Does A Can or Suppresor Increase Back Pressure and Decrease Velocity??? Well????

Yep sounds like most see 10 to 30 fps increase in velocity w a can, but it can a does vary from slight loss to positive as reported in this thread.
It depends on the design of the can, barrel length, powder burn rate, semi auto vs. bolt, temperature, and how you hold your tongue that day.
 
Yep sounds like most see 10 to 30 fps increase in velocity w a can, but it can a does vary from slight loss to positive as reported in this thread.
It depends on the design of the can, barrel length, powder burn rate, semi auto vs. bolt, temperature, and how you hold your tongue that day.
I bought the bulk of my suppressors in 15-16, so my rifles were in service with brakes. I guess I did not document it, but I never saw more than a 10fps either way running one. Then again, I use a magnetospeed, did that change my distance from the muzzle for my bayonet? So were gains mitigated?
I also recall a whole lot of claims of increased velocity and tighter groups, seemed like people really wanted to brag the usage of cans up.
Needless to say, there was no buy in on my end, as once the rifles were zeroed with cans on, my dopes never changed in any rifle, at any distance.
The owner of Area 419 had one of the more interesting vids on brake to can usage, as he had developed a quick change system for both. Distance if I recall was 540 yards, he shot a 3 shot group with a brake, then switched to a can and repeated it, impact position on the target was the same, so was the relative group size. No harmonic changes, and velocities had to be close. Now I can imagine a brand change of suppressor may have altered his test some.
 
Yep sounds like most see 10 to 30 fps increase in velocity w a can, but it can a does vary from slight loss to positive as reported in this thread.
It depends on the design of the can, barrel length, powder burn rate, semi auto vs. bolt, temperature, and how you hold your tongue that day.
This is all great stuff to keep in mind when I move everything to suppressed when I shoot at the indoor range.
 
you don't even understand gas blow by.
You beat me to it. Time is a factor in all of this, and there is gas that leaks around the bullet before it fully engraves, and even some that moves down the neck of the case before it fully seals. Interior ballistics is a science, but variations in each case, chamber, and bore introduce uncontrollable variables that can only be accounted for experimentally. Two identically chambered barrels with identically made rounds will run at different velocities, and there's no practical way to determine ahead of time which will be faster and which will be slower.

Yep sounds like most see 10 to 30 fps increase in velocity w a can, but it can a does vary from slight loss to positive as reported in this thread.
It depends on the design of the can, barrel length, powder burn rate, semi auto vs. bolt, temperature, and how you hold your tongue that day.
Honestly, it depends a lot on statistics also. Someone here earlier said that averages are averages, but that's not really true in the sense that the arithmetical mean is not a robust statistic and is vulnerable to influence by outliers. The very small amount of relative velocity increase (0.2% in my loads) is so minimal that the sample size to have any reasonable confidence in the answer would be hundreds of rounds. To the point it's not feasible to quantify fully because the barrel and chamber will likely change over that number of shots and introduce more uncontrollable variables. 20 shots wasn't enough with those loads. Maybe if I can shoot a real 40-shot 5-SD string I'd be getting up into the numbers where the ranges tighten up, but that's rare and difficult.

A lot of us see very, very slight increases, but nothing that makes a practical impact. Repeatability of POA/POI shift is much more important when using a can IMO.

I've intentionally tested the velocity change of suppressor, recorded data that shows an increase in velocity, and I still don't think it's statistically significant. Same way that I've tested and show a decrease in velocity from seating further away from the lands, but it has the same problem of the sample size is too small to be reliable.
 
Depends on length.
Dominus is 1.8" x 6.25" = 15.90
Ultra 7 is 1.5" x 7" = 12.37
Ultra 9 is 1.5" x 9" = 15.90
Volume of a cylinder is dependent on link but more sensitive to diameter within practical bounds because pie r squared is the area of the circle and the radius gets squared making the length not quite as important as it might be otherwise but your point is well taken. The length will matter.
 
You beat me to it. Time is a factor in all of this, and there is gas that leaks around the bullet before it fully engraves, and even some that moves down the neck of the case before it fully seals. Interior ballistics is a science, but variations in each case, chamber, and bore introduce uncontrollable variables that can only be accounted for experimentally. Two identically chambered barrels with identically made rounds will run at different velocities, and there's no practical way to determine ahead of time which will be faster and which will be slower.


