Suppressor Effectiveness vs. Compensator Effectiveness

[Charles Bond]

This was split out from the "Most Effective Muzzle Brake" thread since the other thread got a little derailed. This discussion still has some legs and may be worthy of further discussion.

Please leave the antagonistic and argumentative tone out of here.

The absolute best is any suppressor. If you have one there is no reason to leave it at home when it is match time.

[00bullitt]

The absolute best is any suppressor. If you have one there is no reason to leave it at home when it is match time.

I tend to disagree greatly. The suppressor traps gas and muffles its flow. A compensator takes advantage of gas flow and vents it in a direction advantageous to balance the recoil and muzzle rise of the gun. The suppressor builds back pressure to a degree that recoil is doubled...not decreased. A compensator and suppressor are not even apples to apples in comparison. The extra added weight of the suppressor helps counter balance recoil just from an added weight standpoint but it also makes the rifle more cumbersome.

But hey....I hope more of my competitors use cans.

[kgunz11]

The only rifle I've ever seen a muzzle break work better than a can is in the .338LM. Blowing gas out the sides is blowing gas which can disrupt the sights of the weapon. Blowing gas out the top can help keep the muzzle flip down. A good muzzle break will work as good as a good suppressor. My suppressor it Ti and only weighs 16ozs. I don't know what some of the top rated brakes weigh, but judging by their thickness and length I'd have to say they are close to 4oz or so. The SJC Titan looks like a decent chunk of steel... what does it weigh?

The suppressor builds back pressure to a degree that recoil is doubled...not decreased.

I don't even know what to say about that comment. Double the recoil? No way, not even close, and as someone that's owned a suppressor I don't know how you can say your gun kicked twice as hard. That is what double recoil means right?

[00bullitt]

The only rifle I've ever seen a muzzle break work better than a can is in the .338LM. Blowing gas out the sides is blowing gas which can disrupt the sights of the weapon. Blowing gas out the top can help keep the muzzle flip down. A good muzzle break will work as good as a good suppressor. My suppressor it Ti and only weighs 16ozs. I don't know what some of the top rated brakes weigh, but judging by their thickness and length I'd have to say they are close to 4oz or so. The SJC Titan looks like a decent chunk of steel... what does it weigh?

The suppressor builds back pressure to a degree that recoil is doubled...not decreased.

I don't even know what to say about that comment. Double the recoil? No way, not even close, and as someone that's owned a suppressor I don't know how you can say your gun kicked twice as hard. That is what double recoil means right?

Doubled was poor wording. It should have just said increased. But I guess different strokes for different folks. I definitely do not believe a suppressor to be more effective than a good compensator. This comes from many thousand rounds down range of just pure feel and watching my sights. I think alot of folks lose sight of the feel of their rifle when the loud sound of an explosion is muffled.

The SJC Titan weighs 5oz.

[kgunz11]

The only rifle I've ever seen a muzzle break work better than a can is in the .338LM. Blowing gas out the sides is blowing gas which can disrupt the sights of the weapon. Blowing gas out the top can help keep the muzzle flip down. A good muzzle break will work as good as a good suppressor. My suppressor it Ti and only weighs 16ozs. I don't know what some of the top rated brakes weigh, but judging by their thickness and length I'd have to say they are close to 4oz or so. The SJC Titan looks like a decent chunk of steel... what does it weigh?

The suppressor builds back pressure to a degree that recoil is doubled...not decreased.

I don't even know what to say about that comment. Double the recoil? No way, not even close, and as someone that's owned a suppressor I don't know how you can say your gun kicked twice as hard. That is what double recoil means right?

Doubled was poor wording. It should have just said increased. But I guess different strokes for different folks. I definitely do not believe a suppressor to be more effective than a good compensator. This comes from many thousand rounds down range of just pure feel and watching my sights. I think alot of folks lose sight of the feel of their rifle when the loud sound of an explosion is muffled.

The SJC Titan weighs 5oz.

I shoot a lot too, thousands of rounds, in calibers with more recoil than a .223. I too watch my sights, in the form of a scope reticle on a target a really long way away. I am able to spot my impacts with both the can and the suppressor, just able to do it a little better with the suppressor. It's a small margin in my mind though.

