Scythe-Ti recoil reduction

[Sevens]

Can’t find an answer for this, but would a Scythe-Ti with its 1.73” diameter tube reduce recoil better than a similarly sized 1.5” diameter can (Enticer-STi, Harvester EVO, etc.)

Interested in the Scythe Ti if it will reduce recoil more than my Harvester EVO. The weight savings is a plus, but not worth getting if minimal recoil reduction difference. Happy with sound suppression on the EVO.

 

[HandgunHTR]

I don't see a lot of difference between my longer thinner cans and my shorter thicker ones when it comes to recoil reduction. That being said, I haven't tried them back to back on the same gun as my cans tend to ride on the same rig for life.

 

[Tahoe1305]

Can’t find an answer for this, but would a Scythe-Ti with its 1.73” diameter tube reduce recoil better than a similarly sized 1.5” diameter can (Enticer-STi, Harvester EVO, etc.)

Interested in the Scythe Ti if it will reduce recoil more than my Harvester EVO. The weight savings is a plus, but not worth getting if minimal recoil reduction difference. Happy with sound suppression on the EVO.

I have one in jail but haven’t shot it.

I do think it will. But not because of its width. Its mini brake will help. I think this because it does on the omega 30 with its brake (have shot). It’s a little brake with min added weight but will help.

At twice the price of the evo though…..that is a personal choice.

 

[wind gypsy]

Bumping this. Been wondering if the anchor brake from the omega would be a useful addition to this in situations where recoil reduction is at a premium like in comps. It seems like when burning a lot of powder the answer is yes and when burning 30-42 grains like lots of comp guns not so much. The posted recoil reduction numbers on the new tbacs seem to indicate that as well.

 

[TheHammer]

I have no experience with an evo. But I do have 2 omega 300s both with flush end caps. I shot a 7.8lb 300wsm with a scythe that made me instantly buy one. Recoil reduction wasn’t really a focus point. It was more the OAL and the weight, doing a great job with sound reduction. My scythe will also have flush end caps, much like my omegas making it lighter and shorter. I don’t think recoil reduction will be drastically different but the evo should buck a little more energy.

 

[greyghostnw]

Is Recoil noticeably different with a scythe compared to a 4 or 5 port side baffle brake on a 300? A 300 rum?

 

[gentleman4561]

Can’t find an answer for this, but would a Scythe-Ti with its 1.73” diameter tube reduce recoil better than a similarly sized 1.5” diameter can (Enticer-STi, Harvester EVO, etc.)

Interested in the Scythe Ti if it will reduce recoil more than my Harvester EVO. The weight savings is a plus, but not worth getting if minimal recoil reduction difference. Happy with sound suppression on the EVO.

I have the OG harvester and the Scythe.

I have shot both on a 6.5 and .308 and can’t tell a difference recoil wise.

 

[gentleman4561]

Is Recoil noticeably different with a scythe compared to a 4 or 5 port side baffle brake on a 300? A 300 rum?

Yes, VERY different. The Scythe or any silencer will have MUCH more recoil…but the lack of noise is well worth the trade off.

 

[MuleyFever]

Is Recoil noticeably different with a scythe compared to a 4 or 5 port side baffle brake on a 300? A 300 rum?

You're missing the point of a suppressor completely.

 

[Tahoe1305]

I’m not sure I agree with the above statement completely.

A suppressor does tame recoil a bit IMO but agree that intended purpose should be noise reduction….that said they are still “loud” too.

A good can will do both but primarily sound. It won’t do anything near as good as your multiport brake on a big cartridge like that. You’ll miss your brake.

You can get the omega 300 brake and add it to the scythe. It still won’t be as good though. If I were to completely guess I’d be impressed if you approach half as effective as that brake. But it will “feel” better because the sound of a big rifle like that IMO contributes to the unpleasant shot experience. That’s reduced obviously.