วีดีโอ

Thanks for your comments, glad you appreciated some of the effort that goes into this R&D work. Cheers.

@@deanmaisey3460 Yes I can see the vast amount of work that you've devoted to these projects. In particular the recoil measurement "all mechanical" test setup is most impressive. Here in the States we have many outfits selling silencers who have next to nothing as far as recoil information, especially across different manufacturers. It's a shame because I'm very focused on reducing recoil on my 7mm Rem Mag since I had rotator cuff and bicep tendon repairs. I hunt elk so want/need the punch of the 7mmRM, or more. If you might have encountered or performed any further work on recoil measurement/reduction across silencer manufacturers and models that you could share, it would be most helpful to me (and I'm sure others). Regards, Len

Inside the suppressor? A suppressor mounted/attached to an existing muzzle brake - the brake just becomes an internal part of the suppressor, like a 'slave baffle' of sorts. The 'brake' effect doesn't really happen anymore as it's just discharging into the suppressor, which then allows the gases to exit out the front end, albeit at a slower rate than no muzzle attachment at all. Alot of suppressors actually feature and internal kind of 'muzzlebrake' inside them anyway. So the main point of difference here is 'suppressors' (in whatever configuration) verses a muzzlebrake which can discharge the gasses to atmosphere rapidly.

@@deanmaisey3460 thank you for the reply. Very informative. To be honest all I have are Form 1 suppressors in varying types of metals. I have one more question. Why do some professionally made suppressors have “mouse holes” or “vent holes” within each baffle? Does that just let off gas pressure for those without adjustable gas blocks?

muzzlebrakes.co.nz/prices/ See the rest of the site for more info, and email me direct if you need any more info about ordering or shipping. Thanks.

Thanks mate, i am aware of the recent developments with youtube and their blatant attempts at discrimination against legal firearms users and enthusiasts. Will be watching this space and taking appropriate action if required. Regards, Dean.

created4el Thanks for your message. Yes, you are actually quite correct there is a 'general' correlation between suppression effect and recoil reduction. We actually did some comparison tests recently in this regard for several suppressors with a B&K2209 sound meter to get accurate db readings, and compared these with the recoil reduction percentagesm for each. We found that we did actually have to factor in a 'weight penalty' to the calculations depending on the weight of each suppressor, and when we did this we found that the results were often within about 1% or so of the figures for (average) peak db reduction. The heavier suppressors will also help to reduce recoil a bit more due to their mass alone. So basically, you are on the right track with your comments. Thanks, Dean.

Hi Daniel, at this stage all of our brakes are for threaded barrels only. We don't make any clamp-on brakes at all, due to potential problems with bore alignment, due to the fact that the outside diameter of 99% of factory barrels usually never runs perfectly true and concentric with the barrel bore. So that means that the OD of the barrel really has to be gunsmith-machined perfectly true to the bore axis before fitting a clamp-style brake. And if you have to do that anyway, then you might as well just get it threaded and install the brake in the conventional manner. Thanks, Dean.

hardyz

Mark Robbins Sorry Mark you are quite wrong. All of these were commercial grade suppressors, not 'home made' as you suggest. The best/biggest one was a commercial/military grade 100% stainless unit. All of the suppressors were covered simply to avoid embarrassment to those manufacturers who were falsely advertising their products performance levels. The results of the test are quite fair and accurate, and for comparison purposes are totally valid. Not sure what you want me to give you a break from? Do some more research if you don't believe what has honestly been presented here.

this guy probably didn't even watch the video

StudyinSteel thanks for the comments, glad you liked it.

@@deanmaisey3460 I know this will sound ignorant and as if I am beating a dead horse, but just to make sure I am understanding the relationships correctly... What would the effect would adding a muzzle brake after a suppressor have on recoil? Clunky and unrealistic in the real world I know, but for the sake of understanding, would whatever degree of slowing and cooling cooling of the gas that the suppressor achieves negate the effectiveness of the muzzle brake?

Mark Whatley Since the escaping gasses would be slowed, the muzzle brake shouldn’t be as effective as it would be without the suppressor, as the muzzle brake takes advantage of the force of the quickly escaping gases. However, this is an interesting idea! It would be worth experimenting with to see the real world outcome.

Thank you, glad that you enjoyed it.

no it doesn't say on the video anywhere. This is deliberate to avoid embarrassment for the makers of the poorer performing suppressors - especially those who may have publicly made false or misleading claims in their promotional efforts for their product. This video was just intended to be educational, rather than picking a fight or dispute with anyone in particular.

+Dean Maisey thats a shame, being a Kiwi and looki g to buy a suppressor, would be good know what is what.

