Suppressors Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

[RyeDaddy]

Simple question that searching didn't turn up anything on:

When running a can that attaches to a brake, does anybody notice a difference in recoil with the silencer attached vs just running the brake by itself on the rifle?

I'm asking specifically about SAS suppressors, but I'm sure they're all the same in this regard. I'm waiting on mine to clear and just curious. I have brakes on a couple of my rifles and there's obviously a big difference with them, but I also know silencers are reported to reduce recoil, do they compound? As in my rifle has reduced recoil with a brake, but will it have even less with the silencer AND the brake?

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

They won't compound as in Brake + can = less recoil than the can alone, but you may very well see a reduction of muzzle rise with a can that you may not see with your brake.

A good suppressor will rival a good brake for recoil reduction. Some people with magnum calibers will say that their .338LM's have just slightly more recoil with the can than with a brake, but most other calibers won't notice a difference.

 

[RyeDaddy]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

Cool, thanks. Mine are a 308 and a 260, so maybe I won't notice a difference at all.

 

[Goin'Hot]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

I prefer the recoil reduction of a brake to a suppressor. The can will have more of a "push" than the brake.

The can I have for my 338 weighs 38 oz and even with the additional weight, the brake is still more effective.

 

[RyeDaddy]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

Ok now I seem to be confused, with a can installed with a brake (SAS TOMB) I won't get the benefit of the brake for recoil reduction? I'll just have the recoil reduction from the can? Is that because the can stops the brake from expelling gas out the sides as it would normally? Or would the reduction be the same as the brake still does it's job but from inside the can?

 

[Goin'Hot]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RyeDaddy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok now I seem to be confused, with a can installed with a brake (SAS TOMB) I won't get the benefit of the brake for recoil reduction? I'll just have the recoil reduction from the can? </div></div>

Correct. With the can on, the recoil reduction will be from the delayed release of the gasses, not the redirection of them that you get from a brake.

 

[turbo54]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RyeDaddy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok now I seem to be confused, with a can installed with a brake (SAS TOMB) I won't get the benefit of the brake for recoil reduction? I'll just have the recoil reduction from the can? Is that because the can stops the brake from expelling gas out the sides as it would normally? Or would the reduction be the same as the brake still does it's job but from inside the can? </div></div>

Correct. The brake isn't doing jack schitt when the can is attached.

 

[turbo54]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Goin'Hot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I prefer the recoil reduction of a brake to a suppressor. The can will have more of a "push" than the brake.

The can I have for my 338 weighs 38 oz and even with the additional weight, the brake is still more effective. </div></div>

Agreed. With all the talk out there about cans reducing recoil, I had a rude awakening when I tried the 338 with a Shark Jaws. It thumps a BUNCH more than with the brake.

 

[RyeDaddy]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

Thanks guys.

 

[Eben]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

I've come back from the future, and can tell you that the 7.62 Saker with optional forward muzzle brake works about the same as with the mount muzzle brake without the can.

 

[rrdstarr]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

Just an idea, but what if you had a Sionics type suppressor that has a huge expansion chamber where the muzzle brake is. Wouldn't that allow the muzzle brake to do its job and the suppressor to do its job also? Just thinking out loud.

 

[HPLLC]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: d00d</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've come back from the future, and can tell you that the 7.62 Saker with optional forward muzzle brake works about the same as with the mount muzzle brake without the can. </div></div>

It would be surprising if that worked effectively. Muzzle brake bore to bullet clearance is fairly critical with regard to muzzle brake performance. In the suppressor, the bullet should be reaching and passing the brake mounted to the front of the suppressor before the gas gets there.

This would then mean that the brake would be:
1 driven by inn inefficient low pressure gas
2 driven ineffectively by virtue of a lack of the physical presence of the bullet in the brake baffles.

The factors above would suggest marginal performance gain (maybe 10%), probably not justified by the added length and weight of a muzzle brake accessory attachment.

If you were somehow able to redirect gas sideward efficiently with the attached muzzle brake, you would probably significantly increase sound in the vicinity of the firer.

 

[Killer Spade 13]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

A thought, what if a muzzle brake was attached to the front of the suppressor to redirect what gasses were escaping ???

Just food for thought.

 

[Eben]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Griffin Armament</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: d00d</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've come back from the future, and can tell you that the 7.62 Saker with optional forward muzzle brake works about the same as with the mount muzzle brake without the can. </div></div>

It would be surprising if that worked effectively. Muzzle brake bore to bullet clearance is fairly critical with regard to muzzle brake performance. In the suppressor, the bullet should be reaching and passing the brake mounted to the front of the suppressor before the gas gets there.

This would then mean that the brake would be:
1 driven by inn inefficient low pressure gas
2 driven ineffectively by virtue of a lack of the physical presence of the bullet in the brake baffles.

The factors above would suggest marginal performance gain (maybe 10%), probably not justified by the added length and weight of a muzzle brake accessory attachment.

If you were somehow able to redirect gas sideward efficiently with the attached muzzle brake, you would probably significantly increase sound in the vicinity of the firer. </div></div>Good points.
Granted, there would be increased local noise created by directing gas to the sides.
Could adding gas exit holes at the 12, 3, 6 and 9 clock positions with corresponding closed front brakes, bring enough energy to act similar to a barrel muzzle exit brake?
The 12 and 6 would be open to the sides, and the 3 and 9 only open to the side away from the brakeless center exit.

 

[RollingThunder51]

Re: Recoil with brake vs can+brake?

BRAKE = Uses all the available energy found in the escaping gas in a redirection of those forces rearward, upward or otherwise. This is the maximum means to create counterforce to recoil and muzzle climb.

CAN = Takes all those same gas forces and retards them by having them dwell within the can as long as possible. There is a preceived reduction in recoil, but it is far less effective than the brake. That perception comes in part by relieveing the operator of the fatique coming from the redirect gase's concussion striking the operator's face. Recoil is less with can that a naked muzzle with the gas jetting to the open environment.

BRAKE inside CAN = CAN This is due to the fact that in the vast majority of designs, as soon as the brakes ports are closed off by the can its effects are lost entirely. Brakes inside of cans (QD) has implications, none of them having to do with the reduction of recoil or rise.

BRAKES at the end of a CAN (Silencerco) = CAN (in regard to recoil/rise.) If a can's ability to reduce flash is "overrun" due to over heated internals there can be a net positive effect inasmuch as the FLASH can potentially be reduced. There are no "brakes" at the end of well designed cans for this reason.

CANS with Timed Ports prior to end CAP = No braking and larger risk of flash. The heat removed from the gas jets retarded int he can is the energy (heat.) Those same gases are too late, too light to make a difference in recoil/rise if ported prior to end cap. Also, in some designs the residual gas fore is the main agent for proper particulate/debris purging.

There is more having to do with bullet mass, etc.