Muzzle brake quieter in suppressor?

A

anonymous_

Private
Minuteman
Feb 18, 2021
33
4
Next to Montana
#1
Hello fellow keyboard warriors,

I've seen lots of posts about muzzle brakes being beneficial in a suppressor to act as a sacrificial baffle. This got me to wondering.........

If the muzzle brake truly acts a baffle inside the suppressor then it should make the shot quieter. Has anyone tested this out?

As a follow up, I'm wondering if it would have any effect on first round pop.

Post up any data you guys have and lets get this conversation started.
 
#3
I think I see what the OP is trying to say.

For example. Thunderbeast cb mount can.
How does the sound compare for the Thunderbeast cb brake vs the thunderbeast cb flash hider?

Have you done any sound tests on the pulse system comparing that @TBACRAY?

Im guessing it doesn't make much difference.

I don't think it will make any difference to frp.
 
#4
Here in Australia, one of the suppressor manufs have a brake / can design.

I personally ran a Blackhawk brake with a can for a while (in Australia). Worked well.

I've not got my hands on a Q cherry bomb (I think that's what they are), and I'm aware of at least 2 other styles which are a brake with secondary thread.

The whole point of a suppressor is to fuk up the air flow and slow the release of gas. Muzzle brakes work by redirecting. If you put a can over this, I've not found a reason to NOT do it.

I have not used a db meter to measure real work sound effects, however as far as recoil goes, I've not noticed a difference.

The benefit (for me) was range use as many gun ranges in AU are not signed off for suppressors. Stupid police. (Not law, just police "choice".)
 
#5
I would think the decibel level of a braked and non-braked suppressor would be a negligible differential ... but I have no empirical data to prove it. I have ASR brakes mounted on all of my rifles simply to make mounting and removal fast and easy.
 
#6
I've got several 51T's in various configurations and to be honest I can't tell a difference with a can attached. I think the weight and performance of the can outweigh anything the muzzle device is doing in this case. Basically they're all "just a mount" with the can attached.

I could be wrong but that's what get from intuitively looking at the physics of the system.

How they behave with the can off is a different story.

Yes, I do recall brakes taking some wear off the baffles. But I also recall that wear minimizing over time (brake will pit and erode only so far, then wear slows down) and that with flash hiders it was still negligible with modern inconel or stellite blast baffles.
 
#8
Bingo, this is right along the lines of thought I was going down. Even the muzzle brake in comparison to a direct thread mount would be an interesting test. I didn’t think it would make that much of a difference sound wise otherwise I’m sure every manufacturer would be recommending it. However, I haven’t been able to find any data or testing so I’m curious. Thanks for the input. Maybe @TBACRAY will have some insight.
 
#9
Problem is there have been people asking if the brake still works like a brake INSIDE of the can. (Which they don't).

Interpreting your title differently than what you meant is more likely where the reaction came from.
 
#10
On the Thunderbeast Ultra line of cans they manufacture all their cans as cb mount tube and guts. Their direct thread cans then have a cb brake semi permanently mounted in it to turn it into a direct thread can. Semi permanently mounted means they can change a can from one to another for a fee. You can contact them and mail it directly to them and they will mail it directly back to you. No change of ownership so no ffl needed for that.

Not sure how other manufacturers make theirs though.

If you want to see thunderbeast numbers look up Ray Sanchez on YouTube.
Did a quick scan on there but didn't see a comparison of this.
 
#11
Very interesting. I’m not an expert in muzzle brakes but per the fluid mechanics courses I’ve taken. It seems like many of the brakes mentioned and on the market aren’t as efficient as “non suppressor” brakes. Makes me wonder if we are designing to the desired shape instead of the desired outcome.

sorry to hear about the state of ranges in Australia. It seems counter intuitive they wouldn’t allow suppressors down there on certain ranges. All the best of luck and hopefully you guys get more support.
 
#13
I wondered the same thing myself about the brake inside the can. I ended up having to do some modeling to prove to myself why it did or didn’t work lol. I have a feeling they do work just very very very marginally and that’s why nobody puts any faith into them.
 
