Does a suppressor reduce recoil?

[Bfh_auto]

I have never fired a suppressed rifle. I heard that it reduced recoil. Is it just less perceived recoil because of reduced muzzle blast?
I started thinking about this when my wife was shooting my 6.5 Swede with 140s@2750 and thought it kicked less than her 100gr@2900 260 loads. Only real difference is her rifle has a brake and wakes dead people.

 

[Llama Bob]

Suppressors reduce recoil much like a brake does.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The simple answer is yes, quite a bit. Obviously noise reduction is the principle use/benefit, but that's a secondary plus, and a significant one.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Maybe I'll have to quit procrastinating and do the paperwork. I have no interest in subsonic ammo so I never bothered. Now I'm married and my wife doesn't like recoil and I hate muzzle brakes.

 

[Jackal]

I've noticed a moderate reduction in recoil and muzzle rise, which I attribute mostly to the 1 pound weight my silencer adds to the muzzle.

 

[Gtscotty]

From firing my Saker on and off the brake mount on my rifle, it say that it does reduce recoil, but clearly not as much as the bare brake. In my opinion, cans seem to cut recoil some, but also spread out the impulse over a longer period.

 

[Theohazard]

Maybe I'll have to quit procrastinating and do the paperwork. I have no interest in subsonic ammo so I never bothered. Now I'm married and my wife doesn't like recoil and I hate muzzle brakes.

You don’t need to use subsonic ammo to get the benefit of a silencer. In fact, most people use regular supersonic ammo when shooting a centerfire rifle with a silencer.

From firing my Saker on and off the brake mount on my rifle, it say that it does reduce recoil, but clearly not as much as the bare brake.

Agreed. A silencer’s weight and blast reduction reduce recoil, but not as much as a good muzzle brake with normal supersonic rifle ammo. My Saker brake also cuts my .223 recoil more than the Saker does when mounted.

 

[MCMXI]

I have an Omega 300 on one of my AIs and it has a brake on the end of the tube. I don't like it and have ordered a standard end cap with just a hole in it. As others have said, a well designed brake is the most effective way to reduce felt recoil, but as @Gtscotty mentioned, suppressors change the recoil impulse in a good way. It's staggering but my .338 LM AIAW with the AAC TiTAN installed is hearing safe and a number of 100lb "girls" have shot it and don't appear to want to stop. They really are worth the investment... the suppressors I mean.

 

[Klint Beastwood]

Not to mention when shooting suppressed in reguards to LR/ELR precision shooting, there has been evidence of mv increase as well has more harmonic stability.

 

[Art Eatman]

Any sort of added weight will reduce recoil. A scoped rifle recoils more gently than one with iron sights. Suppressors also reduce muzzle flash.

 

[jmorris]

Even if they did nothing except add weight, they would still reduce recoil.

 

[Bfh_auto]

I hadn't thought of the added weight factor.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Not to mention when shooting suppressed in reguards to LR/ELR precision shooting, there has been evidence of mv increase as well has more harmonic stability.

I keep my shooting to mid-range and closer. Free velocity is cool though.

 

[Varminterror]

Added weight AND reduced velocity of the propellant gases.

The recoil contribution by the propellant gases is substantial, brakes can turn some around to a negative velocity (backwards direction), but reducing their escape velocity makes a huge difference in recoil. Consider, the recoil contributors of a 6 Creedmoor firing a 105 A-Max at 3000fps over 42.0grn H4350...

Recoil momentum = (105 * 3000 + 42 * 3000 * 1.75)/7000

So the bullet contributes 105 * 3000 /7000 = 45 lbm ft/sec

And the powder contributes 45 * 3000 * 1.75 /7000 = 31.5 lbm ft/sec

So out of the total recoil impulse of 76.5, the powder and it’s velocity makes up 41%. If you (arbitrarily choose to) reduce the escaping gas velocity by 25% (net), you’d cut the total momentum pushing on the rifle by a touch over 10%...

