Muzzle brake or silencer?

So silencers are known to reduce recoil in similar fashion to a muzzle brake (though not as efficient). Muzzle brakes are known for increasing the report of a firearm. Both are various configurations of ports and baffles, so can be similar in design. It's a worthy goal to design a muzzle brake that doesn't increase the report of a firearm, so at what point does it "become" a silencer legally? I suspect there's not a definitve answer. It would be nice if it were as simple as a decibel level or external ports vs. canned. It's similar to the issue of flash hider vs. muzzle brake.

Most silencers/suppressors actually work better as brakes than brakes do. Because the main objective of a suppressor is to make the gun quiet by reducing the velocity of the escaping gas, more time, money and effort is put into designing them and ultimately less of the gas is allowed to escape forward at high velocity to create recoil. Brakes on the other hand while reducing recoil do work very effectively as down range suppressors. Very noisy for the shooter but down range a gun with a brake is NOTICEABLY quieter than a gun without one. When brakes first came to Canada the RCMP took a long hard look at them just for this reason and although they do work as down range suppressors it was never the intent of the design of the device to quiet the gun and there were so many of them on guns by the time they finished their study that they just sort of swept the issue under the carpet. People have tried to make quiet brakes by changing hole configurations and angles for the last 50 years but it never works to any great degree and most times it ends up making the brake less efficient. The simple way to make a quiet brake, make a suppressor. I think the BATF has a decibel level at given distances that they use to separate brakes from suppressors. The RCMP uses the old "if it walks like a duck process" of determination.

I remember reading an article about a guy who ported a shotgun barrel on the underside, simply drilled a series of holes, similar to porting that has been used on factory guns over the years, but starting further back from the muzzle. He reported he made the gun quiet enough that you could hear the SHOT hitting waterfowl.

Not sure if it was ever ruled to be a "silencer" or not.

This might be it here ??
The Quiet Shotgun

This 30" ported muzzle extension is legal enough to advertise.

Metrogun

I'm not sure if the BATF just has a minimum total DB reading they will allow for a modification like that ?? They have been known to rule one way, then somebody engaged in mfg, then reverse their ruling later on and demand that some part of the device be sent to BATF,

Bill

More text on the subject

ST PAUL PIONEER PRESS
THE NOISE SOLUTION
/ AMAZEMENT OFTEN IS THE REACTION TO AN OAKDALE MAN'S INVENTION, A QUIET GUN THAT IS AS SILENT AS IT IS DEADLY.
Chris Niskanen, Outdoors editor
Published on 09/09/2001
When Sean Coffey's honker call pulled a flock of geese within range, paraplegic Dave Guzzi swung his shotgun with a 7-foot-long barrel and dropped one of the geese dead.

There was a moment of stunned silence -- and not after the goose tumbled out of sky. The morning stillness was barely disturbed when Guzzi pulled the trigger on his extraordinarily long shotgun.

The sharp blast of the 12-gauge was replaced by a muffled fzzzttt. Sitting just four feet away, I was struck by how the shotgun sounded like a loud air rifle. Guzzi, who lives in Burnsville, laid the experimental shotgun between his legs and waited for more geese.

"Pretty amazing, isn't it?'' he said of his gun.

Last Sunday, Guzzi and two other paraplegic hunters with the group Capable Partners were testing a new "Quiet Gun" invented by Wendell Diller of Oakdale, Minn. The site was an alfalfa field in northern Washington County, and the quarry was Canada geese on the second day of Minnesota's early goose season.

Click to expand...

How high do you have to aim to compensate for muzzle droop? You figure out if I'm joking or not.

༼ᄽ‿ᄿ༽

Just hear to report (punny!) that silencers are awesome.

Of course the ATF is unpredictable, inconsistent and politically motivated, but since a longer barrel will reduce the sound signature, a really long barrel will do so even more. It's not a silencer in any way, shape or form even though it reduces the muzzle blast. I would think there would have to be some features such as baffles for a device to be considered a silencer or muffler, even if the muzzle blast is significantly reduced. But you might have to go to court to establish that.