Honestly, it depends a lot on statistics also. Someone here earlier said that averages are averages, but that's not really true in the sense that the arithmetical mean is not a robust statistic and is vulnerable to influence by outliers. The very small amount of relative velocity increase (0.2% in my loads) is so minimal that the sample size to have any reasonable confidence in the answer would be hundreds of rounds. To the point it's not feasible to quantify fully because the barrel and chamber will likely change over that number of shots and introduce more uncontrollable variables. 20 shots wasn't enough with those loads. Maybe if I can shoot a real 40-shot 5-SD string I'd be getting up into the numbers where the ranges tighten up, but that's rare and difficult.

A lot of us see very, very slight increases, but nothing that makes a practical impact. Repeatability of POA/POI shift is much more important when using a can IMO.

I've intentionally tested the velocity change of suppressor, recorded data that shows an increase in velocity, and I still don't think it's statistically significant. Same way that I've tested and show a decrease in velocity from seating further away from the lands, but it has the same problem of the sample size is too small to be
Agreed it may just be a measurement that is statistically insignificant in some cases.

Seating the bullet deeper usually means a pressure increase and a velocity increase just mathematically. However this amother one of those things that may be counterintuitive.......it depends on how close into the lands you were seated to start with.

If you were in the lands that can add 7000 psi right there on starting pressure. So deeper bullet seating which may normally increase pressure may net out lower when looking at net pressure from each contributing factor. Lower pressure is a proxy for lower velocity......so it may all depend where you start from....Jammed or close to jam or say you started at .02 off lands, and then seated deeper....different answer...
It all depends...
reliable.
 
Rocketeer 77, you don't even understand gas blow by. At least , please try to be polite if you are going to be absolutely wrong.
Here's a picture with some captions to help you understand.

Figure 7- 1 3 shows a picture of the precursor spherical shock wave formed by the compressed air and blow-by ahead of the bullet. The bullet is about three inches back down the bore.

Figure 7-13- Shadowgraph photo showing the spherical precursor shock wave emerging from the bore. The precursor is formed by the compressed air and gas ahead of the bullet. The bullet is about three inches back in the bore.

View attachment 340335
All figures and photos excerpted from Rifle Accuracy Facts.

I hope you won't seriously overthink any premise I may make. Cause, if I am making a premise i.e., thinking, its
not always right, but the odds are I at least have half a clue.

Take care over there in New Zealand.
The projectile departing the chamber going into the barrel has a shock wave going ahead of it and that's identical with or without a suppressor. That pulse of compressed air being pushed out the barrel has nothing whatsoever to do with the imaginary gas leakage past the projectile. There will be some initial blow by until the projectile is fully sealed into the rifling.

We're actually talking about two entirely different topics here, the original question was gas leakage past the projectile. That initial query was hopefully answered and now we're talking about a gas column being pushed out of the barrel by the projectile. With a suppressor the overall resistance will be slightly higher, yet empirical data with respect to comparison velocities proves this additional air resistance is negligible. Decades working with experts in thermodynamics taught me some basic knowledge of what's probably happening when that trigger is pulled.

The measured velocities between unsuppressed and suppressed rifles is minimal and that was the original question?
 
In the recent thread on the Satterlee, Audette, and OCW methods of load development and how I believe they are all related to barrel harmonics, the question has come up whether installing a suppressor increases back pressure or not and whether this cause a reduction in velocity.

I believe that the answer is that it can go either way and it all depends.

Here's some discussion and why:

My mental model of the pressure profile in the can is that as the bullet pushes and compresses air and possibly some gas from the explosion may leak by the bullet in the land grooves, into the can and it creates some back pressure vs. just going out the barrel into atmospheric 14.7 psig.

The pressure in the can especially in a longer bbl. has to be a bit higher than 14.7 psig atmospheric pressure. It just has to be mechanically, therefore it is exerting some amount of back pressure on the bullet before exit.

If you put a filter on the end of s garden hose what happens?

If you put mufflers on your car with baffles to silence the exhaust, what happens to your horsepower? Its backpressure. Thats why they use headers at the race track with no mufflers!!!

Flow rate slows due to back pressure. So I have no idea whether we can measure backpressure due to a can or how much it may slow muzzle velocity but I think it does. The only caveat I can think of is if you have a long bbl and a very slow powder, then the pressure curve or burn rate curve may have time to more fully develop giving added force from the chamber side of the explosion and increasing velocity that way. It would be similar to deeper bullet seating w crimps on a slow powder and long bbl.

So, perhaps there are boundary conditions where it can go both ways?

I do think it may be hard to measure the effects unless your ammo has a very low ES, say less than 5 fps.

