Muzzle Devices and Recoil: What calibers enter the conversation?

[Halligan]

Hi All,
Did some searching around, but noticed that my question was answered on a device by device or caliber by caliber basis. Thus, I thought posing the following as a way to have a conversation that aggregates this information into one place would be useful. If I missed a previous thread that has done this, apologies, please post a link.

Premise: Understanding that lower recoil tends to help us shoot better, with the "acceptable" upend of the recoil range being around 6.5 Creed (or about 12 ft/lbs +/-) with some others out there placing the ceiling at 308 win, both with a naked muzzle, what calibers start to become "viable" choices when recoil reduction devices are employed (i.e. muzzle brakes/suppressors)?

For example, one may be able to reduce a 6.5 prc recoil to creedmore levels.

Secondarily (and I understand that this is tough to answer as it varies from device to device), but how much should one expect (as a range) for muzzle brakes and suppressors to reduce recoil?

Third, rifle weight is of course a factor, so for the sake of conversation, we'll make rifle weight around 8.5 lbs +/-. Feel free to to make your own stipulation. In tandem with this, one could ask if rifle weight factors in more?

Background: This question popped into my head after shooting a 28 nosler the other day (Browning X-bolt with a brake), and frankly it was pretty docile from prone and the bench. This comes at a time when I'm looking to get into a tikka in the new year as well, fully intending on eventual suppression. Currently considering the aforementioned 6.5 PRC, specifically because of recoil reduction from a muzzle device. Additionally new to suppressors in general, so wanted to hear from both empirical and experience-based perspectives.

Thanks in advance,
Hal

 

[hereinaz]

Interesting thought experiment. Might help others to understand the mechanics of how brakes/suppressors reduce recoil.

Recoil reduction works by the escaping gasses hit the port surfaces of a brake or the baffles of the suppressor. This flow of gasses is what "pushes" the rifle forward to counteract the explosion that pushed the bullet out of the barrel and the rifle rearward.

The main factor for how much recoil is reduced is how quickly the gas can flow off the surface so that the process continues after it hits the surface and is slowed. That is why suppressors are not efficient as the side port brakes that we see now. The gas flow inside a suppressor is purposely designed to allow it to expand before leaving the suppressor.

I can't quantify it, but, my educated guess is that as the amount of gases goes up, the amount of recoil reduction can also go up because of the greater amount of gas flow. Consequently, a 20" PRC can have more relative recoil reduction than a 6.5 Creed because the PRC has more gas flow.

Thus, low recoiling rifles like a 223 have less gas so the total recoil reduction is also less. Of course, as you go down in caliber/powder, there is less recoil.

Radial type suppressors with many small holes are inefficient because the surfaces of the holes are small for the gas to push against and they restrict flow.

Its hard to quantify it, based on the many variables, like rifle weight, etc. But, taking the same configured rifle, one in 6.5 PRC and one in 6.5 creed, I'd say that generally an aggressive brake will reduce recoil of the PRC to the creed level or a little less.

 

[wind gypsy]

A lot of powder (gas) paired with an aggressive muzzle brake cuts down on recoil immensely. The tradeoff is then sharp concussion at the shooter.

 

[hereinaz]

A lot of powder (gas) paired with an aggressive muzzle brake cuts down on recoil immensely. The tradeoff is then sharp concussion at the shooter.

All that expanding gas gets redirected by the ports and mostly to the side. The more effective the brake, the more abusive it is for anyone off to the side of the shooter, and the non shooting side of the shooter. My left ear still rings a little from the time before my suppressor...

 

[TaperPin]

A lot of talk about the benefits of low recoil, and for a training rifle low recoil does make shooting more enjoyable, but rarely if ever does the conversation even mention how to judge the effects of recoil. There is even some disinformation about recoil that claims it’s a linear relationship - essentially claiming the absolute lowest is ideal and the more recoil the lower groups will be. In reality, groups with increasing recoil with pistols or rifles groups are quite similar until a person begins to flinch then groups drop off quickly, not a cliff, but it’s dramatic.

A sizeable number of new shooters can’t shoot a 22 rimfire pistol without anticipating recoil and pushing the muzzle down during trigger pull, and few pick up a 9mm for the first time without doing the same, if not also flinching in the process - it not a big leap of faith to assume the same thing is happening with new rifle shooters at some recoil level.

It’s also of limited value to judge individuals with the statistics of large groups, because half the people will be over compensating and half will be under compensating.