#14
I have heard lots of theories on this sacrificial baffle thing and in several podcasts numerous different manufacturers have cast doubt on this claim. Silencer Shop has come out more than several times on their YouTube channel and said exactly that.

Even if you accept the theory about 'sacrificial baffles' that has just about zero impact on sound reduction. The concept is [depending on the rifle setup, such as barrel length, etc and type of ammo used] that when a round goes off you have super heated gas with particulate blasting forward like a mini sand blaster. If you shoot an insane amount of rounds or shoot select fire, depending on the baffle material the blast baffle itself will erode and degrade the sound performance of a suppressor.

Some people have floated the idea that certain types of muzzle devices will absorb the brunt of those abrasive blasts thus extending the life of the suppressor. While there may be some truth to it I am not aware that any definitive evidence has been shown to conclusively prove it. If you shoot enough to wear out a suppressor your budget is a lot bigger than mine. You can either get it re-cored or just buy another can if you are shooting that much.

As far as sound reduction there are also 'theories' that different muzzle devices inside of cans cause more or less sound reduction. Usually people making this claim say it's because bigger muzzle devices take up more space thus reducing the volume inside of the can. My experience leads me to think the difference would be so small it would be easily overcome by a different brand or lot of ammo or even the weather outside being different on a given day thus rendering 'muzzle device type' to be less of a concern.

Of course that is within reasonable limitations. Overall though this type of stuff is so far out in the weeds it's not worth chasing.

As far as FRP goes I am all ears. I have always heard it's more of a function of the suppressor design. When the bullet and hot gas displaces that ambient air inside of the suppressor is when you get FRP. I don't know the exact science behind overcoming this but apparently more than a few manufacturers have figured it out.
 
#15
Sorry. I brought up a different question that people have asked before than what you were asking. Let me re phrase what I brought up (the off topic question).

In general for recoil reduction
Dedicated muzzle brakes > silencer mount bare muzzle brakes > silencer (muzzle brake mount or direct thread) > bare muzzle.

What people have asked is if you still get the same recoil reduction as a bare muzzle brake with the silencer mounted on the brake with the brake fully enclosed. Answer is no. You get the recoil reduction of the silencer.

Cut away Q can. The un cutaway portion is the muzzle brake mount.


For your original question on sound reduction I don't know the effect. That's why I tagged in Ray on post 3.
 
Last edited:
#16
The brake ports are offset by a margin, and apparently induce a spin or cyclone effect. I have no idea how true this is, however their cans are exceptionally quiet, and the mounting system is good.

Also why I said I used the blackhawk style originally, as it was a good brake anyway.

As for Aussie laws, we don't pay rego fees to register them, so no tax stamps. (In SA at least). They are for pest control (licenced professional contractors) so they are quite limited. I can't shoot mine at a range as I don't register them. As such, they are "unregistered" and stupid police who authorise ranges put in place a "no unlicneced or unregistered firearms" restrictions. It's not law, it's just a policy police try to enforce.

I can test mine else where as required. I'm a manuf who can make whatever is needed for a job basically, like a SOT2 / 4 I think you call it.

Got a good suppressor design ? I can make and test it REAL fast, as I don't need any FBI tax stamp. Australia does have its benefits, sometimes.
 
#17
It’ll sure as shit be quieter than the muzzle brake without the can....

You worded it like an engineer too. I work with engineers daily, I can somewhat decipher what you’re getting at. But quieter compared to what? Same suppressor with direct thread mount? Different suppressor with direct thread mount? Different suppressor with similar muzzle brake/flash hider ATTACHMENT system?

Lol I expected more than “does a muzzle brake inside my suppressor make it quieter?” from an engineer. You should test it out.
 
#20
I might just take you up on this. My theory is less about the suppressor itself and more about optimizing the brake inside it. I have a few buddies with full Cnc machine shops that will let me build it but the ATF makes it not worth it. You are in a much better situation in that regard.
 
#24
We also have a few cncs at work, so not hard to do. Was playing with a pistol suppressor today. As long as it's not hyper stupid complex and takes 20hrs to machine, or full titanium and inconel so expensive as gold to produce, I'll try it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts