autogun

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by autogun

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3216
    MEMBERS
  • 182771
    MESSAGES
  • 17
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Doubt about dampening the noise of a muzzle brake   Small Arms <20mm

Started 17-Mar by poliorcetes; 672 views.
poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

17-Mar

Hi all,

I was thinking about bang sound increase produce a muzzle brake. Please correct me if my basic AK-74 muzzle diagram is wrong

Instead of a forward pointing sound wave source, there are three sources with three sound waves, two of which points to the side and better backwards than the other one.

If you want the gases to work against recoil force, you need to redirect them and stop part of them to being added as part of the total recoil force.

Does smuzzle lateral ports reduce a sizable gas-produced recoil while adding gas reaction force to the sides?

What would happen if a non sound suppresing brake substitutes big lateral apertures like in AK-74 brake for a certain amount of small holes? Would sound be decreased to a more acceptable levels?

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

17-Mar

So if you look at the 74 brake, it's designed to vent a substantial amount of gas and sound rearward not just to the sides.

Do you see the very flat surface at the front of the holes In the brake? 

Now look at the stepped cutaways further back it's designed to promote gas mixing and force hot high pressurized gases rearward with minimal interference in the form of buffeting to the projectile leaving the front of the brake.

The AK74 brake is a very efficient single chamber brake, so efficient that it's pretty unpleasant if you use a 74 brake on a 5.56 gun. It very much does vent sound and pressure back towards the user, and especially anyone standing to either side of the shooter.

That said yes, you can actually make pretty efficient brakes using a combination of drilled holes, angled to vent gas rearwards, and some sort of geometry to promote atmospheric gas mixing. Surefire makes several for example.

However If you want a stabilizing effect and to keep more of the sound away from the shooters ear you can use linear compensators which don't do nearly as much for "recoil" but they do keep sound away from the shooters ear well as well as effectively damping out muzzle rise.

I have a linear comp on my 10.5" AR pistol for example. They do a good job of holding the gun on target and keeping noise, concussion, and etc focused forward especially in guns with short barrels or high muzzle pressure for any other reason.

Hopefully this answers your question.

In reply toRe: msg 2
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

17-Mar

Best muzzle brakes nowadays have considerable sweepback angle,for highest recoil reduction but also redirect the sound more towards the shooter

Folks use sleeves when noise on the range is an issue. But of course this reduces the effectivness of the muzzle brake

But if you are into really kinky stuf , then adaptive is the next level doubles as a frag grenade when it breaks

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

17-Mar

Yes, on paper there's all sorts of stuff you can do but practically for a cartridge in roughly the 5.56 class anything more than 3 baffle or with equidistant and equal sized baffles is pretty much just done wrong.

Because of the way the air and gas flow etc work your first and biggest baffle will always do most of the work. From there though you want to make any subsequent baffles a bit smaller and closer together so they can actually do their job and aren't just there for aesthetics.

Also, when you add a concussion sleeve you are implicitly taking away some efficiency from your brake. That said, I'm not sure if you want vent holes of some sort, whether they should be drilled such that the outer opening angles rearward, or etc.

A lot of it will depend on exactly what you want to do and how much concussion you want to bleed off/redirect.

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

18-Mar

Thanks!

Then I'm afraid that TAANSTAFL applies here: if gas compensates recoil, then sound wave is going to be proporcional somehow to the amount of gas pointed to the sides and rear. It would be more or less the same if there are small holes than if there is a big window for sound levels, right?

If muzzle rise is reduced, then rapid fire would be more feasible... although recoil (in the sense of a force pushing back the rifle) should affect upper torso mechanics in order to recover aiming point... Actually I'm not sure how reduced muzzle rise but with meaningful recoil can permit rapid effective fire to a standard shooter

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

18-Mar

If I ever get something in 308 again I plan on slapping a linear comp and a normal brake with a concussion reduction sleeve on it just to see how it feels. (And whether linear comps feel practical for more energetic cartridges)

It's hard for me to say whether they are or not without either physically feeling the difference for myself or doing math etc that I don't know how to do.

As it is now and has been for quite awhile now, I do basically all of my shooting with 5.56 and 7.62x39 where linear comps don't SEEM to affect me that much more. That could be an artifact of both cartridges being very controllable to begin with though.

Finally, you are right in that there's definitely not going to be a free lunch here in the way some people may think there will be. But there's a good possibility that something with workable tradeoffs could be found.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

24-Mar

poliorcetes said:

Does smuzzle lateral ports reduce a sizable gas-produced recoil while adding gas reaction force to the sides

Its been found that having lots of little ports produces less blast while still achieving 50% recoil reduction and flash suppression.

Thats how the PA EFAB works. Louder then a flash hider, but much less blast then a traditional muzzle break.

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

24-Mar

Like smuzzle is alledged to be installed, although I think that gasses are slowed before such small openings and thus counterrecoil capability should be decreased, right?

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

24-Mar

poliorcetes said:

Like smuzzle is alledged to be installed, although I think that gasses are slowed before such small openings and thus counterrecoil capability should be decreased, right

Possibly?

Suppressors are already tested to show a 30-35% reduction in recoil. It seems probable that they could tweak the design to bring that closer to 50%. 

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

24-Mar

Actually it is very needed, since such new M1186 is going to have a heck of a muzzle energy

TOP