No matter what the recoil level, if it effects accuracy the person needs to work on overcoming it, usually by more practice with lighter recoil and working up to guns with more kick, but there’s plenty of situations where a smaller rifle isn’t practical and the person has to work with what they have. As we write this there are 223 shooters that jerk triggers and have a bad habit of body movement during trigger pull, even if it’s not noticed during normal practice.

To find a person’s recoil tolerance there’s no substitute for shooting blanks mixed in with live rounds, or for a shooting buddy loading the rifle (or leaving the chamber empty). Instantly there’s no doubt what kinds of twitching, flinching or movement is happening. For those with unwanted movement, intentional practice overcomes most issues - either lighter recoil, or mixing in dummy rounds during practice. Recoil is entirely a mental game - getting the brain to stop jumping when the gun says BOO! Since it’s a mental game, desensitization isn’t static, but is increasing or decreasing if the person is aware of it or not. Take a big break from shooting and there may be a new flinch to deal with.

How a rifle fits, trigger pull, ear protection, recoil pad, cartridge/load, barrel length, ring height, can, muzzle brake, style of shooting, and shooting position, all contribute to what makes the brain jump. Prone, free recoiling with a factory trigger, horrible stock, muzzle brake and knowing it’s going to hurt the shoulder with enough jump to smack the cheek is as dumb as it gets, but some guys start that way, think recoil is the only variable and move to the smallest cartridges.

I’m naturally jumpy and have to work to overcome recoil more than most, but one thing you’ll rarely see is me shooting a braked rifle. On paper they make a lot of sense, but in the field the idea of always putting ear plugs in is wishful thinking when the biggest buck of the year or decade runs up a nearby hill stops for two seconds and bounds over the top. During practice just the blast coming off the brake, especially down in the dirt kicking up dust, isn’t doing anyone any good - I’d bet breakfast at one of those fancy all you can eat buffets that more flinching is caused by brakes than is solved by one.

Street preaching over - I feel better already.

 

[Mojave]

I really only care about spotting shots. The Rem Sendero in 7mm Rem Mag was viable at 300 yards. I could not spot shots before then.

Braked it was a 50 yard situation.

300 Winchester no brake of similar weight was another 100 yards out.

Braked was the same 50 yard situation.

6.5 CM with no brake, maybe 150-250 yards. Maybe before then.

6.5 CM with a brake you could probably see it 10 inches from the barrel

 

[wind gypsy]

Also, no cal too small for a suppressor just not for recoil reasons.

 

[SDHNTR]

All of them. So you can spot hits.

 

[hereinaz]

A lot of talk about the benefits of low recoil, and for a training rifle low recoil does make shooting more enjoyable, but rarely if ever does the conversation even mention how to judge the effects of recoil. There is even some disinformation about recoil that claims it’s a linear relationship - essentially claiming the absolute lowest is ideal and the more recoil the lower groups will be. In reality, groups with increasing recoil with pistols or rifles groups are quite similar until a person begins to flinch then groups drop off quickly, not a cliff, but it’s dramatic.

A sizeable number of new shooters can’t shoot a 22 rimfire pistol without anticipating recoil and pushing the muzzle down during trigger pull, and few pick up a 9mm for the first time without doing the same, if not also flinching in the process - it not a big leap of faith to assume the same thing is happening with new rifle shooters at some recoil level.

It’s also of limited value to judge individuals with the statistics of large groups, because half the people will be over compensating and half will be under compensating.

No matter what the recoil level, if it effects accuracy the person needs to work on overcoming it, usually by more practice with lighter recoil and working up to guns with more kick, but there’s plenty of situations where a smaller rifle isn’t practical and the person has to work with what they have. As we write this there are 223 shooters that jerk triggers and have a bad habit of body movement during trigger pull, even if it’s not noticed during normal practice.

To find a person’s recoil tolerance there’s no substitute for shooting blanks mixed in with live rounds, or for a shooting buddy loading the rifle (or leaving the chamber empty). Instantly there’s no doubt what kinds of twitching, flinching or movement is happening. For those with unwanted movement, intentional practice overcomes most issues - either lighter recoil, or mixing in dummy rounds during practice. Recoil is entirely a mental game - getting the brain to stop jumping when the gun says BOO! Since it’s a mental game, desensitization isn’t static, but is increasing or decreasing if the person is aware of it or not. Take a big break from shooting and there may be a new flinch to deal with.

