR, or just those two in the first photoset?

All this talk about muzzlebreaks around here, has got me curious as to what is actually effective and what is greed-driven-hype. You having the facilities, abilities, and gumption to do this is appreciated. By me, anyways.

Also, will you be doing any of the Vortex (?) or "cork-screw" hiders. I read about them long-ago. Maybe it's called something else now.

 

[cmh2007]

Re: Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

I would like to know how my PRC performs

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sean the Nailer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for doing this, and sharing it. Will you be doing more testing with M118LR, or just those two in the first photoset?

All this talk about muzzlebreaks around here, has got me curious as to what is actually effective and what is greed-driven-hype. You having the facilities, abilities, and gumption to do this is appreciated. By me, anyways.

Also, will you be doing any of the Vortex (?) or "cork-screw" hiders. I read about them long-ago. Maybe it's called something else now. </div></div>

Unfortunately we don't own the facility we did our night flash testing at, so we can't do that kind of testing whenever we want to.

I've photographically studied Vortex flash hiders in the past. They worked better than YHM phantoms, most likely better than our M4SD II flash suppressor, and are probably nearly equal for all realistic purposes in performance to AAC blackout flash suppressors though less marketed and hyped. The AAC blackouts come in two forms- the suppressor mount with the angled entrance to the tines and the cheaper non-mount version which is like a "blackout-lite" version and is doubtless not entirely as effective on account of deletion of these expensive features which are part of the blackout suppressor mount geometry.

Our flash suppressor was designed to offer customers a reasonably priced alternative to the A2 which offered a substantial increase in performance. There was an emphasis on strength and durability, and that is the upgrade 17-4PH Stainless steel 45 RC hard material, and the geometrical reinforcement up front that makes it more erosion resistant than most closed units, at the expense of a minor amount of performance over open tine units which can bloom and fail in some extreme operating conditions most end users will never encounter. Open tine flash suppressors are also prone to damage, and I've seen pictures of tines that have broken off for instance, though that may be a rare occurrence, it suggests a compromise has been made for performance. When you put them through FEA, it becomes obvious those longer tines are subject to a lot of stress in any event involving an impact with a hard unforgiving object.

Most of the muzzle brakes work. Their are a few minor differences here and there that effect what works better or not. Our design was originally intended to take some force out of gas before it hits the walls of stainless suppressors, and to lower flash signature as much as possible.

Flat baffle brakes like the AAC brakes are simple, effective, but have no flash reducing or pressure reducing features and I'd go as far as to say they are relatively bland.

Surefire's design has a small chamber like a krinkov cone flash hider that features a pair of ports that control up and right movement typical of right shoulder fired weapons- useful sophistication unless you want to shoot left shoulder in which case it will magnify left-ward recoil. The surefire wrench flats reduce muzzle brake baffle surface area in ways that reduce recoil reduction, but probably also reduce rearward directed concussion. The Surefire flash is somewhere between our design and an AAC muzzle brake. AKA it is better than some.

Nordic Components makes a brake that they call a tactical compensator and it actually enhances flash. So it has more flash than conventional brakes like AAC- more than blind muzzle also.

There are some designs which fit the greed driven hype concept you established above (that is unless you want to call them artistic stylistic attachments or something like that)- a good example are the flat baffle brakes with the open tines up front which suggest to people that they are flash reducing muzzle brakes, where in reality the majority of flash is escaping flat baffles and the tines are more or less cosmetic features designed to draw customer attention.

 

[The Mechanic]

Re: Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

Those last two just about lite up your whole body! That would not work to well.

 

[11B-B4]

Re: Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Mechanic</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Those last two just about lite up your whole body! That would not work to well. </div></div>

I was there at the flash testing portion.

I agree with you. If you want flash reduction on a 10.5" barrel you need a high tech flash suppressor.

It all boils down to what kit you want to load out for the operation you are planning on.


Over in Iraq alot of SOCOM guys would grab 10" guns for nighttime door kicking ops, and in the environment I think a flash hider would be the ticket. There is no telling who would end up in the bulding or on the cordon for outer security. In that case you have to think of worst case and select a flash hider.

For other day time ops I would preffer a muzzle brake or maybe a tactical compensator if you were on a broad mission.

I am running the brake because I want reduced recoil as number 1 and flash is not so important. If I was actually fighting at night, I would throw on a can to kill flash.

There are alot of options. We manufactured so many devices because there is nothing that "does it all"

However, that being said... the flash comp is super bad ass. It's a jack of all trades, master of none.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

I would agree with the above with three caveats

1 If sound suppressors are part of your equipment you could run a sound suppressor at night for flash suppression.

2 If you run a 14.5 or 16" gun, the flash comp is more than adequate for night work without a can.

3 If your mission tasking is 95% day operations the comp may still make sense on the short gun. I know private security can often be primarily day work. Some police officers belong to departments where shifts are by seniority and they may work the day shift for the next 6-10 years straight (again only a major consideration if their barrels are shorter than 12.5").

Before we developed our muzzle accessories I had mostly run flash suppressors. Now after having developed and worked with the brakes and comps it would feel like a serious compromise to have no muzzle control capability.

With a flash suppressor I have to consciously fight the recoil re-acquire and re-engage the target, while with comps and brakes re-engagement is as simple as squeezing the trigger. doubles, triples, seven rounds, you name it, it's not a problem at the speed of your trigger finger with a good muzzle control device. In a real world fight you could be engaging targets at 3 times the normal speed. If it's taking 3-5 hits to put someone down, that could be 3-5 seconds saved in a multiple target senario. That could be the difference between life and death. Statistically accuracy degrades in high threat life and death situations, so a flash suppressor is only going to magnify that problem, creating increased risk of misses in a gunfight which are a liability in multiple ways.

So flash suppressors are a serious compromise in one area- they are ~3 times slower to shoot unless your gun is dripping lights, lasers, and optics like a Christmas tree and weight is on your side, and that's a problem that is going away with technology. Micro-T1's and polymer lights from Insight are reducing a pound and a half from a loadout already and that's the direction the technology is heading.

Most of the big name instructors that work with guns are running muzzle control devices, because it's not a secret with them, the muzzle control devices make accurate hits fast and easy, and their livelyhood is built around being impressively fast and accurate. That same is true of anyone involved in high threat armed operations, whether they realize it or not.

Increased speed and accuracy equal increased survive-ability.

Sure speed can come from training too. In my military time I met some guys that could shoot this fast with standard KAC A2 style compensators, but they had recently fired 240,000 rounds in ~3.5 months on a training deployment to Germany. A good muzzle control device can put a relatively skilled working guy pretty close to par with someone training at that level, without anywhere near that kind of supporting budget.

 

[Sean the Nailer]

Re: Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

*****BREAK*****

I truly hope A LOT of people see this thread. So they understand that the whole concept of exchanging pertinent AND viable information in a mature, logical, and pointed manner is what has made this site SO GREAT in the past.

It is discussions like these which build and embolden the intellect of those involved. Be a PART of the solution! Start a trend!

*****END BREAK*****

 

[2tuf4u]

Re: Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

Great review--very informative. Thx---joe

 

[bterry]

Re: Flash testing of various muzzle devices(PIC HEAVY)

Good read, thanks.