Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 12/10/2013 6:11:44 AM EDT
All of my rifles currently wear QD flash hiders in anticipation of release of my QD can (YHM Ti Phantom 7.62) from BATF prison.  I've read that brakes make great sacrificial blast baffles to help save wear on the blast baffle on one's can, so I am considering whether to run a brake on a couple of those guns.  However, if brakes do such a great job diverting the initial gas blast to the sides, does that create accelerated wear on the tube, or does the brake slow gasses enough that any erosion on the inside of the tube is inconsequential?
Link Posted: 12/10/2013 6:16:33 AM EDT
I would guess that the gases are much more dispursed and not as harmful.
Link Posted: 12/10/2013 7:11:24 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Scott_S:
I've read that brakes make great sacrificial blast baffles to help save wear on the blast baffle on one's can
View Quote


They make great sacrificial baffles on rifles that have a barrel length which lets out a high amount of unburned powder against a cone baffle OVER a flash hider mount which channels the gas into streams to act as the flash hiding method.

This is primarily the case on AAC's tri-prong design and their blast baffle on 10.5" (and shorter) 5.56 rifles.

The phantom mount does not divert the gas the same way and the blast baffle in the phantom is not the same as well.

From what I recall its a diffuser spindle looking thing at the rear.

Link Posted: 12/10/2013 7:10:33 PM EDT
I don't think it is the gases that do any harm. The suppressors are rated to handle quite a bit.  Anyone with a SBR though can tell you that the brake takes a beating. On short barrels there is unburnt powder which acts as a sand blaster. My broke showed erosion after 100 rounds.  I sure as hell don't want that hitting my first baffle.  
So in conclusion. ..it is my understanding and experience that barrel length determines whether you really "need" a brake or not.
Link Posted: 12/10/2013 10:37:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Scott_S:
All of my rifles currently wear QD flash hiders in anticipation of release of my QD can (YHM Ti Phantom 7.62) from BATF prison.  I've read that brakes make great sacrificial blast baffles to help save wear on the blast baffle on one's can, so I am considering whether to run a brake on a couple of those guns.  However, if brakes do such a great job diverting the initial gas blast to the sides, does that create accelerated wear on the tube, or does the brake slow gasses enough that any erosion on the inside of the tube is inconsequential?
View Quote


It is entirely possible for the gases to begin to erode the inside of the tube if they are directed that way.  It would def take a lot more rounds as the brake will somewhat disperse the gas jet.
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 3:43:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 4:16:45 AM EDT
I worried about this for a while.  But once I wrapped my head around a suppressor as a wear item...worried less
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 4:38:37 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PHD:
Although it diverts a lot of gas sideways, a brake will concentrate the forward gas flow rather than let it spread out in a cone like a flash hider. What this does is create more wear on the part of the first baffle closest to the bore aperture. On barrels less than 14.5 inches, this gas flow is more like a plasma torch bathing parts with high velocity, partially burned powder particles at temperatures in excess of 4,000 deg F. The shorter the barrel, the more stress and wear on the suppressor, especially when one plays cowboy with 100 round beta mags.
View Quote


Thanks Doc!
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 6:40:24 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PHD:
Although it diverts a lot of gas sideways, a brake will concentrate the forward gas flow rather than let it spread out in a cone like a flash hider. What this does is create more wear on the part of the first baffle closest to the bore aperture. On barrels less than 14.5 inches, this gas flow is more like a plasma torch bathing parts with high velocity, partially burned powder particles at temperatures in excess of 4,000 deg F. The shorter the barrel, the more stress and wear on the suppressor, especially when one plays cowboy with 100 round beta mags.
View Quote

Does this hold true for all muzzle brakes or just yours?
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 9:09:19 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PHD:
Although it diverts a lot of gas sideways, a brake will concentrate the forward gas flow rather than let it spread out in a cone like a flash hider. What this does is create more wear on the part of the first baffle closest to the bore aperture. On barrels less than 14.5 inches, this gas flow is more like a plasma torch bathing parts with high velocity, partially burned powder particles at temperatures in excess of 4,000 deg F. The shorter the barrel, the more stress and wear on the suppressor, especially when one plays cowboy with 100 round beta mags.
View Quote


Very interesting.  Thank you very much for that info.  Would you go as far, then, as to recommend a FH instead of a brake for running suppressors?

I realize that barrels, bolts, springs, suppressors, and a host of other parts are all wear items when it comes to shooting, but if running a FH is preferable to a brake for a suppressor, then FH it is.
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 9:17:48 AM EDT
Surefire Rep I spoke with on the phone recommended brakes for all of their suppressors. They said all of their staff uses brakes over flash hiders to help eliminate erosion. I went with brake for this reason as well
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 9:34:55 AM EDT
I have quite a few thousand through my M4-2000.

Ive always used a brake. On 12.5 and 10.5 barrels.

I have minimal blast baffle erosion. I never thought about the gasses effecting the tube however.

