What would a muzzle-brake/flash suppressor look like?

[Lucky]

If you were going to design a device with both features, how would you do it? If you used 2 pieces, which would you put inside the other?

If you designed it right, could it reduce volume at the same time?

 

[Hemicuda]

the noise produced by the gun is a fixed thing, when bullet weight, case volume, barrel and projectile dimensions stay constant... you COULD design it to "absorb" some of the sound... and some muzzle brakes (or whatever you want to call them) DO redirect the sound... (think .50 BMG...)

as for what goes where, I dunno, someone else will have to help...

 

[TMM]

i'm not entirely sure that's possible - a flash supressor directs flash away from the line of sight. a muzzle brake has holes everywhere to disperse the force [or somthing like that], making the supressor useless.

perhaps you could have a single attachment, with the top being solid with slots on either side, for the flash supressor, and everwhere else, outside of the line of sight, there would be the holes to act as the brake. might act as a reverse-compensator, though, with it blowing more gas downward than up, thus increasing your muzzle rise.

my 2 cents

~tmm

 

[Rem700SD]

I've obsessed over the same concept myself, primarily for taking the"edge" off of the bigger rifles, such as .300 RUM and up. I own a few rifle cans, but I can honestly say that muzzle brakes do a better job of compensating than suppressors.
I think one can be designed to do both. Sound Technologies has a can called the black star, IIRC that can be modified to (further)reduce recoil for $150 extra. He offers no pictures, diagrams, or information on how it's done, however.
If I had the means to experiment, I'd add 2 extra baffles to an existing stack, make the appropriate length tube, and port the area of the last baffle or two. Bear in mind that the velocity of the gas is reduced with each baffle, so what comes out of the port should be subsonic gas. It would be louder at the user end, but be quieter at the target end. I have never seen this done, but I think it'd be worth a try.

BTW I'm no expert in fluid dynamics, and this opinion is worth what you paid for it!
Dan

 

[Lucky]

Well, the damnedest thing about flash-suppressors is that they seem to use some fancy turbulence - the ones that work, as demonstrated on the site below:

http://www.silencertests.com/flash.htm


And these suppressors, they seem to use baffles and an expansion chamber.

I was struck by the similarity a muzzle brake has to the baffles inside a suppressor. So I was wondering if the muzzle brake could act like the baffles inside a suppressor, but they'd be inside an unconfined expansion chamber that functioned like a muzzle-brake.

A perforated tube with multiple chambers, mounted over the muzzle brake, would act at worst as a flash-hider. If fancy turbulence could be created then maybe the combination of devices could function as a true flash-suppressor. But in any case the act of slowing the the expanding gasses should provide reduced decibels.

Right?

And furthermore, since the gasses are being redirected perpendicularly, that's still going to be cutting down the recoil.







multi-chambered muzzle-brake:
http://www.lefthandrifles.com/muzzlebrake/

 

[Zak Smith]

Outside of sound suppressors, the mechanism of flash suppression is drawing air into the device to burn the flash "inside" the flash suppressor. This is done with longitudinal slots, like in the A2 and Vortex flash-hiders. A brake depends on surfaces normal to the bore. These two requirements are at odds.

The MSTN QC comp does reduce flash much more than some other brakes, and is a good brake. It puts out about an A2-sized flash on each side, with none on the top of the comp.

 

[Lucky]

Thanks for the tips, I'll look into them for sure. I don't understand the mechanics of drawing air in, so I see some research ahead.

 

[RyanM]

Well, actually, I'd say a suppressor probably fulfills both functions. Flash is usually reduced to nothing. And the baffles act like a muzzle brake. Muzzle brakes and porting work mostly due to the momentum imparted on them when the powder gasses hit the slots/holes/baffles/whatever; the redirection of the gasses apparently has little, if any effect.

 

[Lucky]

Muzzle brakes and porting work mostly due to the momentum imparted on them when the powder gasses hit the slots/holes/baffles/whatever; the redirection of the gasses apparently has little, if any effect.

How would that reconcile with Newton's third law?

 

[Zak Smith]

There is a "jet" effect from ports. That's why the best brakes for maintaining muzzle position vent symmetricaly to both sides, and vent a little to the top. The more advanced ones (JP and MSTN) are vent a little bit more to counteract the "up and right" tendency for right-handed shooters.

Brakes that have too much porting on the top will drive the muzzle down, and likewise, if you install a regular comp upside down, it will normally drive the muzzle up.

But remember that these gasses are redirected to a right angle to the bore (ie geometrically "normal") and thus don't really affect recoil which is straight back.

 

[Bubbles]

Every suppressor I have also works as a muzzle brake and flash suppressor.

Think about it - hanging a two-pound weight off the end of your rifle barrel is going to reduce recoil.

Just make sure whatever you build doesn't reduce the sound unless you file a Form 1 first.

 

[RyanM]

How would that reconcile with Newton's third law?

Imagine you're firing a gun with a steel plate welded across the bore. Bullet goes forward at X, gun goes backwards at Y. Bullet hits plate, comes to rest. Forward momentum is imparted on the gun, equal to the rearward momentum of firing. End result, gun jumps backwards momentarily, then stops dead. That's if the momentum of junk hitting part of the gun is equal to the momentum of the bullet and powder gasses.

It does seem like redirection of the gas should have some effect too, but some people say that the forward momentum is the only factor. Not sure if I buy that, but gas hitting the edge of the brake/ports/whatever definitely would be a factor.

 

[Lucky]

Ryan, what you say makes sense, my head agrees, but my gut tells me it's wrong.

Bubbles, if the sound reduction was not the intended purpose, would it really matter? If one's state goals are just to reduce recoil and muzzle-flash at the same time, and any volume reduction was simply derivative?

Zak, thanks yet again, but when the jet or 'rocket' effect takes place perpendicular to the bore, could it not be said that does effect recoil? After all, if there is no re-direction then the effect would be adding it's force to the backwards push.

 

[Zak Smith]

A jet effect normal to the bore by definition cannot reduce rearward recoil. But to get redirected to the the sides, its forward momentum has to be stopped, which is where it imparts the forward momentum to the barrel.

In a sound suppressor, after it does this, the gas and pressure is mostly contained and there are no "jets"-- except a slightly delayed and reduced jet out the "muzzle" of the suppressor, and gas escaping back up the bore towards the breech in a semi-auto action (or bolt if you open the bolt soon enough). You can see the delayed and reduced jet out the front if you shoot the suppressor at night and shine a flashlight in front of the muzzle.

In a compensator or brake, gas now stopped from its forward movement is sent out the ports or open parts of the comp (and not "in" because that's higher pressure). This is where the secondary "jet" effect happens, where any radial assymetry in the ports will manifest as the muzzle being pushed down, up, whatever.

-z

 

[Lucky]

Ok, I get it now. You speed up the gas, then you catch it and slow it down.

Incidentally, what do linear compensators look like on the inside? They just look like pop-cans with holes in the bottom.