I think alot of folks lose sight of the feel of their rifle when the loud sound of an explosion is muffled.

I find the opposite to be true. Most people are disturbed by the additional volume and concussion of a muzzle brake. Muzzle brakes don't make rifles any louder, they just redirect the gas making it easier to hear. I think the noise would disturb a person more than the lack of noise. If the person were deaf, I think the concussion/blast from the comp would disturb them more than the lack of.

I disagree with Charles because a suppressor has a place which I don't think is in 3gun, and I don't think they are any more effective than a good muzzle brake. I disagree with Tod because he thinks a suppressor adds recoil to a rifle, even if he thinks it is the smallest amount, it's simply wrong. And I don't think a muzzle brake is any more effective than a suppressor. But hey, we can all agree to disagree right?

[Bear1142]

I disagree with Tod because he thinks a suppressor adds recoil to a rifle, even if he thinks it is the smallest amount, it's simply wrong.

I have to agree with Tod. I do believe a suppressor increases the recoil of a rifle to a degree if we are talking about semi-auto's, not bolt guns. A suppressor will increase the gas pressure in the operating system of the rifle and a result of this increased pressure is an increase in bolt velocity. This is easily seen when comparing the fully automatic rates of fire in rifles when tested with and without a suppressor. In every instance the rate of fire with the suppressor is increased due to the increased bolt speed which itself is a result of the increased backpressure generated by the suppressor. The increased bolt speed creates more momentum which equates in part to an increase in recoil. Now some of this additional recoil is absorbed by the weight of the suppressor and the muzzle brake like effect of the high speed gas hitting the blast baffle inside the suppressor which will pull the rifle forward to some extent and counteract the additional recoil of the higher speed bolt. Additionally, there are several ways to counteract this additional recoil (adjustable gas blocks, heavier buffers and springs, different size gas tubes, etc.,) but given two identical rifles, one suppressed and the other unsuppressed, the suppressed rifle will recoil slightly more. It may not be enough to impact the shooter's performance with the rifle, but recoil will be slightly increased.

And I don't think a muzzle brake is any more effective than a suppressor.

Once again, I have to disagree with you (if we are talking about semi-auto's again) The primary function of a suppressor is to cool and slow the expanding gases before the are released into the atmosphere thereby reducing the noise of the gas discharge. A byproduct of the suppressor's design is that is does have some recoil reducing properties mainly attributable to the weight of the suppressor and the initial blast baffle inside the suppressor which act's in a similar manner to a muzzle brake.

A compensator (and for simplicities sake, I will use the term compensator and muzzle brake interchangeably, even though they are technically two different designs) is purpose built to reduce recoil and muzzle flip. That is it's only function. Even for argument's sake if a given suppressor and compensator perform equally well according to Kgunz11 observastions, the compensator accomplishes this task in a smaller, shorter, lighter, and cheaper manner. Even when viewed in the best possible light, a suppressor is a poor choice when compared to any good compensator for competition purposes. To further illustrate this point, consider what Barry Dueck uses in competition. He is the director of the suppressor division for SureFire. He is one of the top 3-gun shooters in the Country and one of the foremost experts on suppressor design. He competes with a compensator, not a suppressor. That alone should speaks volumes about which design is more effective for competitive use.

Erik

Edited May 6, 2010 by Bear1142

[kgunz11]

Erik, I agree that a suppressor is probably not the best tool for a 3gun competition rifle for many different reasons. To state that the additional rate of speed induced by the back pressure from the suppressor on the bolt carrier is an increase in recoil is a stretch. Who can feel that? I can make that much difference in powder selection without a suppressor on the rifle, just changing to a different powder (meaning I can create additional pressure to speed up the cyclic rate of the carrier). Someone's choice NOT to use a suppressor in a 3gun match probably has little if anything to do with recoil but more so with length and weight (SureFire also markets their muzzle brake, Taran and MV both use it). I also highly doubt adding 12oz to my rifle is significantly reducing the recoil to the point that the delta is felt. Yes, I shoot mainly bolt guns, but I have also campaigned the suppressed AR-10's which is totally different than the smaller 556 in terms of gas pressure. But then again for your argument, a really good brake can do just as much for making the bolt cycle faster because the gun/buffer doesn't move in recoil allowing it to "run from" the carrier causing it to cycle faster. In an AR-15 in .223 to say that the additional blow back created by a can is perceivable is a stretch to me.

