Whether you’re talking about a bolt or semiauto long range or precision rifle when used in a tactical/combat environment (ie: 2-way ranges) is there ever really a case for using a brake over a suppressor?

Yes, brakes are popular in PRS because they allow rapid follow ups and shot spotting. And on hunting rifles the recoil reduction of a brake without size/weight penalty of a silencer (on a typically lightweight gun of substantial caliber) makes a lot of sense... after all, animals aren’t trying to spot FPs of incoming direct fire and counter fire or evade.

But they’re loud.  Loud loud.  Firing one from a hide, out of the back of a room or from under heavy cover has to suck hard.  They noticeably increase flash, dust kick up, and sound signatures.  This trade off seems so severe that short of magnum caliber .338/.375/.408/.416/.50 (or other things with actual punishing recoil that need taming) I imagine if you can‘t get a suppressor that even just a bare muzzle or hider beats out using a muzzle brake in a real world tactical situation.

Since suppressors do still provide at least some recoil mitigation while noticeably decreasing sound/dust, it begs the question of whether there is ever really a case for using brakes over silencers on precision rifles in a tactical/combat scenario?

I’m not sure I understand. You’re saying a brake is more affordable than... a silencer?

Because what I’m saying is that in an actual tactical/combat situation that even a bare muzzle might still be better than using a brake (if no can/silencer were available).  Surely a bare muzzle is even cheaper than a brake.

When silencers became legal in my state, a lot of us used them in PRS matches.  Over time a lot of us went back to brakes.  Why?

1) Lighter rifle.  
2) Better balance.
3) Shorter rifle.
4) Quicker follow up.

My .30 YHM weighed around 16 oz.  It was at the muzzle, of course, and that weight out front was ungainly.  Most PRS stages require movement, and a shorter, lighter, better balanced rifle is quicker from position to position.  And last, muzzle brakes are more effective than silencers in recoil mitigation, for the most part.

So a lot of us went back to brakes.

There is no place for a brake on a combat rifle. It is a negative in every way.

My favorite not suppressor is A2 thats about as cheap as a thread protector.

Not talking about PRS matches, or any games/range shooting.  Brakes are performance enhancers, no doubt about that. But you don’t see gas pedals, slide rackers, ghost holsters and site tracker or comped barrels on military sidearms either.

There’s no downside to being obnoxiously loud or throwing out a giant fireball or dust cloud at the shooting range or hunting elk.  But making your firing position plainly obvious in a real-world situation (ie: combat, etc.) could lead to ... issues.

I shoot coyotes prone a lot. And despise brakes! Nothing like dry dust and cow poo dust storm when trying to hit coyote number two. Weight is not a factor sense the rifle is carried in a vehicle. Only complaint about suppressors is the extra length makes the rifle a little bit harder to get out of the vehicle.

No, no there is not

Surprised LEA and the .mil can't get them a whole lot cheaper than us serfs.

Never been in combat, can't think of any practical reason for brake over can except faster follow up shot. That's the only one I can ever consider.

I can tell you my tax dollars don't go to my god damn training and equipment budget lol.




Flash hiders or suppressors. Nice compact suppressors mitigate the handling problems. Fuck having brakes in a vehicle hide or other compact space, tried it, not worth it. Particularly at shorter LE ranges anyway.

That said on our local PRS scene I prefer just using a brake for the most part. Still used the Little TBAC ultra 5 sometimes though.


Brakes have their place for large cartidges that really need the recoil reduction.