E
ernierod
Guest
Which device offers the most recoil reduction-a correctly sized silencer or a correctly sized muzzle brake. Thanks
mwezell
Mike Ezell
A silencer is more efficient at recoil reduction due to less wasted energy.
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
AND for a silencer to work efficiently the load must be sub-sonic. That in itself does away with most recoil.
mwezell
Mike Ezell
What? You lost me there, Jerry. I'm talking about all things being equal, except brake, vs. suppressor, and in terms of recoil reduction from them. Brakes actually work "more" with higher muzzle pressures. I just assume that suppressors do too. Is that wrong?
David Halblom
Flying Fish Fundamentals
Mike, yes
you have made an assumption not in evidence. Silencers are best at quieting a subsonic round. with a round at or above 110 fps you still get a sonic boom that can be quite loud. As for recoil reduction, a properly designed brake will quell an awful lot of recoil, and there, the more gas moving (bigger cartridge) the more recoil reduction.
you have made an assumption not in evidence. Silencers are best at quieting a subsonic round. with a round at or above 110 fps you still get a sonic boom that can be quite loud. As for recoil reduction, a properly designed brake will quell an awful lot of recoil, and there, the more gas moving (bigger cartridge) the more recoil reduction.
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
Mike, there are several common gun barrel attachments (including bayonets), Silencers, muzzle brakes, flash suppressors, etc. BUT, for a silencer to silence the boom, the round fired must be at slower than the speed of sound (sub sonic) to be a silencer. Otherwise it is just another barrel attachment.
Under FFL regs, an actual silencer must be registered with the BATFE to be legal.
(where did I loose you?)
.
E
ernierod
Guest
I guess I should have mentioned-The cartridge that I had in mind was full power 338 Lapau Magnum loads. Thanks again.
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
It would have provided a lot of clarity to those who have already responded. But WTH.
And yes, you can silence the 338 LM, but the projectile velocity must be sub sonic. And as you probably know that in itself would reduce recoil.
The woods are getting full of 338 LM's??? It is not the ultimate in macho, IMO!!
.
David Halblom
Flying Fish Fundamentals
And for that size cartridge
a muzzle brake would definitely be the manner of choice to reduce recoil.
David
a muzzle brake would definitely be the manner of choice to reduce recoil.
David
Dusty Stevens
Hollow Point Dispenser
www.muzzlebrakesandmore.com
My 338lm is a pup that a kid could shoot all day with the 5 port brake. A suppressor quells the extreme noise but not a ton of recoil like a brake. At least you dont have to wear plugs and muffs to be around a suppressor
Jerry- the cheytac is the in thing now. Once everybody in the woods got one of those savages off the shelf we had to go big enuf to finally scare factory shrapnel inducing actions away
My 338lm is a pup that a kid could shoot all day with the 5 port brake. A suppressor quells the extreme noise but not a ton of recoil like a brake. At least you dont have to wear plugs and muffs to be around a suppressor
Jerry- the cheytac is the in thing now. Once everybody in the woods got one of those savages off the shelf we had to go big enuf to finally scare factory shrapnel inducing actions away
mwezell
Mike Ezell
Interesting. Thanks for the replies to my post. I don't want to take this too far off subject, but I've tested lots of brakes...The Ross Schuler brakes Dusty mentioned, are very good and well priced. I've shot several suppressed rifles of different calibers, but have never tested them. I will say that they do greatly reduce recoil and noise. A side by side test would be nice for a class III or someone who has suppressors and brakes.
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
Dusty Stevens
Hollow Point Dispenser
Jerry- you have to have a full case to be able to cut down target frames and catch sks handguards on fire.
A surpressor cuts down on the bang, as already pointed out, it disperses the gas through baffles.
It does absoletely nothing to lessen recoil.
A well designed muzzle brake pushes a portion of the gas backwards - hence the extra noise and blast when using one - it can usually reduce recoil.
Best for subsonics I agree - Dont believe the movies!
* doghunter *
It does absoletely nothing to lessen recoil.
A well designed muzzle brake pushes a portion of the gas backwards - hence the extra noise and blast when using one - it can usually reduce recoil.
Best for subsonics I agree - Dont believe the movies!