The only thing I can see on the tube internally is where the brake ports are at 3 and 9 oclock, is that there is no carbon build up on the side walls, there is build up of carbon everywhere else however.

I would bet once the gasses hit the front of the brake, before they are directed horizontally out the side, slow down quite a bit an will do essentially no wear.

So the only effect ive seen thus far is the brake will keep the can cleaner on the inside at 3 and 9 oclock.

Im not worried about it

Link Posted: 12/11/2013 9:35:40 AM EDT
I recently asked YHM about this, here was their response:

Hello,

I just purchased a YHM SS 5.56 Phantom for my 11.5" daniel defense upper. While I am waiting on my NFA paperwork to be approved, I wanted to inquire about the best QD mount for my application.
Would you suggest I use the included QD flash hider mount or purchase the QD compensator / brake mount to use on my 11.5" barrel. I only ask due concern about baffle wear while being attached to the 11.5" barrel.

Sincerely,
Finslayer83

From: Yankeehill
Date: Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: Message from YHM
To: Finslayer83


Sir,
It makes absolutely no difference which mount you use as your suppressor
has a lifetime warranty on it for as long as you own it so if you ever
have a baffle problem it would be covered. The muzzle brakes are extremely
loud if you shoot the gun without the suppressor attached, however you may
use whichever mount you wish and it makes absolutely no difference to the
suppressor.
View Quote


With that said I'll just use the FH as I won't be 100% suppressed..... or so i say
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 9:44:33 AM EDT
I was under the impression its near impossible to rebuild a rifle can that has worn baffles. Atleast for AAC rifle cans.

Maybe YHM is different from AAC im not sure.

Im not near as much worried about cost, as I am waiting to get a new can....
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 10:35:39 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chase45:
I was under the impression its near impossible to rebuild a rifle can that has worn baffles. Atleast for AAC rifle cans.

Maybe YHM is different from AAC im not sure.

Im not near as much worried about cost, as I am waiting to get a new can....
View Quote


Surefire rebuilds their internals but they said it would cost 600 $
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 11:02:19 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chase45:
I was under the impression its near impossible to rebuild a rifle can that has worn baffles. Atleast for AAC rifle cans.

Maybe YHM is different from AAC im not sure.

Im not near as much worried about cost, as I am waiting to get a new can....
View Quote


Don't have to wait long as long as the tube is not replaced
Link Posted: 12/11/2013 11:49:49 AM EDT

I have one of your Trek-T's on a 10.5 upper. How much do I need to worry about wear on the blast baffle? I know its warrantied on 10.3 inch guns. I am shooting semi, not auto.


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By PHD:
Although it diverts a lot of gas sideways, a brake will concentrate the forward gas flow rather than let it spread out in a cone like a flash hider. What this does is create more wear on the part of the first baffle closest to the bore aperture. On barrels less than 14.5 inches, this gas flow is more like a plasma torch bathing parts with high velocity, partially burned powder particles at temperatures in excess of 4,000 deg F. The shorter the barrel, the more stress and wear on the suppressor, especially when one plays cowboy with 100 round beta mags.
View Quote

Link Posted: 12/11/2013 1:42:55 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chase45:
I have quite a few thousand through my M4-2000.

Ive always used a brake. On 12.5 and 10.5 barrels.

I have minimal blast baffle erosion. I never thought about the gasses effecting the tube however.

The only thing I can see on the tube internally is where the brake ports are at 3 and 9 oclock, is that there is no carbon build up on the side walls, there is build up of carbon everywhere else however.

I would bet once the gasses hit the front of the brake, before they are directed horizontally out the side, slow down quite a bit an will do essentially no wear.

So the only effect ive seen thus far is the brake will keep the can cleaner on the inside at 3 and 9 oclock.

Im not worried about it

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By chase45:
I have quite a few thousand through my M4-2000.

Ive always used a brake. On 12.5 and 10.5 barrels.

I have minimal blast baffle erosion. I never thought about the gasses effecting the tube however.

The only thing I can see on the tube internally is where the brake ports are at 3 and 9 oclock, is that there is no carbon build up on the side walls, there is build up of carbon everywhere else however.

I would bet once the gasses hit the front of the brake, before they are directed horizontally out the side, slow down quite a bit an will do essentially no wear.

So the only effect ive seen thus far is the brake will keep the can cleaner on the inside at 3 and 9 oclock.

Im not worried about it



x2.

I've seen M4-2000s with thousands of rounds as well.  Nothing that would look like the spacer is deforming/deteriorating

Originally Posted By chase45:
I was under the impression its near impossible to rebuild a rifle can that has worn baffles. Atleast for AAC rifle cans.


Not impossible but incredibly hard to do and not worth AAC's time is closer to the answer.

They would have to part off the tube to get to the core.  Then part off the stack from the mount.

Getting the tube off without getting the mount would be tricky since the weld is way back there.
Link Posted: 12/12/2013 7:00:26 AM EDT
Top Top