I am baffled by the fact that this video doesn't have more views this is probably the most scientific recoil test available in youtube Which omits the human error variable from the test. Great videos! I look forward to seeing more of them
Edward, the point of the test was to show the difference in recoil reduction performance between good muzzle brakes and suppressors. As you can see from the tests a good muzzle brake will provide about double the recoil reduction of the best suppressors. This should help to educate those who may not be aware of the facts of the difference in capabilities of the two different devices in terms of recoil reduction.
@@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.
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.
+Dean Maisey This is very good work, I've rarely seen so much thought being put into gun experiments. I'm watching some of your older videos now and I'm excited to see what you do next.
Well done and great info. It would have been great to have you discuss your result instead of having to pause and rewind the video I have time to read and fully comprehend the data.
+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.
Thanks for this video. This was very informative. I knew different muzzle brakes had varying levels of effectiveness but hadn't thought about the impact of suppressors on recoil as your results show. It might be an interesting test to see if there is a correlation between degree of suppression in sound by a suppressor and the impact on recoil. I'm thinking the more effectively it suppresses the sound, the larger the impact on reducing recoil.
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.
Other than cost silencer is the way to go. I pulled the brake off my 450 bushmaster because it was way too loud and actually sent a huge air blast backwards into the blind or at anyone behind you. Silencer is a win win. Far less noise plus 20 percent reduction in recoil and less muzzle jump plus happier neighbors at the shooting range or blind.
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?
@@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.
Does it say anywhere what the 3 suppressors are? Would like to know what make suppressor #1 is, as it reduced recoil a lot more than suppressors #2 and #3.
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.
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.
+Edward Zhang Whichever manages the energy should have less recoil. A good muzzle break/compensator can do an awful lot for recoil by diverting energy in different directions.
are you trying act stupid to piss me off? I can barely understand what you're writing.People get silencers to silence gun shots, obviously, but that's not what were talking about in this video. Its fact that the more a gun weighs, the less recoil it has. I didn't know the point of this test so i asked.
FYI: Mass is one aspect of reducing recoil but recoil can also be managed in other ways as this video shows. A muzzle brake works by directly redirecting gasses reward. This is like the reverse thruster on jet engines where the jet's output is diverted to slow the jet upon landing so that the brakes on the tires don't have to do all of the work to stop a jet. This was shown in the last two cases where the varimax muzzle brake was set with its ports open to more fully redirect the gases and then closed to see the difference. In the close position, the effect on recoil was greatly reduced because less gasses were redirected rearward. The suppressor works in a way similar to the muzzle brake except the gasses are not redirected rearward. The gasses are redirected into chambers and though the thrust from the gasses are not used to manage recoil like the muzzle brakes, which is why the muzzle brakes more dramatically reduce recoil, the fact that the gasses are not allowed to thrust the barrel rearward because they were redirected into chambers in the suppressor is what results in reduced recoil with the additional benefit of reducing the sound. The way the suppressor works: the expanding gasses are forced into chambers as the bullet enters the suppressor chamber area results in the gasses being greatly slowed down prior to exiting the muzzle resulting in subsonic gasses exiting the muzzle and reduced energy of the exiting gasses as well which results in reduced force that those gasses can exert on the shooter (kinetic energy being related to velocity and force also related to velocity).
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.
I am baffled by the fact that this video doesn't have more views this is probably the most scientific recoil test available in youtube Which omits the human error variable from the test. Great videos! I look forward to seeing more of them
Edward, the point of the test was to show the difference in recoil reduction performance between good muzzle brakes and suppressors. As you can see from the tests a good muzzle brake will provide about double the recoil reduction of the best suppressors. This should help to educate those who may not be aware of the facts of the difference in capabilities of the two different devices in terms of recoil reduction.
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.
Wow. I couldn't have asked for a better answer to this question. The process of testing is great both for effect and presentation. Thanks!
