Can someone shed some light on this. A have seen a few from SHOT. (SilcencerCo, Barrett) Are they only beneficial in larger bore calibers? I don't see how it will affect sound reduction, but maybe aid in flash signature?

They say it reduces recoil by about 10%. Doesn't sound like much, but anything helps.

Recoil reduction is nice but what about sound/blast?

The Harvester looks great, the brake not so sure.

you mean something like this?

doubloon wrote:you mean something like this?

Roger!

( Also a most talented NZ suppressor maker, said in a most Reverential
way.
<< http://sub-silentsuppressors.com/ )

S4area51 wrote:Can someone shed some light on this. A have seen a few from SHOT. (SilcencerCo, Barrett) Are they only beneficial in larger bore calibers? I don't see how it will affect sound reduction, but maybe aid in flash signature?

If anything, it would increase visible flash as its forcing it to the sides.

Personally, I don't get it . . . Most silencers do a great job of recoil and flash reduction. I've never shot 300 win mag but I have shot .338LM with a Titan-QD on the end and if you need less recoil than that over nothing on the end you should really consider dropping calibers.

Just seems gimmicky IMO

57fairlane wrote:If anything, it would increase visible flash as its forcing it to the sides.

Personally, I don't get it . . . Most silencers do a great job of recoil and flash reduction. I've never shot 300 win mag but I have shot .338LM with a Titan-QD on the end and if you need less recoil than that over nothing on the end you should really consider dropping calibers.

Just seems gimmicky IMO

Yea i agree. A can by itself is already a giant brake/FH. Now if it were an optional removeable brake endcap I'd understand.

The general opinion seems to be that a well designed brake is more efficient than a can, although I'm sure it depends on both the brake and the can. Adding a brake to the end of a can is better than nothing I guess, but I doubt it will do much. The stated 10% seems reasonable.

Brakes are loud, so wouldn't putting a brake on the end of a can make it louder?

^ I don't think it would alter the sound level much, seeing the magic happens before(inside the can).
Here are the subjects in question;


Props to TTAG for the coverage

gunguy wrote:Brakes are loud, so wouldn't putting a brake on the end of a can make it louder?

Brakes are loud because of the initial muzzle blast gas velocity and direction. But after the gasses have worked their way through a silencer, velocity has slowed down to the point where only the recoil effects matter.

Im very interested in the harvester but I wont buy until I hear it in person. Everyone I've talked to who has been around one has said it is not loud it just simply diverts the gas to the side instead of out the front. I hope to go when Silencer Shop tests it to hear for myself though. Ive shot my 300WM with a can and its not bad at all. Probably close to a light 223 bolt gun without a brake. 20 rounds without a muzzle device would give me the twitchy shoulder syndrome but I have no problem going through 50 rounds (as much as I've shot in one sitting) and going on to shoot other guns. With the 300WM mirage was the limiting factor with all that powder being burnt. So I really dont see the point of a brake on a can, maybe if you were running an apa fat bastard it wpuld be better at recoil reduction but the normal size brakes are comparable in recoil reduction to most cans I've shot.

Added length I don't need .

Hate brakes anyway.

Probably most useful on hi-power rifle cans with full velocity loads but I don't know how.

Can't imagine it being much use on subsonic loads.

doubloon wrote:Probably most useful on hi-power rifle cans with full velocity loads but I don't know how.

Can't imagine it being much use on subsonic loads.

It doesnt get much more high power than my 300wm with 77gr of H1000 pushing a 208amax and a regular can does great reducing recoil. Same thing for my buddys RUM that uses over 80gr of H1000 and his easy to shoot as well with the can on. Which was why my response to the brake on the end was why?

I was really thinking it might change the sound signature of the muzzle blast from a hypersonic round but I agree I don't understand how it contributes much to recoil reduction over a no brake can.

doubloon wrote:how it contributes much to recoil reduction

The physics are still the same, and while lower the combustion gases still have momentum. If it's released forward it will produce a net backwards thrust, if released in a brake the forces cancel each other out.

Fulmen wrote:

doubloon wrote:how it contributes much to recoil reduction

The physics are still the same, and while lower the combustion gases still have momentum. If it's released forward it will produce a net backwards thrust, if released in a brake the forces cancel each other out.