Anyone that says a non-suppressed rifle recoils more than a suppressed one has never shot both. I know both of you have, so something here is missing.

Even for argument's sake if a given suppressor and compensator perform equally well according to Kgunz11 observastions, the compensator accomplishes this task in a smaller, shorter, lighter, and cheaper manner.

That I can agree with completely.

[Aloha Robert]

I think some clarification of terminology is in order.

Suppressors (for rifle) come in three flavors, noise suppressors, flash suppressors and blast (side)suppressors. Noise suppressors are the bulkiest and not legal in many states. Noise suppressors reduce recoil some, reduce noise a lot and suppress flash, but some produce moderate side blast. They are for different uses, for example, the Noveske Pig does a good job of suppressing side blast and some recoil but actually enhances flame. Every suppressor I have seen does reduce recoil to some extent.

Muzzle brakes, (or compensators) do not by design suppress flash or noise but some can do an excellent job of blast control in addition to recoil control. A properly designed brake in .223 or .308 will have recoil control and enough blast reduction to make them useful in competition.

In Tactical, size pretty much dictates a brake instead of a suppressor. In Open, its up to you but the logistics of legality, bulk, and simply inefficient optimization of recoil and blast would seem to dictate the suppressor has a very small role to play in IPSC competition.

Although ultimately competitors will pick what they think works best for recoil control, it is nice to know there are some brands that do that and dont punish the RO or other bystanders with excessive side blast or noise. In a real world tactical situation side blast is definitely something to avoid. So my competition vote is for a brake\or compensator that completely eliminates sight lift, reduces recoil and moderately suppresses side blast.

Generally speaking, simple gill or port design brakes do make a lot of side blast. Multi axial chamber designs can reduce side blast while reducing recoil.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Aloha Robert

[00bullitt]

Anyone that says a non-suppressed rifle recoils more than a suppressed one has never shot both. I know both of you have, so something here is missing.

I have shot both. This thread was about compensators on semi automatic gas operated rifles. I'm not speaking of bolt guns which I know you have tremendous experience with. My experience lies mostly with gas guns. When comparing apples to apples. For example....when I shoot my carbine with Federal XM193 or any ammo for that matter without a can it has one recoil impulse. As soon as I add my suppressor, that recoil impulse increases and the rifle reacts totally different. I completely feel the difference. The suppressor does not decrease recoil enough. The gas pressure is increased by 40-60% and causes the gun to run harder than the suppressor can compensate for the recoil. I arrive at that percentage because I can cut 50% of gas flow and the gun still operates. It takes cutting the gas 50% to get the recoil of the gun to feel close to the same as it did prior to adding the suppressor.

That is how I quantify my impression of adding a suppressor. It is my perception. I can feel the difference. I notice the slightest difference in change when I shoot my guns as I'm sure you can. The style of shooting we both do are like comparing apples and kiwis. I know what you speak of in the bolt gun world is not the same as it is with gas guns. The addition of gas and reciprocating actions changes the dynamics of operation.

I shoot gas guns in 223,308,260,6.5 Grendel and even a few other wildcat calibers. I have shot them all suppressed and unsuppressed. The results I get when adding a suppressor have all been pretty much the same. I feel increased recoil until gas pressure is decreased to a point that keeps the speed of the reciprocating assembly close to the same prior to the addition of the suppressor. And in my opinion its still a different feel and I see a different sight track in my scope. I equate some of the feel to adding 16 ounces and 6" to the end of my gun. And even then....I still have not seen the performance that I get from the SJC Titan comp that I run for competition.

So....thats pretty much how I arrive at my impression of a suppressor not being the best compensator. If you have more quantifiable data that proves what I perceive to be otherwise....I am open to seeing it.

[Charles Bond]

I really opened the can of worms here with my comment on suppressors. I think Todd is right since a ton of what has been posted is simply how it feels to or works for an individual shooter. And while I can feel the difference in "impulse" with the suppressor, I would not necessarily refer to that as "recoil".

