Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
In another thread I read a guy said the suppressor is better than a brake. Could those who have experience with both tell us why a suppressor would be better than a brake?
-
If you are being asked to change your password, and unsure how to do it, follow these instructions. Click here
Brake / suppressor?
- Thread starter Rich Coyle
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
"Better" depends on the metric. In pure recoil reduction and size/weight brakes win. In not making you go deaf even with double ear pro silencers win.
For hunting there's no question I'd prefer a silencer. Many will get a rifle down to the point a shot or two without ear pro won't cause hearing damage, and recoil reduction isn't a huge deal.
For some matches, like F Class, I'd take a brake. There's usually not a lot of barricades bouncing concussion back towards you and recoil can be an issue over a full day of shooting. I don't mind wearing double ear pro and with long barrels the concussion isn't too bad.
For PRS my favorite option is an Area 419 Maverick, which is basically a mediocre silencer with a big brake on the end. It gives the same muzzle control as a good brake, almost as much recoil reduction, and doesn't make the rifle significantly louder. It eliminates most of the concussion, which is as important as ear pro for hearing protection.
It really depends on exactly what you're doing and what performance metrics you value. There's not many situations in which I'd prefer a brake, but that doesn't mean they're inferior in every situation.
For hunting there's no question I'd prefer a silencer. Many will get a rifle down to the point a shot or two without ear pro won't cause hearing damage, and recoil reduction isn't a huge deal.
For some matches, like F Class, I'd take a brake. There's usually not a lot of barricades bouncing concussion back towards you and recoil can be an issue over a full day of shooting. I don't mind wearing double ear pro and with long barrels the concussion isn't too bad.
For PRS my favorite option is an Area 419 Maverick, which is basically a mediocre silencer with a big brake on the end. It gives the same muzzle control as a good brake, almost as much recoil reduction, and doesn't make the rifle significantly louder. It eliminates most of the concussion, which is as important as ear pro for hearing protection.
It really depends on exactly what you're doing and what performance metrics you value. There's not many situations in which I'd prefer a brake, but that doesn't mean they're inferior in every situation.
A decent brake will always reduce recoil more than a suppressor.
But, that's not to say suppressors don't do a good job of it as well . Where suppressors really excel is in concussion reduction. Lots of shooters flinch not just due to recoil, but because of the blast. Especially with big agressive brakes The difference in shooting experience is pretty drastic imo. Lots of noise, lots of head thumping feel, lots of gas to the face etc. none of that roust nonsense with a can.
It's like -2x the sound and -2x the recoil. Vs a brake is +2x the sound and -3x recoil.
I own both, I vastly prefer suppressed, but there are times where brakes win out for more niche situations like prs rifles wanting every bit of recoil reduction, or maybe "canyon rifles" LRH rifles that are gonna be carried around with a long barrel and need lots of recoil reduction for a big payload.
It's hard to describe without experiencing both, but hopefully that took a swing at it.
But, that's not to say suppressors don't do a good job of it as well . Where suppressors really excel is in concussion reduction. Lots of shooters flinch not just due to recoil, but because of the blast. Especially with big agressive brakes The difference in shooting experience is pretty drastic imo. Lots of noise, lots of head thumping feel, lots of gas to the face etc. none of that roust nonsense with a can.
It's like -2x the sound and -2x the recoil. Vs a brake is +2x the sound and -3x recoil.
I own both, I vastly prefer suppressed, but there are times where brakes win out for more niche situations like prs rifles wanting every bit of recoil reduction, or maybe "canyon rifles" LRH rifles that are gonna be carried around with a long barrel and need lots of recoil reduction for a big payload.
It's hard to describe without experiencing both, but hopefully that took a swing at it.
lancetkenyon
Well-Known Member
For me, supressed is my go-to for hunting and shooting. It is so much more enjoyable to shoot.
You really can't get the real effect of a suppressor when shooting at a covered range. But, get out in the woods or mountains or flat plains, and it is amazing how quiet the rifle actually is.
