Posted: 6/6/2009 8:37:05 AM EDT
|
My friend and I have an active argument about the difference between a flash hider, muzzle rise compensator, and a muzzle brake. Mainly, between a muzzle brake and the other two. We are in disagreement about the design, as the purpose is self explanatory. This argument has no end so we decided to let ARFCOM be the judge.
Here's my take on it. A flash hider is a vented muzzle device with a wide open end that is designed to hide the flash. A muzzle rise compensator is usually designed like a flash hider, but lacks the vents on the bottom in order to prevent the downward direction of gas, which both prevents kicking up dust and reduces muzzle rise. Finally, a muzzle brake is fundamentally different from these prior two. It has vents like the other two, but usually facing out to the sides and sometimes slanted rearward. Now, the big difference: A muzzle brake has a series of separations between the vents, usually three of them, the openings of which are drilled to the same, or almost the same diameter of the bullet. This allows the bullet to momentarily plug the hole, blocking the gas behind it and actively working to force the gas out the vents for the brief moment in time that the bullet exists in that place, rather than the way a flash hider passively lets the gas out the vents which also lets gas go forward around the bullet during it's trip through the device. My friend's main argument is that a muzzle brake does not need the openings between the slots to be almost the same diameter as the bullet, that it can be open ended like an A2 flashhider is for example. This is not to say that he thinks a flash hider is the same thing, but rather that the open ended design can exist in either device design. |
|
Quoted:
My friend and I have an active argument about the difference between a flash hider, muzzle rise compensator, and a muzzle brake. Mainly, between a muzzle brake and the other two. We are in disagreement about the design, as the purpose is self explanatory. This argument has no end so we decided to let ARFCOM be the judge. Here's my take on it. A flash hider is a vented muzzle device with a wide open end that is designed to hide the flash. A muzzle rise compensator is usually designed like a flash hider, but lacks the vents on the bottom in order to prevent the downward direction of gas, which both prevents kicking up dust and reduces muzzle rise. Finally, a muzzle brake is fundamentally different from these prior two. It has vents like the other two, but usually facing out to the sides and sometimes slanted rearward. Now, the big difference: A muzzle brake has a series of separations between the vents, usually three of them, the openings of which are drilled to the same, or almost the same diameter of the bullet. This allows the bullet to momentarily plug the hole, blocking the gas behind it and actively working to force the gas out the vents for the brief moment in time that the bullet exists in that place, rather than the way a flash hider passively lets the gas out the vents which also lets gas go forward around the bullet during it's trip through the device. My friend's main argument is that a muzzle brake does not need the openings between the slots to be almost the same diameter as the bullet, that it can be open ended like an A2 flashhider is for example. This is not to say that he thinks a flash hider is the same thing, but rather that the open ended design can exist in either device design. You guys have soom interesting conversations . |
|
A flash hider is designed to quickly disperse the gases and unburned powder to prevent any unburned powder from burning and creating more of a flash.
A muzzle rise compensator vents the gases through the top to prevent muzzle rise. A muzzle brake vents the gas normally to the side and back which reduces felt recoil. Opening up the end of a muzzle brake kind of defeats the purpose since the gas can more easily vent out the front than out the side. How do you get into an argument about muzzle brake design anyway? |
|
The issue brake for the M14 was a cylinder that fitted over the standard flash hider. Don't know how effective it was but it's an example of a brake that has a 'wide open' front.
I think of muzzle devices like this: If it mixes the muzzle gas with outside air and decreases the amount of flash, it's a flash suppressor. If it hides the flash from the operator (like many WWII cone flash hiders) then it's a flash hider. If it directs the gas to prevent muzzle rise, it's a compensator. If it uses the muzzle gas to decrease recoil, it's a brake. I don't worry all that much about how the engineer get the effect, it's the effect that matters. BSW |
|
Quoted:
How do you get into an argument about muzzle brake design anyway? I argued that my Remington 700 VTR has a muzzle rise compensator, but not a muzzle brake as it was marketed by Remington, because it has an open ended design. He argued that a muzzle rise compensator and a muzzle brake are the same thing. I conceded that a muzzle rise compensator might reduce felt recoil to a small degree, but it is not nearly the same thing and it is simply a marketing error to sell an open ended muzzle device as a muzzle brake. |
|
You don't need the bullet to "plug" the muzzle brake. The gas expands laterally (with a forward direction) as soon as it leaves the crown. As the gas hits the slats of the brake, it pushes the barrel forward reducing recoil. That's why the most effective brakes are the ones with a lot of lateral surface area like the tank style brakes. The only problem with these is you can't mount a suppressor over them.
Many "muzzle brakes" are nothing but gimmicks which look cool. All you need to do is look at the surface area of the slats to know they don't work for shit. |
|
Quoted:
You don't need the bullet to "plug" the muzzle brake. The gas expands laterally (with a forward direction) as soon as it leaves the crown. As the gas hits the slats of the brake, it pushes the barrel forward reducing recoil. That's why the most effective brakes are the ones with a lot of lateral surface area like the tank style brakes. The only problem with these is you can't mount a suppressor over them. Many "muzzle brakes" are nothing but gimmicks which look cool. All you need to do is look at the surface area of the slats to know they don't work for shit. Fair enough, then show us a picture of one "muzzle brake" that has a large surface area on the lateral slats and is open ended. I bet that you won't find one. |
|
An engineer once told me how a brake works.
