Thanks KiwiGreg that's interesting. Maybe someone should ask them to prove they work, put up or shut up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg
Printable View
Thanks KiwiGreg that's interesting. Maybe someone should ask them to prove they work, put up or shut up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg
They have these.... https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...74a98585b0.jpg
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
"They" have muzzle breaks on the end of suppressors. Now that's not a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartman
Are you one of "Them"?
Nah just seen them in the yank forums that's the only place I've seen them. Laws have changed over there so suppressors aren't illegal anymore so every mother fucker is making them . They're coming up with some different designs. Would be interesting to see the effectiveness of the break after a can though some glass must still get through. Anyone want to tig a t3 to the front of their can?
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Has anyone got the Oct/Nov R&R in front of them and can confirm that these are the designs we are talking about and not an internal integral brake? I don't remember noticing external ports in the pics. That would be a different and interesting proposition and I'd have to eat my words :oh noes:.
It's a pity that - given the large number of suppressors reviewed and testing involved - the article was limited to just covering noise reduction. Having recoil reduction figures-of-merit also in the mix would have been really interesting.
For the A-tech, they said they spent 1.2 millions euros in R & D. That is a lot of money thrown at it. You d hope the brake think is really helping and is not just a commercial gimmick .
Too hard to effectively measure & the results would be embarrassing for any of the X% claims from manufacturers about recoil reduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffin
Interestingly in the article they never said where they tested the suppressors, also some of the manufacturers weren't aware either until after the fact.
@Kiwi Greg , you reckon you could do this with one of your brakes and a suppressor?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cartman
Do you think a large part of the perceived reduction of recoil on a suppressed firearm might also be due to there being a big(ger) weight on the end of the muzzle, which would make a significant reduction in muzzle jump?
It is a factor, but only a small percentage of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by chalkeye
The main recoil reduction comes from slowing the expanding gasses and releasing them slowly reducing the rocket effect.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Really? You've put up a fair number of posts presenting assessments of recoil for brakes over the past few years. Surely something similar could be applied to suppressors? The low-friction recoiling sled approach, plus a lightweight accelerometer to capture the shape of the recoil impulse maybe? If some assessment of the repeatability of the testing could be demonstrated and give a handle on the uncertainty in the results there shouldn't be much reason for complaint... embarrassment as you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg
Other than my gripe (unfounded it now looks like), about A-tec, I thought the suppressor review was just the sort of data-driven comparative testing that the magazines should be attempting on readers' behalf, so kudos to Rod & Rifle. Much more informative than the one-off product reviews often seen along the lines of... "the suppressor reduced the blast a lot.... it got hung up in tight bush less than my regular larger suppressor... " etc.
From the review there seemed to be two clear product niches, perhaps best described as being occupied by DPT and Hardy Engineering respectively. Would it be fair to say that these currently appear to be best-in-class on the parameters covered in the article or have I got it completely wrong? Would adding in recoil reduction unseat these two brands? Is it possible to achieve a satisfactory compromise on all parameters in a single offering? The R&R article already presents a lot of data to consider.
The problem being people are too emotive & don't "like" the results my sleds present as clear as they are......Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffin
More testing is in order, I have a few ideas but they will have to wait as I'm way too busy preparing for the World Bench Rest Champs at the moment
They claim it was an independent review yet it was done with hardys lab and no independent/mutual people present so the results could and may well be just what they want the public to seeQuote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You could strap a smart phone to the side of the rifle, 99% of them have accelerometers that should be capable of the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Puffin
It would be useful to see if there's any real data supporting the "slower recoil response" thing.
4 bloody pages of theoretical bumph! The question was about internal muzzle brakes in suppressors. The answer is that all suppressors have a recoil reducing effect by virtue of their baffles providing an impingment surface to the muzzle gases, tending to put forward pressure in the suppresor. Over-barrel suppressors do have an effective muzzle brake system, which is the internal part that screws onto the barrel. This is a muzzle brake in basic design and is used to divert the muzzle gases into the rear part of the suppressor (where they expand and cool at a much lower pressure). The baffles in the front part play a much lesser role in reducing recoil as the gas pressures are much lower. The internal muzzle brake in over-barrel units is usually efficient enough to counteract the bolt cycling in semi-autos, requiring some tuning of the gas system for reliability. For the lesser informed, muzzle brakes work by trying to pull the firearm forward when the expanding muzzle gases strike the forward surfaces of of the vents. Vents in the top also help to counter muzzle rise in the same manner. That is all there is to it.
There has been more psuedo-scientific garbage written (and claimed) about suppressors than you can shake a stick at. I have commercially designed and manufactured thousands of suppressors for all types of firearms since the early 1970's. Suppressors rely on only three factors for efficient operation; accurate alignment with the bore, an efficient (but simple) baffle design, and sufficient internal volume to contain most of the muzzle gases. Any claims outside of these parameters are dubious at best!