* doghunter *
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
Dusty, what makes me wonder about some shooters, they will pay $1500 for a superdooper 338 or the like, buy a case of ammo, then go to the local gun club to sight it in.....without any target material.
One of the local clubs I belong to has large trash barrels full of target frame parts, and gallon milk jugs. Ever try to determine anything about a group on a gallon plastic jug that tumbles 30 feet with each shot?
.
Pete Wass
Well-known member
A friend
put a couple(2) of those Mercury recoil reducers in a rifle he made up and said it reduced the recoil measurably. The bad thing about brakes is the extra noise and spray of hot gasses and burning powder on ones neighbors. Yes, I know there are the type that direct the gasses forward but if I could reduce recoil any other way, I would do it. I once had a 7mm STW with a factory break on it and that thing would deafen ya if you didn't stuff your ears. You might get the idea that I am agin breaks, well probably, if there is any other way.
Pete
put a couple(2) of those Mercury recoil reducers in a rifle he made up and said it reduced the recoil measurably. The bad thing about brakes is the extra noise and spray of hot gasses and burning powder on ones neighbors. Yes, I know there are the type that direct the gasses forward but if I could reduce recoil any other way, I would do it. I once had a 7mm STW with a factory break on it and that thing would deafen ya if you didn't stuff your ears. You might get the idea that I am agin breaks, well probably, if there is any other way.
Pete
Asa Yam
New member
Recoil reduction and suppressors. From a study from Finland:
A summary of the study may be seen at http://guns.connect.fi/rs/suppress.html .
I saw a suppressor design that used the muzzle brake on a rifle to reduce both muzzle blast and recoil. To effectively suppress most of the muzzle blast of a .50 BMG round, the suppressor was ~6" in diameter, and 3' long. The sound of the rifle firing was similar to a metal bat hitting something small and hard (pebble?), followed by the hiss of an air hose.
Down sides to a suppressor. Effective ones are big, and not light. In the US, they are expensive, thanks in part to low manufacturing quantity, and the Federal transfer tax on them. Legal ownership requirements vary, depending on the owner's residence or storage location. Moving one across State lines (even temporarily) requires ATF approval, and probably the approval of State and local officials as well. Depending on the storage location of the suppressor, similar coordination may be required with local officials to move through or across a county, town, or city. And then there's the issue of using one for sustained firing sessions (lots of rounds fired over a set time period): the more efficient the suppressor, the hotter it gets. Better have a good mitt handy to remove one, and some sort of heat resistant padding or rack to set the unit in while it cools down.
Hope this helps.
A summary of the study may be seen at http://guns.connect.fi/rs/suppress.html .
I saw a suppressor design that used the muzzle brake on a rifle to reduce both muzzle blast and recoil. To effectively suppress most of the muzzle blast of a .50 BMG round, the suppressor was ~6" in diameter, and 3' long. The sound of the rifle firing was similar to a metal bat hitting something small and hard (pebble?), followed by the hiss of an air hose.
Down sides to a suppressor. Effective ones are big, and not light. In the US, they are expensive, thanks in part to low manufacturing quantity, and the Federal transfer tax on them. Legal ownership requirements vary, depending on the owner's residence or storage location. Moving one across State lines (even temporarily) requires ATF approval, and probably the approval of State and local officials as well. Depending on the storage location of the suppressor, similar coordination may be required with local officials to move through or across a county, town, or city. And then there's the issue of using one for sustained firing sessions (lots of rounds fired over a set time period): the more efficient the suppressor, the hotter it gets. Better have a good mitt handy to remove one, and some sort of heat resistant padding or rack to set the unit in while it cools down.
Hope this helps.
JerrySharrett
Senile Member
Mercury recoil reducers do work on light recoiling guns. We used them a lot shooting trap.
Pete, the STW can be tamed with muzzle slits (magnaports). Trouble is in that case a 7STW with a 26" barrel and the slits you end up with about the same muzzle velocity of a 7 Rem Mag.
Been there , done that!
.
Form 5320.20 applies only to destructive devices, machineguns, short-barreled rifles, or short-barreled shotguns. https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5320-20.pdf There is no form available for transporting suppressors. As far as I know there are not any restrictions to transporting suppressors across state lines as long as the suppressor is legal in the state you are headed to. If you are transporting one through a state where they are not legal you may have to figure out legal transportation through the state.
Last edited: