Practical recoil with different muzzle devices

Practical recoil with different muzzle devices

Previously we did a test of how different muzzle devices affect the time it takes you to get back to the target when you are shooting. Typically recoil tests focus on the impulse force, but that does not show the full picture. The length of the impulse and how that connects to your body differs between different devices. Hence measuring thow far back the rifle goes when you shoot is not the best way to measure. In this experiment we measure the time from the shot fired until the shooter is back in the target again to get a more practical measure of how good a device is.

The setup

The test measures the time from shot fired until the shooter is back on the target in a controlled manner using a Triggercam 2.1 that records the shot through the scope. The target is 15cm (6″) at 300m (330yds), so not too much wiggle room. We shot 5 shots per device. The T.S.G Ymir muzzle brake is used as a reference so that you can relate to this and our previous test with a different caliber. The shooter was the same for all shots made and an effort was made to keep the same position behind the rifle for all shots. The shooting position was standing behind a skillstage on the top level to simulate a common PRS shooting position.
In the first session we used a 6mm creedmoor with a 115gr DTAC projectile and in the second test we used a 6.5 creedmoor shooting S&B 143gr projectiles. To make the results comparable we used the T.S.G Ymir brake as a reference. The difference between the impact of the caliber and bullet weight was surprisingly small. The rifle weighs approximately 9kg. Unfortunately the light conditions were pretty poor (it’s winter in Sweden now) so we had to lower the magnification a little more than ideal.
We filmed all shots and counted the frames from shot fired until the shooter was back at the target in a controlled way. The recording was 24 frames per second so the measure is pretty exact.

The following devices were tested:
In the first test (6mm Creedmoor w 115gr DTAC):
-Bare barrel without any device
-T.S.G Ymir muzzle brake
-Aimsport Triton II 50, telescopic suppressor
-Ase Utra Sl7 front mounted suppressor
-APW Warbird Match suppressor with a muzzle brake forend.

In the second test (6.5mm Creedmoor with 143gr S&B:
-T.S.G Ymir muzzle brake, perhaps the most common muzzle brake used in Swedish PRS competitions.
-A-tec PRS 3 gen 1, a suppressor with a muzzle brake forend.
-MiMa Titan Suppressor, a prototype telescopic suppressor.
-MiMa Titan 1 row, the same suppressor but with a muzzle brake on the end with one row of holes.
-MiMa Titan 2 row, same as above but with 2 rows of holes.

Test data

The first test, 6mm Creedmoor

Muzzle deviceAvg. time (s)St. dev. (s)
Bare barrel2,7500,520
Ase Utra SL71,9720,528
Aimsport Triton 50s1,6110,387
APW Warbird Match1,0580,163
T.S.G Ymir1,0920,350
The first test using a 6mm Creedmoor with 115gr DTAC at 860m/s

Notes: Here you really see how much difference a brake or suppressor does. The difference between a bare barrel and the Ymir brake is 20s on a 12 shot stage, that’s the difference between getting all your shots off and timing out with 3-5 shots left in the mag. An interesting observation is that the standard deviation is a lot smaller for the Warbird than any of the other devices.

Aimsport Triton 50s, Ase Utra Sl7, APW Warbird Match, T.S.G Ymir brake

The second test, 6.5mm Creedmoor

Muzzle deviceAvgStDev
A-tec PRS 3 gen 11.230.39
MiMa Titan Suppressor1.260.51
MiMa Titan 1 row1.170.09
MiMa Titan 2 row1.030.10
T.S.G Ymir Muzzle brake (reference)1.290.27
Second test usint a 6.5 Creedmoor with a 143gr projectile

Notes: Here we shoot a heavier projectile but to our surprise the difference between the results for the Ymir brake is not very big. Another observation is that the standard deviation is lower for the devices combining suppressor and brake technology.