The rifle will still recoil just like any other suppressor, if the gas is ultimately exiting to atmosphere out of the little hole at the front end of the suppressor which is sized for bullet clearance. Concerning recoil, it doesn't matter if inside the suppressor it has a brake, a diffuser, a flash hider, or nothing but a threaded mount section with nothing immediately forward except the baffle stack. Generally speaking though, suppressors that incorporate a brake or some other muzzle attachment to take the brunt of the flame effect of the propellant gases will help the mid-baffles to last longer.

+SeriousSchitt . Thanks for the message, but that would be a long video !! The brake blanks are turned on the CNC lathe, then transfered to the CNC mill to machine out the ports. Then final step is a bit of hand finishing and de-burr. The design of these brakes means they would be very difficult (or more expensive) to make them totally on a CNC mill-turn lathe (with y-axis and angled milling heads). No we aren't making them in Titanium at this stage - stainless only, as it is alot more durable at dealing with the impact/flame effect of the propellant gases, as well as being alot cheaper !! Cheers.

+timmay556 . Tim, I think i understand what you are asking, but i don't think that the weight of each muzzle attachment alone has a significant effect on the recoil effect. (Key word here is 'significant'). There is plenty of mass in the recoil machine carriage itself, and adding 60 grams or 350 grams to that is not going to make a big difference, in my opinion. The carriage system runs on almost zero friction. What the tests show is how much recoil effect is mainly due to the effects of the propellant gases, and how each muzzle attachment deals with that in terms of reducing the recoil inducing effects Cheers.

@timmay556 I thought the same, eventough the difference might not be very big, it would be an important thing in a precise test, to also add the weight of the suppressor to the gun when its fired without the suppressor attached.

Now there are brakes in the market with brake on think that is interesting

@@johndeere6660 Yes, there have been companies making a type of 'muzzle brake' add-on to the front end of their suppressors for maybe 10 years or so. The first ones i saw were made in South Africa. However, due to the much slower velocity of the gas exiting from the suppressor, the 'suppressor brake' still does not reduce or cancel-out as much recoil as a good brake that is fitted directly to the barrel itself. The 'suppressor brake' add-on will reduce more recoil than just the suppressor fitted by itself though.

@@deanmaisey3460 thanks

I think the human factor is important to this test. While it is good to see JUST the mechanical properties alone, I'd be interested in a test that involves a human shooter. Why? Well, I think certain loud and abrupt noises cause humans to involuntarily move(flinch) and that it takes a large amount of training to TRULY overcome the effects of this. I think suppressors reduce this because obviously they tame the noise. Brakes on the other hand actually increase the blast and noise of the firearm and may make some people worse than they would be with a good suppressor. This is just a hypothesis and I may be completely wrong though. I mean obviously with newer shooters I'm probably right. With trained shooters they'll definitely do better with a brake but may say that a suppressor provides enough recoil mitigation along with other benefits(noise & flash reduction) to make the suppressor the best choice.

+youtuber Thanks for your constructive comments, but the reality of the situation is that there is no "problem" at all with using a measuring tape, which for this application is a perfectly acceptable, reliable, and accurate method of measurement for this purpose. By way of explanation, this test system was specifically designed to avoid any use of electronics or load cells due to common problems associated with them, and if we could get some comparison tests to prove out the designs within a few % points, then i would have been happy enough with that, for comparison purposes, on that specific day of testing, with that specific lot of factory ammo used. The tape measure we used was a good quality one in metric, and for example on the .300 Win mag the max distance travelled was about 710mm. Now if i made an error of say 1mm in reading the scale, then in reality this would only be a statiscal error of about 0.14%. If i was having a bad day and read incorrectly by 2mm then the error would double but still only be 0.28%. For our intended purposes, essentially negligible. When you also consider that with variations in ammo the shot to shot measured variation can be a few mm anyway, and the fact that we fired groups of 3 or 4 shots for each brake and then averaged the readings for a given 'result', then you can see that even if we did add something like a liner scale and digital readout to get a measurement to within 3 decimal places (or whatever), the results would have been basically the same. Or, could have been actually worse in terms of error as i don't know how liner scales like shock loading, and in any case this would have created some drag effect on the test system, which was one of the things we were trying to eliminate. So, as you can see, the tape measure works just great thanks! (and it didn't break down, and was not fussy about static electricity or shock/pulse loading!) . Cheers.

+Mark Nano Hi. If you have a short attention span or just want to get straight to the 'meat', check out vid #2 and #4. The first video is basically an introduction to the process of testing, so that people who are really interested in how these things work can understand the testing process and the machine used. Cheers.