Yes but if the gas can't instantly escape the ports into the atmosphere without hitting anything its effectiveness is lost.Quote:
Originally Posted by gundoc
As witnessed by placing covers over brakes with or without airspace around them.
True, the efffect is lost to some extent (but far from completely) if the brake is enclosed, which is why over-barrel suppressors have the tube behind the brake to give the gases somewhere to go and expand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg
I have a JP AR15 and recently bought an NEA carbine off a forum member with a Gunworks Maximus suppressor fitted.
The JP is a heavy rifle with an 18" heavy contour barrel and I have an overbarrel suppressor that fits back to the gas block and in turn has a smaller diameter to fit thru the JP handgaurd.
It is a few inches longer than the maximus.
And about 1/2-3/4 the diameter.
The NEA, surprisingly is noticeably quieter (with a shorter barrel) and seems to settle back faster than the JP when shooting fast or double tapping Ipsc targets.
Just a quick observation with no tech data to back it up but it to me it seems that internals and size of a suppressor can make a difference.
Both suppressors have integral breaks and same stock fitted.
Without the suppressor and with the JP break fitted the JP shoots quicker again.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
Yes as the gas comes back it hits the suppressor pushing it back negating its recoil reducing effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by gundoc
This one is inside a magnum suppressor & has about 125mm behind it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULdgBrbUJRk
@gundoc,Quote:
Originally Posted by gundoc
With all respect for your conclusion which I can only agree with, you are harsh on other contributors, even arrogant... and in karmic fashion immediately plunge neck-deep into the bog of your version of Munchausen's pigtail self-lift.
To paraphrase your first bit, when a car passenger kicks the dashboard the car pulls forward. We all know this is false. The explanation is that the passenger supports his back against his seat, so the effect of his forward blow against the dashboard is entirely cancelled by his rearward action against his seat as both objects are fixed to the car. It must be understood that the gun and silencer are attached to each other. They are a single unit; the silencer is part of the gun. A blow from a gun against itself (in the form of impingement of its gases against its own baffles) will not pull it forwards.
Astronauts on a spacewalk similarly can not propel themselves through space by slapping their own butts.
Attachment 76413
100% correct. As stated it is a closed system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
You must look at it from an external point of view in order to make sense as I stated earlier. The reduction in recoil from a suppressor can only come from the reduced gas emission speed from the muzzle (which is now the end of the suppressor) and the extra mass added to the system. It is only when something leaves the system (the projectile and gases leave the muzzle) that the conservation of momentum is applied. This will give the initial speed and hence energy of the recoil. @gundoc, this is simple high school physics.
Yes the amount of energy in each direction is the same, but the impact on the shoulder is the speed of the rifle squared x the mass of the rifle. Adding a brake reduces the velocity by directling energy in a different direction. A suppressor slows the speed with which the gas can thrust the rifle back thus spreading the same amount of energy over a longer period of time (Reduces speed of the impact on the shoulder.) As the speed is squared in E=MC2 then reducing speed has a more significant effect on the impact on the shoulder. Total force (work done) remains the same but not as sudden or as violent.
Yes. Poorly worded on my part. Put it this way, the energy of the projectile (velocity squared x mass) equals the energy of the rifle going in the other direction. Because the mass of the rifle is greater than the projectile then the velocity squared is reduced to get the same total. (Eg a 7lb rifle is approximately 891 times heavier than a 55 gr projectile. ) Your shoulder provides resistance to further increase the mass. This is why pulling the gun INTO the shoulder hurts less than pushing it away. If I assume the shooter is 100kg, then this makes the mass subject to recoil forces 28941 times heavier than the projectile thus reducing the velocity of you going the other way. Holding a rifle away form you means the rifle accelerates into an ompact with your shoulder, but holding it into the shoulder makes your should er part of the same object and you and the rifle accelerate slower due to the increased total mass.Quote:
Originally Posted by 300CALMAN
What suppressor (ad the "brake" within the suppressor) seems to do is slow the escaping gasses by capturing them thus reducing noise and delaying the direct transfer of energy by making the explosion take longer. The also slows the transfer of energy so while the energy transferred is the same a further reduction in speed makes the rifle travel slower thus "reducing" recoil. More importantly, by reducing the noise, they body is subconciously less afraid of the recoil and more likely to hold the rifle properly thus reducing FELT recoil rather than the total overall force.
Does that make sense?
Put more briefly, A muzzle brake by itself actively provides a physical forwards push to counteract the recoil. But my understanding of a suppressor is that rather that reduce the amount of energy, is slows the energy transfer to take longer reducing the time that the impact takes place. Same amount of energy transferred (or very similar) but by taking longer the speed / force of the impact is reduced.