Summary and conclusion: A suppressor is much nicer to shoot than a brake, no doubt about it. In the first test it was aparent that hunting suppressors are better than a bare barrel, but combining with a brake attachment in the forend gives you an advantage.
The shooter in this test found the 2 row MiMa Titan as easiest/nicest to shoot but looking at the numbers there was very little difference in performance in the top tier devices.
A surprising (to the writer) finding is the good results of the combined suppressor/brake models. One thought is that with a muzzle brake you probably flinch more than you do with a suppressor due to the significantly higher (in dB) blast. So while the brake is more efficient in handling the recoil power, the combination lets you regain vision faster. The standard deviation measure also indicates that the time back to target is more consist
Could it be so that these hybrid things aren’t just a marketing trick? I’ll try one out now for a while and see how it feels.

Please note that 5 shots per device only gives you an indication, but still as in the second test, 25% faster to the target gives you a hint of the best device. For the recerence Ymir brake the heavier bullet added almost 20% to the return time which is as expected, but again, you need to test with far more shots to get statistically significant numbers.

Please give us a follow on Instagram @kikarskytt.se for more empirical tests as we aim (no pun intended) for the 2024 PRS World Championships in Colorado!

Test av rekylhantering

Test av rekylhantering

Efter ett par olyckliga smällar där lurarna inte riktigt suttit där de borde när vi skjutit med broms föddes tanken att se oss om efter alternativ. Ett alternativ är de kombinerade bromsar och dämpare som finns på marknaden, men är de verkligen något att ha? För att testa samlade vi på vad vi kunde hitta med kort varsel. Vi fick ihop följande alternativ:

-Aimsport Triton 50s, en dämpare med några år på nacken. Stor volym för att ta hand om krutgaserna
-Ase Utra SL7, även det en äldre dämpare men med mycket effektiv dämpning
-APW Warbird, en hybriddämpare med bromstillsats i framänden, lik Atec PRS gen 3
-Ymir mynningsbroms, kanske den vanligaste bromsen i Sverige.

Vi sköt även en serie med bar pipa som referens.

Genomförande
Vi valde att skjuta/sikta på en 15cm-plåt på 300m, 3-5 skott per serie och samma skytt rakt igenom för mest jämförbara resultat. Vi mätte tiden från avlossat skott tills att skytten var inne på plåten igen på ett stabilt sätt. Anledning till detta mätsätt är att det är mer praktiskt användbart än att bara mäta rekylkraften. Samtliga skott sköts stående med övre ribban på en skillstage som stöd för att ge bra möjligheter till repeterbarhet. För att kunna mäta tiden använde vi oss av en Triggercam och räknade i ett videoredigeringsprogram.

Väntade och oväntade resultat
Det var ganska väntat att en bar pipa skulle leda till kraftiga uppslag, även att ljuddämpare är bättre än bar pipa men sämre än broms. Det som var lite oväntat var att hybriddämparen Warbird var bättre än en ren mynningsbroms när det kom till tiden det tog att komma in i målet igen, men också att standardavvikelsen var lägre för Warbird än Ymir.

Resultat

MuzzledeviceAverageStDev
Ren pipa 2,750 0,520
Ase Utra SL71,9720,528
Aimsport Triton 50s1,6110,387
Warbird1,0580,163
Ymir1,092 (1.285)0,350 (0.52)

Warbird och Ymir sköt vi 5-6 skott med. Ett av värdena för Ymir överskred de andra med flera sekunder så det plockades bort ut samplet. Värdena inklusive detta mätvärde finns inom parantes.

Slutsats
Detta test mäter ju inte enbart rekylkraften, utan ger en bild av hur skottet påverkar skytten. Man ska såklart ha i åtanke att vi sköt små serier och för att dra några vetenskapliga slutsatser av detta behöver man skjuta fler skott, använda fler skyttar osv. Men detta var vad vi kunde åstadkomma med 20 patroner. Tittar man på rådatan så är skillnaderna mellan kategorierna rätt uppenbara i a f.
Mynningsbromsar är rätt otrevliga för skytt och RO och kanske är det så att det dämpade ljudet i en hybriddämpare gör att man blinkar mindre och således hittar tillbaks in i målet snabbare. Det får nog bli en hybriddämpare för lite långtidstest.