This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 20:06 by gatnerd
Latest 24-Mar by poliorcetes
Latest 6-May by gatnerd
Latest 6-May by roguetechie
Latest 5-May by nincomp
Latest 5-May by Red7272
Latest 5-May by gatnerd
Latest 4-May by poliorcetes
Latest 2-May by Farmplinker
Latest 30-Apr by roguetechie
Latest 29-Apr by Red7272
Latest 29-Apr by tidusyuki
Latest 28-Apr by larrikin2
Latest 28-Apr by roguetechie
Latest 21-Apr by ZailC
Latest 21-Apr by Red7272
Latest 20-Apr by QuintusO
Latest 19-Apr by gatnerd
Latest 18-Apr by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 18-Apr by autogun
Latest 18-Apr by autogun
Latest 14-Apr by renatohm
Latest 14-Apr by roguetechie
Latest 12-Apr by RovingPedant
Latest 8-Apr by Farmplinker
Latest 8-Apr by tidusyuki
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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%.