Soo you mean to tell us that all those top competitors have been fooling us all this time? Damn that Jerry Miculek, Jessie Duff, Travis Haley etc! Where did you get this info or is this based on your personal findings? Is this info for bench shooters or action style shooting ie 3gun etc?
Muzzle device opinions/experiences for SBR...
- Thread starter strider007
- Start date
Soo you mean to tell us that all those top competitors have been fooling us all this time? Damn that Jerry Miculek, Jessie Duff, Travis Haley etc! Where did you get this info or is this based on your personal findings? Is this info for bench shooters or action style shooting ie 3gun etc?
Just run the DD Mk18 with the supplied flash suppressor. Follow ups are a snap wen you have some training under your belt about manual recoil and muzzle climb mitigation. Not only that, but you won't get frikkin' blinded during altered light contac..... err....stages in any competitions you may want to enter... yeah, that's the ticket...
-S.
-S.
It also sucks when you're doing team CQB drills and your fire team partner has one of those bloody things on the end of his SBR and you still have to make the hits while he's slapping you in the face with his redirected muzzle blast. The WORST is vehicle drills with those things.
I suspect the blast shield may put you back at square one, just with more weight on the end of your bang stick.
-S.
Clobbersauras
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Waaay out west.
Why, are they telling everyone they have a "one brake suits all" solution?
If so, they shouldn't be. But most people don't know better anyway.
I was secretly hoping for a sure fire "SOCOM" one...
mebiuspower
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Morontario
I learned that the hard way... I'm back to a flash suppressor on my SBR.
kennyclone
Regular
- Location
- Grande Prairie
why wouldnt it be?
seriously, put this plus surefires new blast shield in my earlier post and you're pretty golden on every length.
Almost none of them use comps, they use brakes. The competition world is dominated by brakes. Brakes don't push the muzzle down like most comps do, they operate in a completely different way and maintain it level.
This "info" is based on physics and experience, and not just MY experience.
When you run short guns in the 11.5/10.5 range those down pushing characteristics really get dramatic. But none of this will matter if you don't have a good shooting stance. If you only bench shoot your AR (which is pretty ####ing lame if you ask me) you probably won't notice a difference.
Here's some reading material for everybody (some of the pics don't show up sadly).
http://www.vuurwapenblog.com/uncategorized/ar-15-muzzle-device-comparison/
http://www.vuurwapenblog.com/genera...d-and-battlecomp-enterprises-should-feel-bad/
Cool. I'll give it a read.
strider007
CGN frequent flyer
Hey Dietz...thanks for the links...pretty awesome articles...
Last edited:
I'm going to go on a little story here.
Mainly as a lot of bad data is being pushed out in this thread, and folks will end up getting mislead into something they really did not want.
KAC conducted a recoil study for the US Government - we ended up developing the WRSS to measure recoil after ballistic pendulums and cradle devices where not giving true data. WRSS was displayed at SHOT, and we are actually selling some of these things to companies who are interested in tracking recoil and mitigation methods.
*we call it the robo-shoulder.
There are a number of excellent muzzle brakes, comps and flash hiders on the market currently, and depending what you want, you can likely get it.
Muzzle Brakes are solely designed to mitigate recoil -- some are obviously better than others, but the most efficient brakes will reduce about 95% of felt recoil.
An example of a 95% efficient brake is the Miculek Comp -- it does offer excellent recoil mitigation, but that the expense of a great deal of side concussion and flash.
Generally all the super efficient (75% or higher FRR - Free Recoil Reduction) brakes will exhibit the concussion and flash aspects, as they redirect a great deal of muzzle gasses quickly.
The Flash and Concussion aspects to any device depend upon the way the gasses are allowed to enter the atmosphere from the barrel/device.
Compensators: These are generally designed to compensate for recoil induced muzzle rise, one of the first black gun Compensators, was the old Thompson Cutts compensator that simple vented gases up to push the barrel back down, even technically the M16A2's Flash Hider is a Compensator - as when Lt Col Dave Lutz was the M16A2 Program Officer, he wanted a method to keep the barrel more level when shooting rapidly - as well as the A1's Birdcage with its bottom slot kicked up dust and dirt - so it was a "win/win" for the 5 slot A2. As a side note on 14.5-20" barrels the A2 Flash Hider/Compensator is around 7% effective at recoil reduction. These days a lot of stuff is marketed as a Compensator - that is really not. The XM-177E1/E2 compensator is another example - of course as it was also designed to help mitigate flash and sound back to 20" rifle lengths, ATF down here deemed it a "Silencer"
Flash Hiders/Flash Suppressors: Several different designs exist for these, to do several different flash mitigation methods -- older WWII weapons often had a bell shaped muzzle device to redirect flash and sound downrange to try to obscure less of the gunners vision when firing at night (down side it made a distinctly visible downrange flash - thus a good target). Open Tip/Prong devices are the most efficient, with geometry of the device making massive differences is efficency - the Gold Standard of Flash Reduction is the BE Meyers type device - however many of the prong designs suffer from harmonics issues, and will ring like a tuning folks. Closed Slot Flash Hiders are better at flash suppression inside a suppressor/silencer - as well they don't snag like open tip flash hiders.