To use the car analogy, think of a muzzle brake as an anchor attached to a chain thrown out the back that grabs the ground and applies a pull to the rear that slows the car. Where a suppressor is the act of apply a foot brake that is part of the car. (Not quite the same but I think close enough to get my point.
For all those that are telling us that suppressors cannot reduce recoil forces, please explain why most shooters find suppressed rifles are more pleasant to shoot with what certainly feels like significantly reduced recoil.......
My 7.62x54R boots like a bastard without a suppressor and leaves bruises on my (slightly built) hunting mate after a few shots, (and has flames you can almost spotlight with) but add a suppressor and he can put a couple packets through with no problems or bruising. (And I know this to be true as I have seen it and experienced the difference myself.) If suppressors do not have any effect on recoil, please explain this for us as this is very close to what the OP asked.
Two points, 1) there is an effect with the energy transfer in your example- the seat resists the rearwards force at the same rate with that the dashboard resists the forwards force. A better example the person bouncing between the seat and the dashboard hitting them at different times thus producing a rocking motion. Yes the silencer and gun are attached but the gas that hits the brake portion and are forced rearwards are given moments to cool and slow thus the speed with which they hit the rear of the suppressor tube is reduced. If a gas hits the front with a high speed and is forced rearwards within the can then hits the rear of the can with a reduced speed due to the cooling and turbulence encountered, then both ends are not subjected to equal countering forces.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
And as a final note, the air thrust forward in your cartoon has been shown to actually work. Poorly but with some gain in forward momentum. Mainly due to the same aerodynamic principle that means an anemometer works. The dome shape at the front resists the air less than the shape behind it.
You cannot change the speed in that in that equation as c is the constant speed of light and that is the equation that started the whole theory of relativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by timattalon
You use the conservation of momentum equation m1v1 = m2v2 to work out the initial velocity of recoil. m1 is the projectile mass, v1 is the projectile velocity, m2 is the rifle mass, v2 is the rifle velocity.Quote:
Yes. Poorly worded on my part. Put it this way, the energy of the projectile (velocity squared x mass) equals the energy of the rifle going in the other direction. Because the mass of the rifle is greater than the projectile then the velocity squared is reduced to get the same total. (Eg a 7lb rifle is approximately 891 times heavier than a 55 gr projectile. ) Your shoulder provides resistance to further increase the mass. This is why pulling the gun INTO the shoulder hurts less than pushing it away. If I assume the shooter is 100kg, then this makes the mass subject to recoil forces 28941 times heavier than the projectile thus reducing the velocity of you going the other way. Holding a rifle away form you means the rifle accelerates into an ompact with your shoulder, but holding it into the shoulder makes your should er part of the same object and you and the rifle accelerate slower due to the increased total mass.
The energy of the recoil is then calculated from E2 = 1/2 * m2 * v22
Quote:
What suppressor (ad the "brake" within the suppressor) seems to do is slow the escaping gasses by capturing them thus reducing noise and delaying the direct transfer of energy by making the explosion take longer. The also slows the transfer of energy so while the energy transferred is the same a further reduction in speed makes the rifle travel slower thus "reducing" recoil. More importantly, by reducing the noise, they body is subconciously less afraid of the recoil and more likely to hold the rifle properly thus reducing FELT recoil rather than the total overall force.
Does that make sense?
@timattalon E=mc2 is Energy = mass x (speed of light)squared and is not relevant to this discussion.
The post above by gadgetman has the relevant equations.
I am well aware that you cannot stand in a bucket and pick it up by the handle, however my comments are backed up by years of experimentation and manufacture (probably more than any current manufacturer). Suppressors are not a 'closed system' and, despite the efficiency of any baffle system, a decent percentage of the gases exit the muzzle in front of, and behind, the bullet. I guess I will just have to set up an experimental pendulum (friction free as opposed to a slide) and publish the results of the recoil dampening effect of various suppressors and muzzle brakes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cordite
I don't intend to be harsh on individual opinions but I have heard too much garbage and pseudo-scientific rambling on the subject of suppressors over the years, and it irritates me!;)
Energy is energy, work is energy expended over time, force felt (work) is affected by the total energy expended and the time/pattern it is released over..... suppressors alter the pattern of energy expended over time which changes the perception of felt force. They do not alter the total amount of energy released.. and they have no effect on converting energy in felt recoil into a different direction.
The best example I can think of would be a compressor storage tank. Dumping the contents over a short time increases the felt force.... the same amount of energy is released with a smaller valve over a longer time...
Muzzle brakes on the other hand convert some of the total energy released into forwards force by redirecting some of that energy in the opposite direction.... different process....
