Suppressor vs. Muzzle Brake

[LocoGringo]

Recently, I got into a discussion with a guy about recoil relief and which was better at reducing recoil...suppressor or muzzle brake. I have my opinions and what they are based on, but I thought I'd like to get the opinions of others without "poisoning the well" by providing my opinion first. So, what say you?

Just to be sure, I'm not talking about muzzle rise, but recoil relief.

 

[Lee Roder]

Hombre,
Funny you should bring this up as I just read about this the other day. I won't spoil your fun, but for a quantitative answer, read 5.16 Rifle Recoil Studies here
http://www.thewellguidedbullet.com/mechanical_studies.htm
HTH
LR

 

[bikemutt]

I had some range time today with several rifles, including one I fired unsuppressed and suppressed.

This was a 300 BLK SBR, AR15 platform (PWS piston), 10" barrel and a Yankee Hill Machine QD muzzle break suppressor mount. Suppressor was a YHM Phantom Ti. Ammo was all 150 grain supersonic factory reloads. My shooting bud was in the lane next to me and observed, without prompting, that the rifle had more observed recoil when shot suppressed than not. As the shooter I had to think about it, then I realized, he's right, there was more felt recoil with the suppressor installed than without.

This is not a hard-kicking rifle by any stretch so the difference was subtle, but it's there. This particular PWS configuration does not have an adjustable gas block so there is no manual way to compensate for pressure loading. I think the design is geared toward supersonic unsuppressed, subsonic suppressed.

 

[LocoGringo]

Lee, why couldn't you have summarized the article by saying that the muzzle brake reduced recoil slightly more than a suppressor rather than forcing me to read that extremely well researched and looooooooong article?!? You get a good chuckle thinking about me reading all of that technical stuff, didn'tcha?

Thanks for the post...it was informative, but their numbers were theoretical and not measured, if I read most of it correctly. Because they were theoretical, one must ask, "are their theoretical numbers reasonable?" I don't know the answer to that.

 

[Nuclear]

I've shot several rifles with factory muzzle brakes and then with silencers, and the recoil was always less with the silencer.

 

[JohnKSa]

Because not all brakes reduce recoil the same amount, and because I suspect the same thing is true of suppressors, I don't believe that there's a definitive answer to the question.

 

[LocoGringo]

I argued that the suppressor reduced recoil MUCH more than any brake I've ever fired, but I've never had a chance to truly test a good muzzle brake versus a suppressor on the same rifle to compare side by side. The guy I debated at first claimed that muzzle brakes provided more recoil relief, then when I called him on it he backed up and said his custom muzzle brake was better than any suppressor he'd tried and then he tried to explain his position using som BS "science" that made me question myself just enough.

John, I suspect you're right. There probably isn't a definitive answer.

If anyone ever asks me, I'd rather have an average performing suppressor than a fantastic performing muzzle brake if for no other reason than noise suppression AND recoil relief rather than just recoil relief.

 

[PapaG]

At the risk of causing some dissention here, my belief is that the relative amount of recoil is often based on "perception" and involves more than just the shove from the gun. Guns that blast louder are often perceived to recoil more than those that are quieter. My Super Blackhawk seems to recoil less than my 30-30 Contender, with both shooting loads that calculate to have the same energy figures. I've shot 20 rounds from a #1 Ruger in .458 Win and the experience wasn't as bad as ten from a 7mm Rem Mag from a 700, both weighing about the same but the 7mm was compensated.
My old 97 Winchester with a good pad and a Cutts kicked more than my 870 Magnum with 30" barrel and 1 1/2 oz turkey loads. Both weighed within a few ounces of each other. 97 was shooting 1 1/4 oz loads.
Prove it? I can't. I think stock fit, weight, position, and experience weigh more in the realm of how recoil is perceived than add-ons. I believe, and it is only my own belief and sixty years of shooting experience, that the noise seems to magnify recoil perception.
Taking issue here isn't my point. I'm not. Just offering another idea about the subject. I also find that guns that didn't bother me when I was fifty give me a little grief now that I'm in my 70s.

 

[Sunray]

No such thing as suppressor vs. muzzle brakes. Neither do anything to recoil. Think physics.
Anyway, they don't do, nor are they designed to do, the same thing. A suppressor doesn't really work with supersonic ammo. The bang is mostly the air slamming back into its place. A brake will work with such ammo, but it will increase the muzzle blast and noise by redirecting it and thereby slowing the felt recoil. The recoil, however, it still there.

 

[bikemutt]

I guess air bags don't work either.

 

[JohnKSa]

...suppressor vs. muzzle brakes. Neither do anything to recoil. Think physics.

They certainly do something to recoil. Since brakes and suppressors both redirect some of the ejecta (the gases) they reduce the amount of recoil directed towards the shooter. Recoil is a force/movement in the direction opposite the movement of the ejecta. By redirecting the ejecta, some of the recoil in the direction of the shooter is eliminated. The force required to redirect the discharge gases (changing the direction of a moving mass creates force) is also generally used to cancel some of the recoil force.

Both brakes and suppressors partially cancel and partially redirect recoil.

The bang is mostly the air slamming back into its place.

The bang is mostly high pressure gases escaping from the bore and creating sound waves.

A brake will...increase the muzzle blast and noise...

It does not increase the noise, it merely directs a lot more of the noise back towards the shooter instead of having it mostly directed downrange.

The recoil, however, it still there.

The recoil, just like the blast and noise is still mostly there, but some of it is canceled and some of it is directed in a different direction which means that:

1. The force required to redirect the gases is used to effectively cancel some of the recoil.
2. The shooter gets less of the uncanceled recoil "aimed" at him/her.