Equally, the recoil velocity of the rifle is the total output momentum divided by the weight of the rig. So if you’re shooting an 8.5lb rig bare vs. a 9.5lb rig suppressed, AND considering the reduced gas velocity described above:

Rifle velocity = (105 + 42*1.75)*3000/7000/8.5 = 9 fps

Free Recoil Energy then is 10.7 ft.lbs.

Suppressed, knocking 25% off of the gas velocity and increasing the rifle weight:

Rifle recoil velocity = (105 + 42 * 1.31)*3000/7000/9.5 = 7.2 fps

Free Recoil Energy is 7.7 ft.lbs. So the added weight AND the reduced gas velocity net about 28% reduction in recoil energy...

 

[MCMXI]

So the added weight AND the reduced gas velocity net about 28% reduction in recoil energy...

And then there's the rate of change of acceleration (derivative) which is referred to as jerk, jolt, surge or lurch. This is what @Gtscotty mentioned when talking about the change in impulse.

 

[Bfh_auto]

Added weight AND reduced velocity of the propellant gases.

The recoil contribution by the propellant gases is substantial, brakes can turn some around to a negative velocity (backwards direction), but reducing their escape velocity makes a huge difference in recoil. Consider, the recoil contributors of a 6 Creedmoor firing a 105 A-Max at 3000fps over 42.0grn H4350...

Recoil momentum = (105 * 3000 + 42 * 3000 * 1.75)/7000

So the bullet contributes 105 * 3000 /7000 = 45 lbm ft/sec

And the powder contributes 45 * 3000 * 1.75 /7000 = 31.5 lbm ft/sec

So out of the total recoil impulse of 76.5, the powder and it’s velocity makes up 41%. If you (arbitrarily choose to) reduce the escaping gas velocity by 25% (net), you’d cut the total momentum pushing on the rifle by a touch over 10%...

Equally, the recoil velocity of the rifle is the total output momentum divided by the weight of the rig. So if you’re shooting an 8.5lb rig bare vs. a 9.5lb rig suppressed, AND considering the reduced gas velocity described above:

Rifle velocity = (105 + 42*1.75)*3000/7000/8.5 = 9 fps

Free Recoil Energy then is 10.7 ft.lbs.

Suppressed, knocking 25% off of the gas velocity and increasing the rifle weight:

Rifle recoil velocity = (105 + 42 * 1.31)*3000/7000/9.5 = 7.2 fps

Free Recoil Energy is 7.7 ft.lbs. So the added weight AND the reduced gas velocity net about 28% reduction in recoil energy...

Thanks for the time you took to explain in that much detail. I think that answers any possible questions.

 

[Jim Watson]

And then there's the rate of change of acceleration (derivative) which is referred to as jerk, jolt, surge or lurch. This is what @Gtscotty mentioned when talking about the change in impulse.

Oh, my. Fourth deriviative Davis Mechanics. Theoretical basis of the Dean Drive.


There were early plans to provide Maxim Silencers for a couple of Springfields per company. Advantages included reduced muzzle blast, reduced or eliminated muzzle flash, and reduced recoil. Good to have for a sniper or marksman. Cost in money and bulk apparently killed the program.

 

[redbullitt]

Suppressors have made everything I have ever shot more comfortable with regard to blast, concussion, and recoil. Improvement is very pronounced! I shoot better with a suppressor and take much longer to show fatigue.

They are worth it with supersonic ammunition AND subsonic ammunition. File your papers and you will not regret it. Just be sure to do your research first when picking what you want.

 

[Varminterror]

And then there's the rate of change of acceleration (derivative) which is referred to as jerk, jolt, surge or lurch. This is what @Gtscotty mentioned when talking about the change in impulse.

I take enough flak for engineering, I assumed the 8th grade physics explication was sufficient - hence the part where I mention “(arbitrarily chose) to reduce gas velocity by 25% (net). Because The impulse is all calculable, IF a guy assumes simplified deceleration or simply work in the macro scale with the gross FRE. Which we know it isn’t simple (linear or instantaneous) it’s variable - the inherent problem with any FRE calculation - the impulse makes a big difference. With Quickload, a guy can approximate bore time, and get an idea of the recoil acceleration, but that’s before it hits the can... or a guy can be happy with some approximation which gets pretty dang close by using “familiar physics.” Probably my least favorite part of the job, but likely the thing I’ve done best professionally - simplifying the complex enough to manage stakeholders, without misleading... The water is plenty muddy for some folks when we start talking algebra, I TRY to stay somewhat, moderately mindful of that...

