Thread: Suppressors - Am I missing something

Originally Posted by mikee

Would not the wright of the suppressor which effectively increases the total weight of the mass have more effect on softening the recoil. I just don't understand how gasses enclosed in a "can" which have no way to work in the same way as a brake (i'll call it the rocket effect) can reduce recoil on their own. I always assumed brakes effectively direct the gas in a direction which pull the gun f ward against recoil force.

In short Yes.
But in long a suppressor can reduce actual recoil to a small/theoretical extent by the lessening of pressure/expansion of gasses/cooling and the fact that energy is E=MC2 so if you reduce the velocity of gas out the front(because it has expanded and cooled) you reduce recoil....however...
Most if the FELT recoil reduction of suppresors is due to the increase in time the recoil is spread over and the increase in weight(also slowing the recoil pulse)

I can't see how a break is going to behave much different to the baffles. This may not answer our question but it's very interesting..

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

I can't see how a break is going to behave much different to the baffles. This may not answer our question but it's very interesting..

recoil is a function of the weight of the bullet and the weight of the powder/primergasses.
over simplifyed if they all go out the front(like most suppressors) then total recoil is the same (over simplifyed)
if the high pressure gasses are ejected at 90degree to the bore then their net effect on recoil is gone.
if those high pressure gasses start being directed rearward they then start to counteract the recoil of the weight of the projectile.

This is also interesting if you skip to 2 min.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

recoil is a function of the weight of the bullet and the weight of the powder/primergasses.
over simplifyed if they all go out the front(like most suppressors) then total recoil is the same (over simplifyed)
if the high pressure gasses are ejected at 90degree to the bore then their net effect on recoil is gone.
if those high pressure gasses start being directed rearward they then start to counteract the recoil of the weight of the projectile.

I think that if you slow the gas down you reduce it's energy and felt recoil. Sending it backward is F***** annoying!

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

I think though if you slow the gas down you reduce it's energy and felt recoil. Sending it backward is F***** annoying!

All depends on your point of veiw. putting a muffeler on a long lightweigt barrel is annoying also when you still need to wear muffs and it still muzzel jumps.

Horses for courses.

There are several factors that I suspect are happening within the suppressor that reduce the recoil. What is not being debated is how muzzle brakes work so I will leave that as a given. Directing the forward thrust in different directions reduces the recoil plain and simple.

In a suppressor there is a lot of things happening that will explain the apparent paradox mentions earlier (Munchausens issue)

1) even without a built in brake, the suppressor will reduce power of the recoil by allowing gas to expand within the suppressor before allowing it to escape at a lower velocity. You need to consider here that the suppressor is still part of the rifle and what is happening in the suppressor is happening within the confines of the rifle.

2) the baffles themselves will also have a similar (but reduced) effect of a brake by having the gasses push forward on them while at full exit velocity and when the do finally escape they are at a much lower velocity. Easies example of this to explain what I mean is getting a full balloon and letting it go, it whizzes about like a bottle rocket making fart noises as gas escapes quickly. put a steel washer around the throat of the same balloon and reduce the speed with which air escapes and it does not rocket about in the same manner. But the same volume of air escapes at a much slower speed over a longer time. In the case of a rifle shot, the time is measured in the fractions of a second (approximately 4 milliseconds) so even a delay of 2 or 3 milli seconds will reduce this be a significant proportion. (potentially down to 70% ish of the same- what took 4 milliseconds now takes 6 is a reduction in speed of about 1/3)

3) Brakes inside an enclosed space like a suppressor will not be as effective as a normal brake by themselves, but as the still direct gas back towards the inside of the suppressor the effect is still present.Agreed that this gas still has to escape out the muzzle, but again this is later and at a lower speed thus reducing the rearwards thrust of the recoil.


