Linear compensator blasty things

[islandhunter]

I have the short s&j linear comp on a 16.1" grendel, it does reduce noise slightly. At least it's adding an inch of barrel, decibel and distance wise lol.

 

[alpining]

... At least it's adding an inch of barrel, decibel and distance wise lol.

Can't argue with that, every bit you can move the muzzle away from your ear helps!

It's also giving some additional space for the gas to expand into before being released into the air, reducing the pressure. In theory, the greater the pressure reduction, the greater the noise reduction (my understanding at least!). So, a linear comp with a larger internal volume for the gas to expand into will reduce the pressure more than a smaller one.

This is also one of the reasons why a longer barrel barrel is quieter (for the same load). There is that much more room for the gas to expand before escaping the muzzle.

This is all in addition to the cone effect, directing the expanding gas away from your ear, just like DavenK says above.

 

[212driller]

My s&j nano comp works well on my 12.5" 308. If I had more cash I wouldn't mind trying the surefire warden.

**Image and video linking functions will be enabled after you have contributed more to the forum**

 

[Fi7TOR]

If you get the threaded Warden, no. Save $$$ and get something else.

If you're looking for a QD forward comp, yes.
The ratchet Warden is hard to beat for the money if you own a SF muzzle device that allows you to put it on and remove in seconds.

Would a Surefire muzzle brake still retain its effect on recoil when covered with a blast diffuser (like the Warden)?

 

[Non-phixion]

Would a Surefire muzzle brake still retain its effect on recoil when covered with a blast diffuser (like the Warden)?

In my experience none of them do. As soon as you put a diffuser on a brake or comp it turns into a noveske flaming pig essentially.

 

[Suther]

Would a Surefire muzzle brake still retain its effect on recoil when covered with a blast diffuser (like the Warden)?

Physics says no. You're blocking the gas from being redirected which is what mitigates recoil.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

Physics says no. You're blocking the gas from being redirected which is what mitigates recoil.

Actually physics says the exact opposite. A large portion of the recoil impulse is due to the jet effect of the high velocity gas exiting the muzzle. Anything that slows the jet will reduce recoil. A brake covered by a shield will most certainly disrupt the gas flow jet and slow it down considerably.

Of course, because the blast shield prevents the rearwards direction of propellant gas, it will not be as effective as the naked brake.

If your premise held water, sound suppressors would not reduce recoil at all, and yet they do ... considerably.

 

[Suther]

Actually physics says the exact opposite. A large portion of the recoil impulse is due to the jet effect of the high velocity gas exiting the muzzle. Anything that slows the jet will reduce recoil. A brake covered by a shield will most certainly disrupt the gas flow jet and slow it down considerably.

Of course, because the blast shield prevents the rearwards direction of propellant gas, it will not be as effective as the naked brake.

If your premise held water, sound suppressors would not reduce recoil at all, and yet they do ... considerably.

Not at all. Suppressors reduce recoil by redirecting the gas, which is exactly what I said. Suppressors have space inside for those gases to go. A brake with a cover has very very little space for the gases to flow into and expand.

So will a covered brake reduce recoil? Technically yes, it will. But not anywhere near as effectively as it would be uncovered. IMO that's not "retain(ing) its effect on recoil" like was asked, to me "retaining the effect" would require significant recoil reduction, maybe not as much as the brake but still a noteworthy amount. A tiny fraction of the recoil reduction is not retaining the effect to me. Ymmv.