By the time the gases get to the last chamber arent they a lot less compressed after going over most of the baffle stack? Just thinking from a logic standpoint it would seem to me the remaining gases wouldnt be all that effective at reducing recoil due to their relatively low pressure compared to right off the muzzle. Im sure silencerco put a lot of work into this can so it must do something, just for me and many I shoot with, the reduction in recoil by a standard can is plenty for a day of comfortable shooting. I want so bad to like this can for use on my 300wm when hunting but I'll wait to reserve judgement until I've actually shot it.

I believe brakes on large caliber cans definitely have merit. Big cartridges produce a lot of recoil, and shooting a light rifle with a good can will produce plenty of recoil.

Fulmen wrote:

doubloon wrote:how it contributes much to recoil reduction

The physics are still the same, ...

I believe you, just running on superstition at the moment because I lack empirical data.

god started the big bang

gunguy wrote:Brakes are loud, so wouldn't putting a brake on the end of a can make it louder?

In theory it would deflect more remaining sound back making the shot at target sound even further away... but would also gibe a more precise location soundwise.

I'm thinking it acts as a heat sink/ cooling fins.

yellowfin wrote:I'm thinking it acts as a heat sink/ cooling fins.

Not with it being located at the far end. .. most of the heat occurs in the first 1/2 of the can. It wouldn't be worth its weight as a heat sink.

In the mega velocity magnum calibers in 6.5lb rifles it will have a noticeable brakes don't make a weapon louder per se but redirects sound backwards. In theory this would reduce downrange noise but would be almost moot given a supersonic round.

57fairlane wrote:

S4area51 wrote:Can someone shed some light on this. A have seen a few from SHOT. (SilcencerCo, Barrett) Are they only beneficial in larger bore calibers? I don't see how it will affect sound reduction, but maybe aid in flash signature?

If anything, it would increase visible flash as its forcing it to the sides.

Personally, I don't get it . . . Most silencers do a great job of recoil and flash reduction. I've never shot 300 win mag but I have shot .338LM with a Titan-QD on the end and if you need less recoil than that over nothing on the end you should really consider dropping calibers.

Just seems gimmicky IMO

truth. i just dont get a mb at the end of a can. the suppressor is the mb

At far end the gas pressure, temp, and velocity have all dropped to around 300% of the sourrounding air. No extra sound, flash, heatsink, etc. The 1 factor that hasn't diminished is the MASS of combusted product. The 1-3 flat surfaces divert the MASS away from boreline thereby lowering mainly the MUZZLE BLOWBY of the 5 major sound components in firearm discharges.
The added Length lowers the PRECURSOR WAVE. If you had a 4" empty tube and a 7.5" empty tube attached to a muzzle, the 7.5" would have 1/4 the PRECURSOR WAVE sound pressure. Of course little effect on the other 4 components.

I have thought about drilling a series of 1/16" holes around the circumference of the far endcap. Similar to LeVang Brakes or the blast baffle in USPat 7,073,426-B1 'Filed Feb 22, 2005/Granted July 11, 2006.' It seems that this would pull the low P/T/v gas in the Normalization Chamber away from Boreline and spread the same discharge over a larger surface area, albeit at lower dischage rate.
Frankford Arsenal's R-1896 disputes this finding, but didn't consider the addition of small dia circumferential ports, only the relative sizes of far endcap discharge borehole.
Since the Enclosed Tube is considered a closed system and the brake an open system this adds to the confusion. This means that the gas discharge rate from the tube will remain the same, but then be spread over a MUCH larger area at significantly lower P/T/velocity.
This configuration mimics the exhaust diffusors on helicoptor turbines to confuse IR seeking missiles.
In the end, it takes a thourough grounding in Hydrology and multiple other disciplines to really get a good grip on the principles involved.

PS: While 77gr of powder driving a 208gr .300WM may seem a lot, this system is best used on 290gr powder pushing a 750gr .50BMG @ 65kpsi, or 160gr driving 419gr .408 Cheytac. Remember, it's the MASS of gas that is being spread over a large discharge area/volume.
Even a 5% reduction in recoil would surprise me. I'd love to see links publishing actual test data of measured time/pressure graphs showing recoil w and w/o the 3 baffles attached to the suppressor body.