The one comment that I must disagree with concerns there being only two types of comps. Just because they might look the same if you start measuring angles and area of expansion and overall sizes, you will see significant differences. Those of you that have a comp that is different for a 16 inch vs 18 inch vs 20 inch barrel know what I am talking about. It is about a heck of a lot more than looks but do not share that with the AR15.com guys who love to buy anything that just looks cool.

[00bullitt]

This past weekend at the LaRue Tactical 3 Gun Match I was squadded with Barry Dueck. Director of the Surefire suppressor division. We had the conversation about effectiveness of a Surefire suppressor versus their compensator. Barry had said that in a recoil testing fixture that the suppressor was only 40% effective in reducing recoil to where the compensator was 56% effective. The compensator also gives you the ability to steer the gun. The suppressor does not.

[kgunz11]

This past weekend at the LaRue Tactical 3 Gun Match I was squadded with Barry Dueck. Director of the Surefire suppressor division. We had the conversation about effectiveness of a Surefire suppressor versus their compensator. Barry had said that in a recoil testing fixture that the suppressor was only 40% effective in reducing recoil to where the compensator was 56% effective. The compensator also gives you the ability to steer the gun. The suppressor does not.

And you believe what this guy said right? So now you concede that a suppressor DECREASES recoil right? NOT increases recoil? Just want to make sure as you and Erik both said

I do believe a suppressor increases the recoil of a rifle to a degree

.

I'm still having a hard time swallowing that you think a can doesn't reduce recoil. I, without a shadow of a doubt, while shooting a semi auto rifle, know for certain that a can reduces the felt recoil compared to a rifle with no suppressor at all. There is no question at all. Does it reduce as much recoil as a compensator or muzzle brake? Barry Dueck of Surefire says no while using their suppressor and their muzzle brake in comparison.

I can take an AR-15 with standard factory ammo and let 100 people shoot it with no suppressor then let them shoot it with a suppressor and I'd bet that they would agree, a suppressed rifle recoils less than a non suppressed one. Then again... who knows. Evidently there are thousands of folks in the world that are just totally wrong for using a suppressor on a gas gun to make it easier to spot their hits.

[Charles Bond]

What is always interesting about this forum is you can count on folks having good information. In regard to the surefire suppressor, I tend to believe that the comp reduces recoil in a manner that is 56% effectiveness while the suppressor does it in a manner that is 40% effective. I do not however have a surefire which makes me wonder if my suppressor is more effective in recoil reduction than the figures cited simply because my suppressor weighs more than the surefire.

I also tend to believe that the suppressor generates more recoil to the rear. It certainly increases the gas available to cycle the bolt but with this comes more reliaability and again, the increased weight of the weapon is going to cancel out most of this.

I accept that adding overall length to the weapon makes it less handy in a close quarters stage. Looking at that I have not seen any stages lately where a 3 gun match provided a stage where having a shorter rifle was much of an advantage on close stuff. And even if you have that situation, there is going to be a trade off with distance shots vs. closer shots and with the points and penalties attached to the longer range shots at most matches, at least I would be willing to give up half a second on the close in stuff to save the second or two that comes with something more steady to use to engage the targets out past 100 yards.

Suppressors on my rifle remove all of the up and down recoil. I would expect that there are those who are going to tell me that there are comps that do that but my experience is that even the very best come comp does not do for my weapon what the suppressor does in that regard. Maybe the best solution is to take your come and suppressor to the match. Check out the stages and then attach fo rthe match the equipment that is going to best serve you at that match.

[smokshwn]

This past weekend at the LaRue Tactical 3 Gun Match I was squadded with Barry Dueck. Director of the Surefire suppressor division. We had the conversation about effectiveness of a Surefire suppressor versus their compensator. Barry had said that in a recoil testing fixture that the suppressor was only 40% effective in reducing recoil to where the compensator was 56% effective. The compensator also gives you the ability to steer the gun. The suppressor does not.

Todd,

Discussing this stuff with Barry is incredible, but don't go bringing logic, measureable data, and actual real world engineering and design experience into the discussion, that would be crazy talk

[Graham Smith]

Being relatively new to the rifle arena, discussions like this (as opposed to the arguments found elsewhere) are quite interesting and informative.