You really can't get the real effect of a suppressor when shooting at a covered range. But, get out in the woods or mountains or flat plains, and it is amazing how quiet the rifle actually is.
Rich Coyle
Well-Known Member
Thanks, guys.
sea2summit
Well-Known Member
Yeah, better for what? Suppressors will never be as accurate as brakes. Suppressors can increase velocity. Suppressors reduce a lot of noise. Brakes are light weight and not overly long.
Any doubts look at podiums of matches from F Class to PRS, not gonna be many suppressors (yes rules etc but beyond that). Follow a lot of those guys to hunting and I bet you'd see a lot of suppressors.
Any doubts look at podiums of matches from F Class to PRS, not gonna be many suppressors (yes rules etc but beyond that). Follow a lot of those guys to hunting and I bet you'd see a lot of suppressors.
I prefer suppressors for hunting but on larger cartridges and longer barrels they get a bit unwieldy and add noticeable weight over a brake. And well designed brakes offer much better recoil mitigation.
I've shot extensively with both and been extremely avoiding this nfa trash. I like when uncle sam hands me one. I just ordered two cans. Over the brakes. I'm sure I'll probably buy another 3-4.
Only way I'd use a brake.
FrogFire7
Well-Known Member
I've used brakes for about 7 years. They do an excellent job in recoil reduction, often allowing you to spot your own hits. Also making the shot borderline painfully loud even with plugs in.
I've used a suppressor for less than a year. Doesn't reduce recoil as much (definitely some). Shot is much quieter which in turn helps me focus on my shot and fundamentals more. So probably a bit of a wash accuracy wise.
I do miss some of the recoil reduction of the brake but shooting is much more enjoyable to me with the brake vs suppressor.
If you forget to put hearing protection in while hunting with a brake you are guaranteed hearing loss/pain. I will shoot without ear pro with a suppressor while hunting, although technically not hearing safe. If I have time I'll probably still use ear pro with a suppressor.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is the heat factor if you are shooting strings at steel or off the bench. My last range session I was using my suppressor on a 6.5 creed and a 25x45. I'd fire 5 shots or so on the creed and switch over to the 25 for 5+ shots (smaller case capacity so less heat). I use a suppressor wrap so that mirage doesn't affect my vision through the scope as much.
The suppressor gets VERY hot pretty quickly. I kept cooling it off with cold water... Next time I go I'm going to find a way to keep it protected from water but be able to submerse it in ice water to cool it more quickly (melt proof, waterproof bag of some sort). Also considered canned air flipped upside down as a coolant but a little worried that would be too much temp swing too quickly so I'm going to hold off on that one.
I've used a suppressor for less than a year. Doesn't reduce recoil as much (definitely some). Shot is much quieter which in turn helps me focus on my shot and fundamentals more. So probably a bit of a wash accuracy wise.
I do miss some of the recoil reduction of the brake but shooting is much more enjoyable to me with the brake vs suppressor.
If you forget to put hearing protection in while hunting with a brake you are guaranteed hearing loss/pain. I will shoot without ear pro with a suppressor while hunting, although technically not hearing safe. If I have time I'll probably still use ear pro with a suppressor.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is the heat factor if you are shooting strings at steel or off the bench. My last range session I was using my suppressor on a 6.5 creed and a 25x45. I'd fire 5 shots or so on the creed and switch over to the 25 for 5+ shots (smaller case capacity so less heat). I use a suppressor wrap so that mirage doesn't affect my vision through the scope as much.
The suppressor gets VERY hot pretty quickly. I kept cooling it off with cold water... Next time I go I'm going to find a way to keep it protected from water but be able to submerse it in ice water to cool it more quickly (melt proof, waterproof bag of some sort). Also considered canned air flipped upside down as a coolant but a little worried that would be too much temp swing too quickly so I'm going to hold off on that one.
No doubt the suppressor is the way to go. Only problem is the ridiculous overreach by the government in regulating a safety device for shooters. They should be less than half the cost than they are currently, but one of the best decisions I've made in shooting. I just waited way too long and suffer the consequence of hearing damage from decades of not using them.
