Thread: Suppressors - Am I missing something

Originally Posted by mikee

Whilst I have suppressors for most of my rifles am might be missing something
Reading the Rod and Rifle Suppressor Testing article at least1l "manufacturer" made mention of the fact their unit included an effective integral muzzle brake.

How would this work given its inside the suppressor and although it is possibly directing gas but to where? surely it would ll be caught by the suppressor which would prevent it behaving in the usual way a brake would. Would it just be the xtra weight of the brake causing the recoil reduction??

Over two years ago I made this video.

I put a T1 Terminator muzzle brake inside a modified suppressor to see what it would do.



I also put a T1 brake inside a sleeve to see what closing off a my brake would achieve.



After seeing the etching inside the 316 SS cover I made after only two shots I decided my brake design was too efficient to be closed off

I would need an extremely strong cover to stand up to abuse being handed to it by the escaping muzzle gases which would make it way to bulky for my liking.

@mikee so the answer is.... It is a use of words to capture the attention of the prospective buyer

Originally Posted by mikee

....the Rod and Rifle Suppressor Testing article at least 1 "manufacturer" made mention of the fact their unit included an effective integral muzzle brake.

Greg's two posts say and/or demonstrate what needs to be said on this topic. The last video is particularly telling, with the outcome entirely as expected.

Referring to a suppressor as containing " ...an effective integral muzzle brake.. " is intentionally misleading on the part of the quoted manufacturer in my opinion, and Rod & Rifle do their readers a disservice by repeating this fallacious nonsense without explanation. Only if being very generous could this be interpreted as meaning the internal design immediately in front of the muzzle is effective at diffusing the gases in the interests of extending the longevity of the suppressor.

Originally Posted by Puffin

Greg's two posts say and/or demonstrate what needs to be said on this topic. The last video is particularly telling, with the outcome entirely as expected.

Referring to a suppressor as containing " ...an effective integral muzzle brake.. " is intentionally misleading on the part of the quoted manufacturer in my opinion, and Rod & Rifle do their readers a disservice by repeating this fallacious nonsense without explanation. Only if being very generous could this be interpreted as meaning the internal design immediately in front of the muzzle is effective at diffusing the gases in the interests of extending the longevity of the suppressor.

You are not at all correct there. Anything that slows the forward release of gas will act as a brake. By having a suppressor with substantially greater volume than the barrel will greatly reduce the speed of the emitted gases. Say the suppressor increases the volume to 4x the original volume. You would expect the gases to be released at roughly 1/4 the speed, with the cooling it will actually be less. Now energy is 1/2 mv² so the recoil from the escaping gasses has been reduced to less than 1/16 of that from the unsuppressed rifle.

You know very well that that is not what is being claimed for the A-tec suppressors in the article. You are being a contrarian for the sake of it, evidenced by your then introducing an unrelated argument about volume into the discussion.

No. It is simple physics. It will be acting as an effective brake, not as well as a muzzle brake, but with a typical 1/3 reduction (most rounds seem to have a powder load around half of the projectile weight and the gases are going faster than the projectile). On top of that the suppressor adds mass which reduces recoil too. Being essentially a closed system until the projectile exits the system, the internal 'muzzle brake' of a suppressor has no effect on external recoil as Greg stated, but by holding back the gases and allowing them to cool and releasing them at a slower velocity, etc it does have a major effect.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

No. It is simple physics. It will be acting as an effective brake, not as well as a muzzle brake, but with a typical 1/3 reduction (most rounds seem to have a powder load around half of the projectile weight and the gases are going faster than the projectile). On top of that the suppressor adds mass which reduces recoil too. Being essentially a closed system until the projectile exits the system, the internal 'muzzle brake' of a suppressor has no effect on external recoil as Greg stated, but by holding back the gases and allowing them to cool and releasing them at a slower velocity, etc it does have a major effect.

I think what puffin is getting at is that, yes, this is what happens with all suppressors.
It is not being disputed.

He is saying that the marketers are trying to pitch the “integrated muzzle brake” as a point of difference over other suppressors which is nonsense as they all have the same recoil reducing effect more or less.

Originally Posted by Spudattack

I think what puffin is getting at is that, yes, this is what happens with all suppressors.
It is not being disputed.

He is saying that the marketers are trying to pitch the “integrated muzzle brake” as a point of difference over other suppressors which is nonsense as they all have the same recoil reducing effect more or less.

Gottcha! Yup, that is a "crock of shit" as they say because it is a closed system. Apologies @Puffin, you are very correct on that.

Got me interested, the physics is quite simple, so I measured one of my rifles and its supressor. (Its blowing a gale and raining sideways, all empty cases are prepped in case tomorrows the same). Bore volume .0000039 cu m, supressor volume .00006 so the supressors volume is 15x that of the bore Boyles law says double the volume half the pressure, so here were increased the volume 4 times. So if the bore pressure was 10,000 psi, it will be around 750 psi with in the supressor. The increase in surface area and the expansive cooling and radient loss of heat in the supressor will reduce the gas pressure further. The ultimate aim being that the gas escapes at subsonic speed and that the moment of recoil is spread over a much longer timeframe making it feel less.
Its a great physics lesson, as conservation of momentum means you cant just make the energy disappear, you just try to get it to do something else.

Originally Posted by timattalon

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.

That"s one hell of an impact on your shoulder @timattalon

But yes K.E. = 1/2 m v2 indicates that like a bullet, reducing the velocity will make a big difference to force felt.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

Most brakes inside suppressors are designed to take the abuse from the gases away from the first baffle & as away of easily connecting the generally muzzle forward can.

This means you can use the brake or the can.

Generally these brakes aren't very effective at reducing recoil because they are a compromise.

Thanks KiwiGreg that's interesting. Maybe someone should ask them to prove they work, put up or shut up?

They have these....

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Cartman

They have these....

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

"They" have muzzle breaks on the end of suppressors. Now that's not a bad idea.

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 .
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.