The place I have the best access to distance has an issue with noise, so a traditional compensator is not the first choice for my AR-15 when I am a guest there. As a result, I've been testing a Levang Linear Compensator. While not designed as a noise suppressor, it does have a small expansion chamber and all the exaust gasses are directed forward which helps direct some of the noise forward as well. But the downside is that there is somewhat more rearward recoil and muzzle flip than with a standard compensator. I'm taking both to my regular range this week and do some comparisons.

Also, as much as I would like to try out a true suppressor on this rifle, I'm not inclined to go through the kind of expense and hassle needed to buy one (and I expect that many people reading this are in the same boat). Never-the-less, it's interesting to know just what the real differences are. It also makes me wonder if we will not start to see some crossbreeds showing up as interest increases.

BTW, I have not seen any mention of the effect of a suppressor on accuracy and muzzle velocity. I would expect that to play a significant role in the comparison.

Edited May 12, 2010 by Graham Smith

[Charles Bond]

BTW, I have not seen any mention of the effect of a suppressor on accuracy and muzzle velocity. I would expect that to play a significant role in the comparison.

A suppressor increases muzzle velocity. Generally I have read claims that it increase accuracy but my thought is that the suppressor would not improve the accuracy of a less accurate firearm.

[kgunz11]

I own several suppressors from several different manufacturers. I own several accurate rifles, both bolt and gas. No suppressor on any of those rifles offer a velocity increase. No suppressor on any of those rifles offer an accuracy change.

A lot of people think they get additional MV from a can because in their mind they are adding length to the bbl that will allow gas to push on the bullet longer and make it shoot faster. Well, the fact is, the gas is going to take the path of LEAST resistance which sends it around the bullet into the suppressor baffles.

Accuracy can change for the better or worse by adding a suppressor. When you screw a can on the end of the barrel you're adding weight. That weight can change bbl harmonics. If you have a load properly tuned to your rifle, adding a suppressor will not increase or decrease the accuracy.

[kgunz11]

This past weekend at the LaRue Tactical 3 Gun Match I was squadded with Barry Dueck. Director of the Surefire suppressor division. We had the conversation about effectiveness of a Surefire suppressor versus their compensator. Barry had said that in a recoil testing fixture that the suppressor was only 40% effective in reducing recoil to where the compensator was 56% effective. The compensator also gives you the ability to steer the gun. The suppressor does not.

Todd,

Discussing this stuff with Barry is incredible, but don't go bringing logic, measureable data, and actual real world engineering and design experience into the discussion, that would be crazy talk

Now if one of you guys could talk Barry into making a suppressor that actually does a good job at suppressing sound, he might make a suppressor that better reduces recoil. SureFire stuff typically comes in near the bottom in terms of sound suppression. Though they do offer minimal weight, minimal POI change, and a quick detach system, they do so while sacrificing sound suppression.

smokshwn,

Care to point out the bold stuff above? Tod mentioned some numbers from a suppressor manufacturer about their specific suppressor and muzzle brake, so I got that little piece of data. Where's the real world engineering and design experience and what has that got to do with the discussion at hand? You talking about Barry's because he not a part of this thread. I have a friend that makes suppressors, and we experiment and change things to make them better at what they are designed to do, and we have been successful at it. Doesn't that give me real world engineering and design experience?

Are you also trying to say that a suppressor increases recoil? I mean Barry Dueck has already said that just isn't true and provided measureable data, and actual real world engineering and design experience. So what is it, you going to believe him or not?

[Chuck Anderson]

Looks like everyone needs to step back and look at their arguments a bit. It seems you guys are arguing two different theories. One set arguing that compensators are more effective than suppressors and another arguing that suppressors are more effective than nothing.

A proper compensator on a rifle will, normally, be the most effective solution to reducing recoil. Some of that changes depending on the size of the gun the can is on. The comped JP rifle I've got doesn't move. My duty gun doesn't move much with the SureFire can on it. It doesn't move at all when I take the can off and use the MB556AR muzzle break only.

My experience with several different cans has been,

Most recoil: bare muzzle

Less recoil: suppressor

Least recoil: compensator.

