Silencer & recoil question

M

Maser

New member
I know this may seem like a dumb question, so don't be too hard on me ok. :)

Anyways, from lots of reading on this forum and other forums that talk about silencers, it seems like they actually add more felt recoil to the gun. Why is that? I know what a silencer looks like on the inside and it seems to me that with the baffles it is like a giant muzzle brake. So how on earth does it ADD recoil to the gun? Is it only muzzle silencers that do it, or does it also happen with integral silencers too?

Sorry for the idiotic question, but I got 4 years to go before I can buy NFA items.
 
I was under the impression that they reduced recoil due to the slowing/cooling of the expanding gasses.

Interesting question.

I would definitely like to see a more informed response.
 
from what I understand, the expelled gas from an unsuppressed firearm allows the escaping gas to spread out into the atmosphere, and a lot of the force is taken care of that way.

with a suppressor, the gases are rerouted through the baffles, and that gas pushes on the metal and adds to the rear-ward momento.

the muzzle breaks lets the gas out on the side channels, whereas on the suppressors they have no such channels to escape(hence the sound reduction).

I could be wrong but that all I can think of from looking at the suppresors I have used while visiting free America. The difference is not big, but in my weird mind it's there. I think.
 
I have shot suppressors in 223, 9mm, 300 Whisper, 6.8 SPC, 308, 260, 338 Lapua, and 50 BMG, and most of them same rifles with brakes on. I currently own 3 cans.

Here's the deal.

A rifle with neither a suppressor nor a brake will have the most recoil.

Comparing "good" muzzle brakes to suppressors, I have noticed that in smaller calibers like 223, 260, 308, and 308, the rifle has less recoil with the suppressor than the brake.

In larger calibers like 338 Lapua and 50 BMG, the suppressor has more recoil than the brake. I attribute this to the fact that these bullets are pretty heavy, period, and the suppressor is not designed to immediately turn the forward momentum of the gas into recoil abatement. The suppressor buffers the pressure but still releases it forward.

The brakes immediately pull the rifle forward during the primary recoil impulse.
 
Thanks CALNRA and Zak Smith. Makes a lot of sense now. My only experience with suppressors was with a 10/22 with integral suppressor and a 1911 with a muzzle one. Noticed nothing different with the 10/22 obviously and neither with the 1911. I figured in the case of the 1911, it was just the cycling action that was giving me felt recoil. And before I get any BATF agents on my behind, I shot these suppressed guns at my uncle's ranch in Nevada and he's got class III status.

Anyways, thanks for shedding some light on this for me. Maybe this ought to be a topic on the Mythbusters show sometime. :D
 
I've shot a variety of suppressor and they neither add nor remove any noticeable recoil. The escaping gas has nowhere to go once it leaves the muzzle but inside of the can. A break is different because it allows the gas to hit a surface which "pushes" the weapon away from the shooter and then the gas is dissipated out of the sides of the break. A can doesn't dissipate the gas the same way. That being said I can see where and integral with bleed holes in the front cap could increase recoil.
 
mxwelch,

Shoot a centerfire rifle supprssor at night, with some light, and it's pretty obvious that gas shoots out the front hole of the suppressor. It does so delayed and at lower pressure than a bare muzzle.

-z
 
There are two major components of recoil. The first is bullet movement - the mass x velocity of the bullet equals the mass x velocity of the gun going the other way.

Except that the suppressor, brake or whatever adds weight (mass) to the gun, that recoil component is not affected in any way by their presence, given the same mass and velocity of the bullet.

The other major component of recoil is the "jet" affect of the powder gasses as they leave the muzzle both before and after the bullet. Depending on the design of a suppressor, the gas is slowed down and cooled, so that component is reduced somewhat.

A brake reduces recoil not by reducing the volume or speed of exiting gas, but by redirecting it. By forcing part of it in another direction (usually upward), the jet effect of that part of the gas is not only removed from the line of the barrel, but is made to push the muzzle in a direction that will compensate for some of the recoil. Directing some of the gas directly to the rear would pull the gun forward, reducing recoil still more, but the shooter would definitely prefer not to take that route.

As a practical matter, no suppressor I have used has reduced recoil by any noticeable amount.

Jim
 
Shoot a centerfire rifle supprssor at night, with some light, and it's pretty obvious that gas shoots out the front hole of the suppressor. It does so delayed and at lower pressure than a bare muzzle.
Click to expand...

True, but I've never noticed a difference with and without the can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top