How a rifle fits, trigger pull, ear protection, recoil pad, cartridge/load, barrel length, ring height, can, muzzle brake, style of shooting, and shooting position, all contribute to what makes the brain jump. Prone, free recoiling with a factory trigger, horrible stock, muzzle brake and knowing it’s going to hurt the shoulder with enough jump to smack the cheek is as dumb as it gets, but some guys start that way, think recoil is the only variable and move to the smallest cartridges.

I’m naturally jumpy and have to work to overcome recoil more than most, but one thing you’ll rarely see is me shooting a braked rifle. On paper they make a lot of sense, but in the field the idea of always putting ear plugs in is wishful thinking when the biggest buck of the year or decade runs up a nearby hill stops for two seconds and bounds over the top. During practice just the blast coming off the brake, especially down in the dirt kicking up dust, isn’t doing anyone any good - I’d bet breakfast at one of those fancy all you can eat buffets that more flinching is caused by brakes than is solved by one.

Street preaching over - I feel better already.

Flinch is one of the biggest problems with recoil and muzzle blast, which goes up with increased powder and bullet weight. So I agree with you to a large extent for pistols and rifles inside 300 yards.

I do think that recoil moves the rifle before the bullet leaves the bore, so there is an effect the larger the movement during recoil.

Also, I am convinced (though I can't prove it I have discussed it with many others who agree) that recoil reduces precision when it comes to long range. Consider this. If a rifle is moving as the bullet leaves the bore, the movement of the rifle imparts an additional force that changes the trajectory of the bullet in the direction of the recoil. Its like throwing a baseball standing on the ground vs. throwing a baseball from a moving car. The movement of the car MUST be accounted for in the trajectory of the ball.

Like most things long range, small changes not seen inside 300 yards can increasingly be seen at long range. After all, if 1 moa is 1.047 inches at 300 feet (100 yards), then it is only .00349 inch at 1 feet. A human hair is about .002 inches.

 

[JohnJohnson]

I do think that recoil moves the rifle before the bullet leaves the bore

It does. AB recently did some super slow-mo footage of a hunting rifle in .30-06 and the rifle moved due to recoil before the bullet exited.

 

[hereinaz]

It does. AB recently did some super slow-mo footage of a hunting rifle in .30-06 and the rifle moved due to recoil before the bullet exited.

I thought I heard about that, but never found it with a quick Google search. You know where that is?

 

[JohnJohnson]

I thought I heard about that, but never found it with a quick Google search. You know where that is?

They posted it on Reddit but have since deleted it to my annoyance. Probably because they want to somehow paywall it somewhere.

 

[Salmon River Solutions]

OK, lets get into some numbers, or at least the lack there of.

People ask for specifics all the time. See examples below.

"7 PRC, how much recoil reduction"

"300 berger at 2800 FPS, how much recoil reduction"

"which muzzle brake works the best"

You can't have numbers for everything. Cartridge, bullet, FPS, powder, rifle weight, rifle balance, shooting position. Everything comes into play when gaging recoil, be that measured or perceived recoil.

I can get pretty damn close on actual recoil reduction in a %. A lot of people like to compare the gun to shooting something smaller caliber, like a .243. Even then, what .243 are you comparing it to?

The Ti Pro 5 port brake reduces recoil on the 6.5 creed we did testing with around 52%. This was on par with the MBM brakes, Terminator, APA fat bastard, and many others that are well known. We do it in a smaller and lighter package than anyone though.

When I get the question, "what would work best on this or that gun" I ask one question, Do you care about barrel length and how good the brake looks on your gun? If they do, I pretty much always point people towards the 2 port or the 4 port for the smaller profile barrels. The 2 port is a lot more effective than most people think it will be. The 2 port .990" brake had about 38% recoil reduction.

Now we can talk about recoil impulse. Suppressor vs muzzle brake. I have a TBAC magnus RR (has the muzzle brake on the end). Advertised recoil is 65% on a 300 win mag. That's substantially better than one of our 5 port brakes. But shooting them side by side, its so much harder to stay in the sight window with the suppressor. Here's why. Suppressors PUSH. Brakes SNAP. The recoil trace of a muzzle brake is a sharp peak. A suppressor is a plateau, where the gas is slowed down a ton, which reduces the peak recoil. But its not a peak, its a plateau. The suppressor hits you with less force, but it hits you with that force over a much much longer period of time.

OK, back to making cool shit.

Ken

 

[hereinaz]

OK, lets get into some numbers, or at least the lack there of.

People ask for specifics all the time. See examples below.