Though, because the gases cool in the suppressor, some of the kinetic energy is turned into heat energy and dissipated. This is why an attached suppressor is not an entirely closed system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
That would alter with the latent heat inside the suppressor which is quite a bit especially after a few shots with a suppressor cover on.Quote:
Originally Posted by gadgetman
Also on how fast the heat is transferred, a titanium one I fired a shot through on a 338 LM nearly burnt my hand after only one shot
Work is energy transferred. Force x distance. Power is energy transferred over time.
You are quite correct Stug.. apologies... Power is the correct variable..
I wonder how much the conversion of kinetic energy into heat would actually reduce percieved recoil? Cooling the gases would reduce volume as well?
If you run the numbers on a recoil calculator with the mass of the rifle and projectile and velocity of projectile, but only 1gr of powder, you get a very low recoil, about 1/3 compared with full amount of powder.
Attachment 76452
Attachment 76454
The extra mass of the suppressor only removes about 2-3ft/lbs of recoil energy.
No, the volume is constant (the container) but the pressure would reduce. PV = nRT. That is why the gases limp out of the suppressor. I would say the pressure would drop a lot. Compare the mass of the gases (roughly the charge) to that of the suppressor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidney
All I know for certain is that when I used the 7mmRemMag without the suppressor, it hurts after 5 or 6 rounds, but with the suppressor I can do a whole pack of 20 and still feel fine. (Wallet hurts a fair bit but the shoulder is fine....) Yes @gadgetman you know the one.....
When all is said and done, it does not worry me how it works, all that matters is that it does.
Absolutely it works. And saves your ears at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by timattalon
That one you speak of is at Gunworks getting a noise sharing device added at the moment. I thought it would be good to get one and share the 'love' that we received at last years Toby shoot. Mostly I'll use it with the suppressor. Even TR loves hers with the more than sufficient muzzle brake effect of the suppressor.
@timattalon,Quote:
Originally Posted by timattalon
Yes, blowing into a large sail with a big fan actually can produce a forward drive. I saw that Mythbusters episode, and it was really good they bothered to test it as the result was forward motion of the craft!!! The reason for this apparent miracle is that the sail deflected the blast of the fan sideways and rearwards. I.e. it nevertheless still illustrates an open system, not an enclosed system like a muzzle brake enclosed in a can and unable to ultimately direct blast in other directions than forwards.
@timattalon,Quote:
Originally Posted by timattalon
I do not hear many say suppressors do not reduce recoil (which by definition have to mean felt recoil). The cooling and thus contraction of muzzle gases with resultant loss of pressure will reduce recoil. The slower release of gases will reduce felt recoil, just like it is more comfortable to accelerate to 100km from standstill over 15 seconds rather than 5 seconds! But the final energy of the car is the same.
As for your little friend and your gun, if he is a seasoned shooter and has that problem, I take it he is shooting prone?
Shooting Big Guns 101. Shoot a full power battle rifle without having it firmly against your shoulder. It will fly backwards at the speed of a fast marching pace. When it thus contacts you (rams you), you will hurt, likely bruise, no matter your body size. Thus people who shoot for the first time may be put off the sport as their fears of recoil are doubly confirmed when they hold the butt too lightly against their shoulder.
A slight lady shooting standing or kneeling with her rifle pressed firmly to her shoulder will absorb the recoil into her shoulder, and her torso will give and twist, with minimal or no hurt therefore to the shoulder. No such luck if she shoots prone.
Someone like myself shooting the same rifle in the standing position will just have a bit more local shoulder hurt to contend with, as my body is simply too big to recoil back as much as hers. My rifle butt will instead dig in more locally into my shoulder region. If I change to the prone shooting position I don't really notice much extra recoil therefore, but the wee girl will experience a relatively larger increase in recoil on shooting prone.
Just watch youtube funny videos of "I lent my wee girlfriend my big manly gun" and you usually see failure to make firm shoulder contact. All it says is, "her boyfriend is an idiot and will he never get a girlfriend who enjoys shooting with him".
Your wee friend should maybe shoot standing or kneeling, with a firm shoulder contact, even though he may feel safer handling a big gun lying prone. But things are not what they seem.
Of course, especially in shooting positions that allow your body to recoil back with the gun, having a gradual power release from the suppressed gun will allow your body to absorb the recoil more widely and move back with the gun. On an accuracy point, the suppressor allows you to hold the gun less firmly against your body, and thus less heartbeat oscillation is transmitted to it.
Hope this is helpful.
E(KINETIC)=1/2 mv^2Quote:
Originally Posted by timattalon
Kinetic energy= half mass times velocity squared
E=mc^2 is relativity and deals with release of energy when mass is converted directly to energy in a nuclear reaction.
Energy= mass times the speed of light squared. Little relevance here.
Sent from my GT-I8190T using Tapatalk