Clip On Compensators -- years ago (90's) KAC made some short clip on comps for our M4QD Flash Hider - the idea was to help mask concussion of the weapon when in confined spaces (like a car) ATF deemed the device a Silencer, so we never went forward with commericial release -- the Fefrans device is a near clone of ported version.
The old TT (Triple Tap) is an example of a compromise Muzzle Break/Suppressor Mount: It was designed along with the NT-3 Suppressor (shorter version of the NT-4/M4QD Suppressor). It is generally 28% efficient at reducing Recoil (14.5" barrel) but was required to be made of Inconel, due to being a suppressor mount, and sacrificial baffle for the suppressor as well.
If we never build another one of these I will be happy - inconel sucks to machine, and has a very high scrap rate due to broken tools.
Last of my ramblings -- barrel length. Due to what Clob said, I wanted to add an aspect that is often overlooked, muzzle brakes are effective due to the way they vent high pressure muzzle gasses -- if your running a 20" 5.56mm gun most of the muzzle devices will be extremely efficient -- however not so on a 10" gun, as instead of hot gasses, your dealing with a lot of burning and unburnt propellant - so it does not have enough pressure to work as efficiently. To that end, the only reason I see for a Muzzle brake on a SBR is as a sacrificial baffle for your suppressor, but it's really up to you how you spend your money. Any time you add something to a muzzle brake that will constrict the way it vents to the atmosphere will reduce the effectiveness of the brake.
Spend your money wisely - know what you want/need and be an informed consumer.
Mainly as a lot of bad data is being pushed out in this thread, and folks will end up getting mislead into something they really did not want.
KAC conducted a recoil study for the US Government - we ended up developing the WRSS to measure recoil after ballistic pendulums and cradle devices where not giving true data. WRSS was displayed at SHOT, and we are actually selling some of these things to companies who are interested in tracking recoil and mitigation methods.
*we call it the robo-shoulder.
There are a number of excellent muzzle brakes, comps and flash hiders on the market currently, and depending what you want, you can likely get it.
Muzzle Brakes are solely designed to mitigate recoil -- some are obviously better than others, but the most efficient brakes will reduce about 95% of felt recoil.
An example of a 95% efficient brake is the Miculek Comp -- it does offer excellent recoil mitigation, but that the expense of a great deal of side concussion and flash.
Generally all the super efficient (75% or higher FRR - Free Recoil Reduction) brakes will exhibit the concussion and flash aspects, as they redirect a great deal of muzzle gasses quickly.
The Flash and Concussion aspects to any device depend upon the way the gasses are allowed to enter the atmosphere from the barrel/device.
Compensators: These are generally designed to compensate for recoil induced muzzle rise, one of the first black gun Compensators, was the old Thompson Cutts compensator that simple vented gases up to push the barrel back down, even technically the M16A2's Flash Hider is a Compensator - as when Lt Col Dave Lutz was the M16A2 Program Officer, he wanted a method to keep the barrel more level when shooting rapidly - as well as the A1's Birdcage with its bottom slot kicked up dust and dirt - so it was a "win/win" for the 5 slot A2. As a side note on 14.5-20" barrels the A2 Flash Hider/Compensator is around 7% effective at recoil reduction. These days a lot of stuff is marketed as a Compensator - that is really not. The XM-177E1/E2 compensator is another example - of course as it was also designed to help mitigate flash and sound back to 20" rifle lengths, ATF down here deemed it a "Silencer"
Flash Hiders/Flash Suppressors: Several different designs exist for these, to do several different flash mitigation methods -- older WWII weapons often had a bell shaped muzzle device to redirect flash and sound downrange to try to obscure less of the gunners vision when firing at night (down side it made a distinctly visible downrange flash - thus a good target). Open Tip/Prong devices are the most efficient, with geometry of the device making massive differences is efficency - the Gold Standard of Flash Reduction is the BE Meyers type device - however many of the prong designs suffer from harmonics issues, and will ring like a tuning folks. Closed Slot Flash Hiders are better at flash suppression inside a suppressor/silencer - as well they don't snag like open tip flash hiders.