"7 PRC, how much recoil reduction"

"300 berger at 2800 FPS, how much recoil reduction"

"which muzzle brake works the best"

You can't have numbers for everything. Cartridge, bullet, FPS, powder, rifle weight, rifle balance, shooting position. Everything comes into play when gaging recoil, be that measured or perceived recoil.

I can get pretty damn close on actual recoil reduction in a %. A lot of people like to compare the gun to shooting something smaller caliber, like a .243. Even then, what .243 are you comparing it to?

The Ti Pro 5 port brake reduces recoil on the 6.5 creed we did testing with around 52%. This was on par with the MBM brakes, Terminator, APA fat bastard, and many others that are well known. We do it in a smaller and lighter package than anyone though.

When I get the question, "what would work best on this or that gun" I ask one question, Do you care about barrel length and how good the brake looks on your gun? If they do, I pretty much always point people towards the 2 port or the 4 port for the smaller profile barrels. The 2 port is a lot more effective than most people think it will be. The 2 port .990" brake had about 38% recoil reduction.

Now we can talk about recoil impulse. Suppressor vs muzzle brake. I have a TBAC magnus RR (has the muzzle brake on the end). Advertised recoil is 65% on a 300 win mag. That's substantially better than one of our 5 port brakes. But shooting them side by side, its so much harder to stay in the sight window with the suppressor. Here's why. Suppressors PUSH. Brakes SNAP. The recoil trace of a muzzle brake is a sharp peak. A suppressor is a plateau, where the gas is slowed down a ton, which reduces the peak recoil. But its not a peak, its a plateau. The suppressor hits you with less force, but it hits you with that force over a much much longer period of time.

OK, back to making cool shit.

Ken

Right on point!

I wish I could get the recoil reduction of a brake with a suppressor… I dropped down in bullet weight and powder to compensate. If I could shoot my 7mm with the recoils reduction of a brake I would. But, I just can’t bring myself to shoot braked any more. Gives me a headache too fast.

 

[Megalodon]

ShootersCalculator.com | Recoil Calculator

An online calculator that calculates the recoil energy, impulse, and velocity of a firearm according to the firearm's weight, powder charge, bullet weight, and bullet muzzle velocity.

shooterscalculator.com

figure out your variables then punch it all in.

 

[buffybr]

I bought my first big game rifle, a .30-06, back in 1967. Ten years later I had it rechambered to .30 Gibbs just because I liked the looks of the Gibbs case. With the little added powder, my .30 Gibbs pushed 180 gr Partitions out the barrel at a little over 2900 fps, close to .300 Win velocities. Then in 2000 I bought my first 7mm Rem mag.

From the early '80s through the end of the '90s I shot over 200,000 12 ga shotgun shells in practice, league, and registered Trap and Skeet tournaments. Through all of that shooting, I wasn't bothered by recoil.

It wasn't until 2004 when I bought a .375 RUM for an upcoming Cape Buffalo hunt in Zimbabwe that I was noticably affected by recoil. My first trip to the range with that rifle, I couldn't even get my scope zeroed because the recoil was so bad.

In the mid '80s I had the barrels of my Trap and Skeet shotguns ported which didn't do much in reducing recoil, but it reduced the muzzle jump which really helped for a quick second shot in Trap and Skeet doubles.

So seeing the advantage of having my competition shotguns barrels ported, I had a KDF muzzle brake installed on my .375 RUM. I also built a new stock for it that fits me, and added a Limbsaver recoil pad on it. That cut the felt recoil down to about the recoil of my .30 Gibbs, and I was then able to work up 3-shot moa loads for it with 300 gr Barnes TSX bullets.

On my Zimbabwe hunt, the PH had a cameraman filming the hunt, and when I did the customary rifle sight-in, the cameraman commented that I was their first hunter that year that followed through the shots, keeping my cheek on the stock after the shots.

After that hunt I also installed a mercury or mechanical recoil reducer in the buttstock of my .357 RUM. I have one of these reducers in the stocks of 3 of my shotguns, my .375 RUM and my .300 Weatherby. Both of these types of reducers help to reduce felt recoil and I don't remember which type I put in each gun.

 

[Salmon River Solutions]

Right on point!

I wish I could get the recoil reduction of a brake with a suppressor… I dropped down in bullet weight and powder to compensate. If I could shoot my 7mm with the recoils reduction of a brake I would. But, I just can’t bring myself to shoot braked any more. Gives me a headache too fast.

We're working on it with the Shoot 2 Hunt team and the new suppressor company...

Ken