He said when firing a gun, there is actually two kicks, so close together they feel like one. Kick # 1 is bullet leaving the gun. (for every action, an equal and opposite reaction) Kick #2 is air refilling the void (vaccum) after the gasses have escaped. He said a brake with holes in the sides made the air swirl and refill the barrel softer, (slower) instead of slamming home, thus effectively eliminating kick #2. BS or truth ? I don't know. Comments ? |
|
Quoted:
An engineer once told me how a brake works. He said when firing a gun, there is actually two kicks, so close together they feel like one. Kick # 1 is bullet leaving the gun. (for every action, an equal and opposite reaction) Kick #2 is air refilling the void (vaccum) after the gasses have escaped. He said a brake with holes in the sides made the air swirl and refill the barrel softer, (slower) instead of slamming home, thus effectively eliminating kick #2. BS or truth ? I don't know. Comments ? It sounds like Kick #2 would be a forward kick, like pulling the gun away from you, if that kick was felt at all. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You don't need the bullet to "plug" the muzzle brake. The gas expands laterally (with a forward direction) as soon as it leaves the crown. As the gas hits the slats of the brake, it pushes the barrel forward reducing recoil. That's why the most effective brakes are the ones with a lot of lateral surface area like the tank style brakes. The only problem with these is you can't mount a suppressor over them. Many "muzzle brakes" are nothing but gimmicks which look cool. All you need to do is look at the surface area of the slats to know they don't work for shit. Fair enough, then show us a picture of one "muzzle brake" that has a large surface area on the lateral slats and is open ended. I bet that you won't find one. Let me rephrase my response to put it in the context of you debate with your friend. A smaller exit hole increases the surface area of the braking surface (without making the brake larger), it also prevents more gas from being ejected forward and that's what a brake needs to do to be effective. It's a simple conservation of momentum equation. So in this sense, you are right and your friend is wrong. It could be made to work open ended but it would not be as effective and there's no good reason to make a muzzle brake this way. However, the bullet is not doing much "plugging", it doesn't work that way. |
|
The OP did not do a very good job at representing our argument.
Muzzle break vs "Muzzle Rise Compensator" vs Flash Hider I contend that there are two types of muzzle devices (not counting suppressors). There are flash hiders, and there are muzzle breaks. The primary purpose of a flash hider is to reduce the amount of flash. The primary purpose of a muzzle break is to reduce the amount of muzzle rise and/or the amount of felt recoil. It is possible for a device to do both to some degree (usually immeasurable) , but it is categorized according to its primary purpose. My dumbass buttfucking friend agrees that there is a difference between a flash hider and a muzzle break. He also contends that there is a difference between a muzzle break and a so called "muzzle rise compensator", which I believe is just another term for a muzzle break. 
|
|
Quoted:
An engineer once told me how a brake works. He said when firing a gun, there is actually two kicks, so close together they feel like one. Kick # 1 is bullet leaving the gun. (for every action, an equal and opposite reaction) Kick #2 is air refilling the void (vaccum) after the gasses have escaped. He said a brake with holes in the sides made the air swirl and refill the barrel softer, (slower) instead of slamming home, thus effectively eliminating kick #2. BS or truth ? I don't know. Comments ? 
|
|
Quoted:
I would think a muzzle break would have to be tight as possible on the bullet to make sure the pressure behind the bullet goes out sideways other than straight out of the barrel like a non-muzzle break rifle. NEVER fire a gun with a break in the muzzle! The barrel could split and cause injury or death! |
|
Quoted:
An engineer once told me how a brake works. He said when firing a gun, there is actually two kicks, so close together they feel like one. Kick # 1 is bullet leaving the gun. (for every action, an equal and opposite reaction) Kick #2 is air refilling the void (vaccum) after the gasses have escaped. He said a brake with holes in the sides made the air swirl and refill the barrel softer, (slower) instead of slamming home, thus effectively eliminating kick #2. BS or truth ? I don't know. Comments ? Bullet going forward = rifle moving backwards. Muzzle gas going forward = rifle moving backwards. Vacuum = WTF? The bore is pressurized with hot gas until the bullet escapes. After it leaves the pressure of the bore and outside air are equal. Just because somebody is an engineer doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. BSW |
|
Quoted:
An engineer once told me how a brake works. He said when firing a gun, there is actually two kicks, so close together they feel like one. Kick # 1 is bullet leaving the gun. (for every action, an equal and opposite reaction) Kick #2 is air refilling the void (vaccum) after the gasses have escaped. He said a brake with holes in the sides made the air swirl and refill the barrel softer, (slower) instead of slamming home, thus effectively eliminating kick #2. BS or truth ? I don't know. Comments ? Actually , this "second kick"  is the thrust of the hot gasses leaving the barrel , like the thrust of a jet or rocket engine. A brake redirects this force to push forward on the weapon , like the "reverse thrusters" on a big jet.
|
|
Quoted:
The OP did not do a very good job at representing our argument. Muzzle break vs "Muzzle Rise Compensator" vs Flash Hider I contend that there are two types of muzzle devices (not counting suppressors). There are flash hiders, and there are muzzle breaks. The primary purpose of a flash hider is to reduce the amount of flash. The primary purpose of a muzzle break is to reduce the amount of muzzle rise and/or the amount of felt recoil. It is possible for a device to do both to some degree (usually immeasurable) , but it is categorized according to its primary purpose. My dumbass buttfucking friend agrees that there is a difference between a flash hider and a muzzle break. He also contends that there is a difference between a muzzle break and a so called "muzzle rise compensator", which I believe is just another term for a muzzle break. Haha, I agree with you! Probably because I am a simpleton though... 
|