Clip On Compensators -- years ago (90's) KAC made some short clip on comps for our M4QD Flash Hider - the idea was to help mask concussion of the weapon when in confined spaces (like a car) ATF deemed the device a Silencer, so we never went forward with commericial release -- the Fefrans device is a near clone of ported version.
The old TT (Triple Tap) is an example of a compromise Muzzle Break/Suppressor Mount: It was designed along with the NT-3 Suppressor (shorter version of the NT-4/M4QD Suppressor). It is generally 28% efficient at reducing Recoil (14.5" barrel) but was required to be made of Inconel, due to being a suppressor mount, and sacrificial baffle for the suppressor as well.
If we never build another one of these I will be happy - inconel sucks to machine, and has a very high scrap rate due to broken tools.
Last of my ramblings -- barrel length. Due to what Clob said, I wanted to add an aspect that is often overlooked, muzzle brakes are effective due to the way they vent high pressure muzzle gasses -- if your running a 20" 5.56mm gun most of the muzzle devices will be extremely efficient -- however not so on a 10" gun, as instead of hot gasses, your dealing with a lot of burning and unburnt propellant - so it does not have enough pressure to work as efficiently. To that end, the only reason I see for a Muzzle brake on a SBR is as a sacrificial baffle for your suppressor, but it's really up to you how you spend your money. Any time you add something to a muzzle brake that will constrict the way it vents to the atmosphere will reduce the effectiveness of the brake.
Spend your money wisely - know what you want/need and be an informed consumer.
strider007
CGN frequent flyer
KevinB...thx for chiming in, brother. Your input is always much appreciated.
Excellent info...thx again.
Excellent info...thx again.
Kevin, I have some issues with the 95% recoil reduction claim. The gas jet comprises only about 30% of the total recoil impulse. The projectile weight and velocity are the other 70%.
IF a break is able to redirect 100% of the gas at 90 deg to the bore then the best it could do is 30% reduction in recoil. And we know with 100% certainty that no brake on earth is capable of that feat.
Some brakes can direct some of the gas backwards at a shallow angle, which results in a bit of extra recoil reduction. I suspect that in order for the gas jet to compensate for or negate the bullet portion of the recoil impulse, a huge portion of the gas jet would have to be directed backwards at a very steep angle, approaching nearly 180 deg from the bore and even then I doubt that would be able to greatly negate the bullet's portion of the recoil. It would certainly make the rifle highly unpleasant to shoot.
The problem is that recoil is basically mass x velocity. And while the gas is def moving considerably faster then the projectile, it isn't moving that much faster and it weighs a great deal less. And unless all that gas is directed in the opposite direction from bullet travel it is just not going to produce that much force to counter the recoil.
Anytime I see recoil reduction figures greater than 50% bandied about, my interest is lost. I suspect the vast majority of brake makers are simply pulling numbers directly out of their @ss for the most part.
IF a break is able to redirect 100% of the gas at 90 deg to the bore then the best it could do is 30% reduction in recoil. And we know with 100% certainty that no brake on earth is capable of that feat.
Some brakes can direct some of the gas backwards at a shallow angle, which results in a bit of extra recoil reduction. I suspect that in order for the gas jet to compensate for or negate the bullet portion of the recoil impulse, a huge portion of the gas jet would have to be directed backwards at a very steep angle, approaching nearly 180 deg from the bore and even then I doubt that would be able to greatly negate the bullet's portion of the recoil. It would certainly make the rifle highly unpleasant to shoot.
The problem is that recoil is basically mass x velocity. And while the gas is def moving considerably faster then the projectile, it isn't moving that much faster and it weighs a great deal less. And unless all that gas is directed in the opposite direction from bullet travel it is just not going to produce that much force to counter the recoil.
Anytime I see recoil reduction figures greater than 50% bandied about, my interest is lost. I suspect the vast majority of brake makers are simply pulling numbers directly out of their @ss for the most part.
Peter,
The math behind the calculations and measurements is beyond me -- I do know that there are several different types of recoil measurements - which encapsulate various different figures. I'll talk to the Engineer's on the Recoil Programs tomorrow and get the 'correct' explanations.
The expanding gasses volume is huge compared to the bullet however, this expansion at the brake (and the direction) has a phenomenal affect on recoil.
Think recoiless rifle principles - and how they act.
If you look at the raw data - it is possible to get much great than 50% efficiency
The math behind the calculations and measurements is beyond me -- I do know that there are several different types of recoil measurements - which encapsulate various different figures. I'll talk to the Engineer's on the Recoil Programs tomorrow and get the 'correct' explanations.
The expanding gasses volume is huge compared to the bullet however, this expansion at the brake (and the direction) has a phenomenal affect on recoil.
Think recoiless rifle principles - and how they act.
If you look at the raw data - it is possible to get much great than 50% efficiency