Accuracy has been about a push for me. Some have seen an increase, some (normally cheap cans) a decrease and some it really doesn't matter

As far as velocity. Depends on the gun and your load. I've got some cans, that with some ammo will increase velocity. Some it stays the same. A lot has to do with how much barrel you have leading up to the can and how your load is developed. If the projectile uses up the gas in the available barrel, you won't see any increase. If your projectile is still speeding up, the additional pressure in the can add a few feet per second. My duty rifle (12.5" Larue with SF can) gains about 50 fps. Same with a suppressed Glock 17 that I have. My longer barreled applications don't show much a of a change at all.

And for those that have never shot one, my G-17 has significantly more recoil suppressed than unsuppressed. That's because it has a recoil booster so it will work though, not because of the can.

[Chuck Anderson]

Oops, and to the OP. Please leave the cans at home. They are no advantage at 3-Gun and a royal pain in the butt for the scorekeeper. I can rarely pick up the last shot on any of my supressed guns. They're slower to handle on field courses because of the extra weight as well.

[MarkCO]

Also having shot both good and poor supressors and good and poor comps...Comps definately work better at reducing recoil, but supressors are pretty close.

The one MAJOR issue many of you have missed is heat and gas fouling of the suppressor which is totally non-existant with a comp. Cold shots on both are pretty darn close and there is no perceivable change with a comp. The trapped heat and gas are not immediately expelled from a supressor and with rapid fire, the recoil compensation effectiveness is reduced with successive firing. In addition, the heat soak creates some nasty mirage off of a suppressor if enough rounds have been fired, not so with a compensator.

[00bullitt]

This past weekend at the LaRue Tactical 3 Gun Match I was squadded with Barry Dueck. Director of the Surefire suppressor division. We had the conversation about effectiveness of a Surefire suppressor versus their compensator. Barry had said that in a recoil testing fixture that the suppressor was only 40% effective in reducing recoil to where the compensator was 56% effective. The compensator also gives you the ability to steer the gun. The suppressor does not.

Todd,

Discussing this stuff with Barry is incredible, but don't go bringing logic, measureable data, and actual real world engineering and design experience into the discussion, that would be crazy talk

Yeah I hear ya. I only posted a small portion of the discussion as I knew how it would drive the discussion. There is alot to what we discussed. And as I suspected....Barry really doesn't know what he is talking about. I pretty much realize that Barry is lucky to have the job he has seeing as how there is so much greater design and engineering knowledge out there.

[Charles Bond]

I do not disagree with anything Todd posted. But what I see with a comp is barrel movement. Not much but some. With my can I see none at all and on long range targets this is more important to me than a small increase in recoil to the rear.

[kgunz11]

This past weekend at the LaRue Tactical 3 Gun Match I was squadded with Barry Dueck. Director of the Surefire suppressor division. We had the conversation about effectiveness of a Surefire suppressor versus their compensator. Barry had said that in a recoil testing fixture that the suppressor was only 40% effective in reducing recoil to where the compensator was 56% effective. The compensator also gives you the ability to steer the gun. The suppressor does not.

Todd,

Discussing this stuff with Barry is incredible, but don't go bringing logic, measureable data, and actual real world engineering and design experience into the discussion, that would be crazy talk

Yeah I hear ya. I only posted a small portion of the discussion as I knew how it would drive the discussion. There is alot to what we discussed. And as I suspected....Barry really doesn't know what he is talking about. I pretty much realize that Barry is lucky to have the job he has seeing as how there is so much greater design and engineering knowledge out there.

All the sarcasm is fine and dandy Tod, but you do realize you said you thought a suppressor "doubled recoil". Your new friend Barry said it DECREASED recoil by 40%, not increased it by 10, 50, or even 100% as you initially stated.

I think Chuck brought up a good point, are we even talking about the same thing? Suppressed vs. unsuppressed and compensated vs. no comp?

[kgunz11]

I do not disagree with anything Todd posted. But what I see with a comp is barrel movement. Not much but some. With my can I see none at all and on long range targets this is more important to me than a small increase in recoil to the rear.

Mr. Bond, you realize Tod is saying that a suppressor increases the recoil of a rifle, while you said it was the best recoil reducer right? What am I misreading here? How can you not be in disagreement when both of your opinions contradict?