Best recoil video on youtube.
thank you
Only now came across this experiment. Very informative and well thought through! Good work, mate 👍 Thanks a lot!
+Dean Maisey This is very good work, I've rarely seen so much thought being put into gun experiments. I'm watching some of your older videos now and I'm excited to see what you do next.
StudyinSteel thanks for the comments, glad you liked it.
great information. very scientific and well put together. thank you.
I like how you completely removed the human element
Good video to fall asleep to.
Well done and great info. It would have been great to have you discuss your result instead of having to pause and rewind the video I have time to read and fully comprehend the data.
Super cool and intuitive means for testing this.
I would be interested to see is a comparison with the recoil with the weight of the suppressor and break added but not fitted to the muzzle.
+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.
Thanks for this video. This was very informative.
I knew different muzzle brakes had varying levels of effectiveness but hadn't thought about the impact of suppressors on recoil as your results show. It might be an interesting test to see if there is a correlation between degree of suppression in sound by a suppressor and the impact on recoil. I'm thinking the more effectively it suppresses the sound, the larger the impact on reducing recoil.
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.
Great commentary kiwi I couldnt hear it lol.
Very informative, thank you.
Other than cost silencer is the way to go. I pulled the brake off my 450 bushmaster because it was way too loud and actually sent a huge air blast backwards into the blind or at anyone behind you. Silencer is a win win. Far less noise plus 20 percent reduction in recoil and less muzzle jump plus happier neighbors at the shooting range or blind.
Awesome videos man!
Just perfect comparision
Is there any sound reduction with a muzzle brake?
excellent video' keep up the good work
What about a suppressor mounted to a muzzle brake?
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?
What if your using both a muzzle brake and a suppressor at the same time?
@@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.
Does it say anywhere what the 3 suppressors are? Would like to know what make suppressor #1 is, as it reduced recoil a lot more than suppressors #2 and #3.
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.
So what if you use a muzzle brake mount with a suppressor over it??
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.
is this even necessary? whichever weighs more should have less recoil.
+Edward Zhang Whichever manages the energy should have less recoil. A good muzzle break/compensator can do an awful lot for recoil by diverting energy in different directions.
of course i don't know what i'm talking about. I wouldn't have asked if i did. Sigh... internet idiots man...
are you trying act stupid to piss me off? I can barely understand what you're writing.People get silencers to silence gun shots, obviously, but that's not what were talking about in this video. Its fact that the more a gun weighs, the less recoil it has. I didn't know the point of this test so i asked.
FYI: Mass is one aspect of reducing recoil but recoil can also be managed in other ways as this video shows.
A muzzle brake works by directly redirecting gasses reward. This is like the reverse thruster on jet engines where the jet's output is diverted to slow the jet upon landing so that the brakes on the tires don't have to do all of the work to stop a jet. This was shown in the last two cases where the varimax muzzle brake was set with its ports open to more fully redirect the gases and then closed to see the difference. In the close position, the effect on recoil was greatly reduced because less gasses were redirected rearward.
The suppressor works in a way similar to the muzzle brake except the gasses are not redirected rearward. The gasses are redirected into chambers and though the thrust from the gasses are not used to manage recoil like the muzzle brakes, which is why the muzzle brakes more dramatically reduce recoil, the fact that the gasses are not allowed to thrust the barrel rearward because they were redirected into chambers in the suppressor is what results in reduced recoil with the additional benefit of reducing the sound. The way the suppressor works: the expanding gasses are forced into chambers as the bullet enters the suppressor chamber area results in the gasses being greatly slowed down prior to exiting the muzzle resulting in subsonic gasses exiting the muzzle and reduced energy of the exiting gasses as well which results in reduced force that those gasses can exert on the shooter (kinetic energy being related to velocity and force also related to velocity).
Give me a break. They are homemade crappy suppressors, not at all like the real thing.
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
great information. very scientific and well put together. thank you.
I like how you completely removed the human element