IN short bbls. with fast powders, a can is maybe more likely to slow the bullet because there is no time for the burn curve to do anything more than its already doing....Burn curve = proxy for pressure curve or profile in the bbl.

In a long bbl w slow powder, maybe the velocity can increase because the back pressure delays bullet exit time in milli seconds that allows for a more complete powder burn to occur equals more force on chamber side of the bullet?

In Rifle Accuracy Facts the author has pictures of muzzle blast, pages (Photos of bullet exit p. 135, 136, 137)
He says Now we know that the muzzle blast pressure drops from 5000 psi to about 150 psi in 50 psec for the 6BR but we don't know just how the pressure drops off. So, there is pressure building in front of the bullet as I have been thinking. And though I have thought about burn rates with different pressure profiles in different length barrels, I did not realize a faster powder gives a lower muzzle pressure at exit as explained below.

He also says: The fact that a fast burning powder will result in a lower pressure at the muzzle than a slow burning powder was mentioned earlier. However, for the same muzzle velocity the faster burning powder will produce a higher chamber pressure. Nothing ever comes free in this business! I decided to test this contention by measuring the in-bore pressure at the muzzle using the strain gage method that we used to measure chamber pressure back in Chapter 2.

Since we are only interested in the comparison of muzzle pressures resulting from the two different powders, we don't have to go through the tedious calibration procedure used in measuring chamber pressure.
P146

So, the use of different burn rate powders and the length of the barrel may in fact have some bearing on what velocity we will see with the use of a suppressor and whether it goes up, or down or stays the same?

The author also drilled holes in a barrel and made it vented at the end, a muzzle brake of sorts. Here's what he found. It reduced muzzle velocity.
He does not explain why. But, if gas that could be used to propel the bullet is siphoned off, it makes sense I suppose.
A can is more confining than a muzzle brake of gas and more or less traps and vents it off after the bullet is gone. But, as I have stated above,
perhaps it can go either way with a can.......hard to say.

More quotes"

Well OK, did the muzzle ventilation help? It did. It reduced the average 5-
shot 100 yard group size from about 0.35" to 0.23" with match bullets and a
14" twist in the 6mm Remington rail gun. This is not as good as a top flight
6PPC HV gun or the 6BR rail gun which average in the high ones (i.e., 0.18").
The ventilated muzzle might be a good idea on sporters and long range magnum rifles, but there is talk about outlawing it in Hunter Class bench rest competition because of the increased muzzle blast on nearby shooters.

The muzzle blast pressure can be reduced by using a smaller grain or faster burning powder, longer barrels, lower chamber pressure, or a muzzle ventilator. How- ever, for a given case volume you have to give up velocity, or bullet weight,
or increase the maximum chamber pressure to obtain the same velocity. This usually means that one has to use a lighter load with the faster burning pow- der that won't fill the case, which may result in greater shot-to-shot velocity variations.
P 151

The muzzle blast pressure was measured using strain gages and it was deter-
mined that large cases (270 Win.) with relatively slow burning, large grained powder had a much larger muzzle blast pressure than relatively fast burning small grained powder. Muzzle blast pressure was also decreased with longer
barrels and ventilated muzzles. Muzzle ventilation was tried and it did reduce the muzzle blast pressure as expected and produced a significant reduc-
tion in group size. However, the type of muzzle venting that was used is a
difficult machining job that would be expensive to do in production.

Now from other sources I searched for:

This below says suppressors cause back pressure, although newer designs cause much less than what they once did. How and when it occurs is critical.

Most have little effect on bolt guns beyond heat transfer and a sticky bolt that is hard to lift. Gas guns are a different story. Increased back pressure causes increased bolt speed and can wreak havoc on function. Piston-driven systems are less susceptible, but can still be problematic. As a general rule, the shorter the barrel, the greater the effect on the gun's performance. Adjustable gas blocks help but remain an issue. Excess gas in the action can also affect reliability as the action can get fouled quickly. Rapid fire produces significant heat transfer to the weapon and can have an adverse effect on operation.

https://gundigest.com/gear-ammo/suppressor-effects


Might go either way depending on baffle design and where gas goes....
https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/backpressure-and-suppressor-design.6938437/


No statistically significant impact.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ask-foghorn-does-a-silencer-effect-the-velocity-of-the-bullet/

Maybe we will learn something from this?