Empirically, we’ve seen cans brake FRE somewhere between 20 and 30%, so I picked a 1lb can, worked backwards, and arbitrarily assigned 25% net velocity to get me to a net between 20-30% in the momentum reduction...

Not so different than the 1.75 scalar SAAMI et al assign to the ratio of propellant gas to projectile. “Good enough for gubment work”

 

[Jim Watson]

Well, there was the muzzle brake manufacturer who put a gun in a ballistic pendulum to measure the reduction.

 

[Demi-human]

The water is plenty muddy for some folks when we start talking algebra, I TRY to stay somewhat, moderately mindful of that...

I thoroughly appreciate the effort and time you put in to explain the dynamics to a layman, such as my self.

 

[Bfh_auto]

I take enough flak for engineering, I assumed the 8th grade physics explication was sufficient - hence the part where I mention “(arbitrarily chose) to reduce gas velocity by 25% (net). Because The impulse is all calculable, IF a guy assumes simplified deceleration or simply work in the macro scale with the gross FRE. Which we know it isn’t simple (linear or instantaneous) it’s variable - the inherent problem with any FRE calculation - the impulse makes a big difference. With Quickload, a guy can approximate bore time, and get an idea of the recoil acceleration, but that’s before it hits the can... or a guy can be happy with some approximation which gets pretty dang close by using “familiar physics.” Probably my least favorite part of the job, but likely the thing I’ve done best professionally - simplifying the complex enough to manage stakeholders, without misleading... The water is plenty muddy for some folks when we start talking algebra, I TRY to stay somewhat, moderately mindful of that...

Empirically, we’ve seen cans brake FRE somewhere between 20 and 30%, so I picked a 1lb can, worked backwards, and arbitrarily assigned 25% net velocity to get me to a net between 20-30% in the momentum reduction...

Not so different than the 1.75 scalar SAAMI et al assign to the ratio of propellant gas to projectile. “Good enough for gubment work”

You did an excellent job explaining it.
The ones who understand are like you skipped things and the ones who don't work with things like that would fall asleep if you didn't.

 

[Odd Job]

As others have said there are several advantages to suppressors:

1) Less sound pressure
2) Less perceived recoil
3) Better accuracy

Two disadvantages:

1) Increased blowback of residues means a dirtier action
2) Increased blowback of residues (especially for .22 rimfire) means you could get more exposure to lead (an increased blood lead level if you fire a lot of ammo)
3) They are addictive. You can't just have one, and they are expensive in the US. Cheaper in the UK, but some are still pricey. I have two that cost around £250 for my .22LR rifles

 

[WelshShooter]

I've had the pleasure of shooting a Steelcore Cyclone chambered in .338 Lapua which had a moderator installed (see pic below, which I stole from the Internet). I had never shot a .338 Lapua before then so I cannot compare the differences exactly, but I can comment that it was nice to shoot. The rifles owner said that he shot it once without the moderator and would not do it again, so it sounds like the moderator makes a deal of difference.

I've recently installed a sound moderator on my .223, just to take the crack out of shooting it (at one range I shoot it under cover with enclosed walls, and the crack is quite loud even with ear defenders and plugs in!). The moderator definitely reduces the recoil, it felt much like a .22lr to shoot. However, what I cannot say what causes the most recoil reduction - the mass of the moderator, or the action of containing the gas.

 

[Odd Job]

I think it will be the blow-back of gases that reduces recoil, more than the mass of the suppressor.
It can be proved easily enough: unscrew the suppressor and tape it under the barrel, with a thin piece of rubber between the can and the barrel so as not to mar the finish of either component. If you fire the rifle and the recoil is the same, it is the mass of the suppressor helping. If the recoil is more, it was the baffles of the suppressor helping.