One thing everyone is seeming to overlook is the perceived recoil versus physical recoil. The way the brain interprets the violent reaction of the noise. If you receive a thump to the shoulder at the same moment as a really loud noise, the brain say subconsciously that the noise made the recoil. At a subconscious level the brain will then make an assumption that a louder noise will hurt more and a lesser noise will hurt less. Before ANYONE takes this to mean a brake should hurt more, the noticeable reduction in the rearwards push will over ride the brains assumption. But if you shoot through an hole that has no recoil reduction but will throw more noise back (Make it louder with no change to recoil) the brain will assume there is more push. Likewise if you were to put hearing protection on the the brain will also assume a reduction in recoil because it is quieter. This is only a smaller effect and there will clearly still be a push but the bodies reaction will think it felt less. Think of it this way: How many of you shoot better groups at the range with hearing protection versus without? ( I am not suggesting range time without hearing protection. Use hearing protection)

This is the same reason that shooting when at game the recoil feels less. Because the brain is distracted and focussing on something else, and it tries to ignore the noise. (While this has no effect on the actual noise produced, it does feel like it is reducing the noise heard)

And the suppressor holds a lot of heat and slows down the rate the barrel can cool, so you need to shoot a lot slower. I can see advantages and disadvantages in both. A matter of choosing what suits you the most in any given situation. That is why I'm looking at a couple of brakes for this years Toby Shoot.

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

recoil is a function of the weight of the bullet and the weight of the powder/primergasses.
over simplifyed if they all go out the front(like most suppressors) then total recoil is the same (over simplifyed)
if the high pressure gasses are ejected at 90degree to the bore then their net effect on recoil is gone.
if those high pressure gasses start being directed rearward they then start to counteract the recoil of the weight of the projectile.

Yes the amount of energy in each direction is the same, but the impact on the shoulder is the speed of the rifle squared x the mass of the rifle. Adding a brake reduces the velocity by directling energy in a different direction. A suppressor slows the speed with which the gas can thrust the rifle back thus spreading the same amount of energy over a longer period of time (Reduces speed of the impact on the shoulder.) As the speed is squared in E=MC2 then reducing speed has a more significant effect on the impact on the shoulder. Total force (work done) remains the same but not as sudden or as violent.

Originally Posted by mikee

Whilst I have suppressors for most of my rifles am might be missing something
Reading the Rod and Rifle Suppressor Testing article at least1l "manufacturer" made mention of the fact their unit included an effective integral muzzle brake.

How would this work given its inside the suppressor and although it is possibly directing gas but to where? surely it would ll be caught by the suppressor which would prevent it behaving in the usual way a brake would. Would it just be the xtra weight of the brake causing the recoil reduction??

@mikee have a look at this. Miight answer your question for you.
TIER-ONE | Moderators & Muzzle Brakes

Someone I know who makes there own cans says he puts a brake like thing in the can to make the can twist onto the threads with each shot to stop the can coming lose.

I have a qd blast deflector that I can fit over the brake on my 3gun rifle and it decreases the effectiveness of the brake notacably but it's still more effective than no brake.

Not answering anyone's questions sorry but thought these two points were relavent to the thread

Originally Posted by 300CALMAN

I think that if you slow the gas down you reduce it's energy and felt recoil. Sending it backward is F***** annoying!

Yes, a suppressor does not reduce the total recoil as the gasses still exit forward, but it slows the release down and so gives you a smaller force over a longer time which adds up to the same amount but is more pleasant to shoot.

Think of it as if you sit on a skateboard and I ninja kick you in the back and see how far you roll, then I gently push you the same distance, you have experienced the same total amount of force in both occasions but the second is over a longer period and much more pleasant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is fairly long but interesting. 110,000 frames per second video. Skip the first few minutes to get to the suppressor bit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7fqcYxV_b4

Thanks guys

Originally Posted by Sideshow

@mikee have a look at this. Miight answer your question for you.
TIER-ONE | Moderators & Muzzle Brakes

Most brakes inside suppressors are designed to take the abuse from the gases away from the first baffle & as away of easily connecting the generally muzzle forward can.

This means you can use the brake or the can.

Generally these brakes aren't very effective at reducing recoil because they are a compromise.