I believe now it can go either way depending on suppressor design, rifle barrel length, and powder burn rate, and your ability to measure
slight variations in velocity FPS within the quality of the ES and SD of the Ammo you are firing.
One hole in your theory here.

The only gas that gets ahead of the bullet as it runs down the bbl is that which gets into the barrel before the bullet engages the lands and grooves. Once the bullet has full engagement no measurable or appreciable amount of gas can get around it.

Now, consider that from ignition until full engagement you're talking about a bullet traveling under .5" in less than 1/10,000th of a second.

I haven't shot much suppressed in quite a few years but never did see any notable reduction in velocity, if anything we'd see a slight increase with a decently made suppressor.

"Theoretically" lots of things can happen but in practice I just don't see enough gas getting out ahead of the bullet to make much difference either way.

There are theories as to turbulence caused by gasses getting out ahead of the bullet but even those don't prove out to show any significant amount of variation on either velocity or accuracy across the board.
 
338 Lapua Mag
Hornady 250gr HPBT Match (factory loaded)
26" barrel
TBAC 338 Ultra, mounted on;
TBAC 338 two-chamber brake
10 shots braked, 10 shots suppressed
Data from LabRadar

Unsuppressed - 2874fps, SD 32.7
Suppressed - 2895fps, SD 12

Two shots in the unsuppressed group were almost outliers (>2SD below average). Removing those, the 8 shot group is:
2888fps, 16.7SD

Meaning the suppressor made a difference in velocity of +7-21FPS, between those two groups, but there was a significant amount of overlap because the ammo was so **** poor.

And that's why I hand load!
Your test has me so curious that I'm going to try it on my 6.5 PRC with handloads.
 
Last edited:
There will be some initial blow by until the projectile is fully sealed into the rifling.

So if you agree that an indeterminable volume of gas and resultant loss of pressure results from bullet engraving, ipso facto everything involved in the engraving process makes an impact on internal ballistics. Seating depth, interference fit of bullet in the neck, crimping, leade angle (+P throating from DE has a lot of evidence to support this one), cross sectional area of the bore, weight of the bullet itself, burn rate of the powder, the resulting velocity of the pressure front, the volumetric flow rate of the gas, and more.

These are all painfully small variables to try to quantify, but the increase in velocity of a bullet due to adding a suppressor that is consistently experimentally ascertained is also a small gain. Just like the change in velocity due to seating depth is consistently shown in my results. Neither of these have ever shown up in my data at a statistically significant level. Doesn't mean they're "imaginary".

Twenty years ago the thought of using a $50,000 radar to measure BCs of bullets sold to consumers probably sounded insane. Yet in 2007, AB was started and ELR is off to the races. The accuracy and precision demanded by shooters has resulted in a massive shift in bullet design towards monolithic copper bullets made on CNC lathes. Those are inarguably the most accurate and consistent bullets on the market today. Want proof? The one Berger bullet that placed in the Top 25 at Kof2M wasn't even a traditional Berger, its a 375 copper mono designed by the guy that thought the expensive radar was a good idea.

Things that are small like this are part of the way forward in the sport. 20 years ago bullet design was ancient by todays standards. 20 years before that case design and QC was in its infancy compared to where we're at now. Who turned necks in the 60s? Who does it today? Progress marches on. Shawn Carlock's +P designs are IMO potentially revolutionary in the sense it could challenge throating designs in the same way the 40* shoulder and WSM/SAUM designs changed cases.

Your test has me so curious that I'm going to try it on my 6.5 PRC with handloads.
I've been meaning to do it again, it's been two years now since I did that test I think? Just honestly never got back to it, it was such a small difference I basically said "hmm that's weird" and kept working towards other goals.

Still on my quest for the 40-shot 5fps SD, when I get there I'll be sure to revisit the small things like this and seating depth.

Now, consider that from ignition until full engagement you're talking about a bullet traveling under .5" in less than 1/10,000th of a second.
I'm not sure about the 1/10,000th of a second - propellant burn takes ~4 microseconds, or 40/10,000ths to burn completely. The bullet weight is so much more that there is a very large velocity differential between the pressure front of the gas expansion as it leaves the case and the bullet moving that there's more than enough time for a (WAG) 1%+ of the total volume to bleed around. The gas doesn't only move out of the case after the bullet starts moving, the expansion of the neck off the bullet is part of expansion before the bullet engraves. Gas has time to shoot around the case neck before the case fully seals even though the neck moves enough to release the bullet.
 

Attachments

  • 1644679383632.png
    1644679383632.png
    4.6 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:

Recent Posts

Top