Pretty pointed and pretty far reaching all at the same time. It pretty much says: "we don't care what you did or how you did it. If its quiet, it's a silencer."

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)
(24) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

As I reckon the long choke on the shotgun is akin to loading a rifle with a load that completely consumes the powder charge prior to the bullet leaving the barrel. If the load is subsonic, it will also sound like a large air rifle going off.

Well, it always boils down to the same argument anyway. If the duck or deer hears your shot, it's not the report of the firearm that needs attention. Just saying. he he

Nmbmxer said:

As I reckon the long choke on the shotgun is akin to loading a rifle with a load that completely consumes the powder charge prior to the bullet leaving the barrel. If the load is subsonic, it will also sound like a large air rifle going off.

Click to expand...

Not to be picky, but any good load is expected to burn completely before the bullet/sabot/wad exits. Ones that don't are usually loaded with too slow a powder, and the shooter/reloader likely wouldn't do that twice. There's still a pop when pressure is released behind the projo, sorta like an exhaust valve opening, so we don't hear the combustion in either case.

I recall seeing a long-barrelled 'city gun' years ago, as though it came about in the '60s or so, and commonly used for culling starlings, crows, pigeons etc, from urban parks. IIRC there was (is?) a Navy 'quiet' load that folded a closed-mouth tube inward between powder & the load. When fired the 'tube' would unfold to ~dub'l length and contain the expanded gases. Obviously low-powered, it might have been for seals to shoot lines or something if not for covert sorties.

sticks said:

Not to be picky, but any good load is expected to burn completely before the bullet/sabot/wad exits. Ones that don't are usually loaded with too slow a powder, and the shooter/reloader likely wouldn't do that twice. There's still a pop when pressure is released behind the projo, sorta like an exhaust valve opening, so we don't hear the combustion in either case.

I recall seeing a long-barrelled 'city gun' years ago, as though it came about in the '60s or so, and commonly used for culling starlings, crows, pigeons etc, from urban parks. IIRC there was (is?) a Navy 'quiet' load that folded a closed-mouth tube inward between powder & the load. When fired the 'tube' would unfold to ~dub'l length and contain the expanded gases. Obviously low-powered, it might have been for seals to shoot lines or something if not for covert sorties.

Click to expand...

There was a Soviet "gun" like that that totally contained the gasses within the projectile, used a moving piston of sorts, cannot legally be imported, one thing I think it was made to do was shoot underwater.

So that's how they get away with the shotgun silencer. Only if it's to diminish the report of a PORTABLE firearm. That's got a 7 foot barrel! They might be okay with a 7 foot silencer on a handgun.
So it sounds like it comes down just like the flash hider vs. muzzle brake. If it's sold as a muzzle brake, it's a muzzle brake, until BATF decides otherwise.

I would say suppressor (silencer), except you're in CA and I didn't think CA allowed suppressors. That being said, silencers do a much better job than brakes at reducing recoil. The reason is two-fold. #1 The action of a suppressor traps hot gasses, slowing and cooling them and then releasing them in a slower, less-violent manner. This is similar to how brakes work but not completely. Brakes deflect the gasses to the side or even to the rear to negate and/or counteract the recoil from the gasses rapidly exiting the bore. These 2 come out as a wash. The 2nd reason suppressor work better is the added weight. For example, my 30 cal suppressor weight 1 1/2 pounds which is a common weight for a 30 cal suppressor. That 1.5 lb weight on the end of the barrel does wonders at dampening the recoil impulse. The recoil is still there (what is left of it after the baffle slow/cool the gasses) but the added weight slows the impulse into a more manageable felt recoil.

Of course, the part that really makes the 2 stand apart is the sound suppression. Of course, nothing is free, you pay for that sound suppression dearly. Commercial brakes are $100-400, commercial suppressors (neglecting .22 and pistol suppressors) are $500-2000. That's a pretty big price difference. Of course, you can always build your own as well. I built my own 30 cal suppressor for ~$40 in materials...

Anvil Jenkins said:

I remember reading an article about a guy who ported a shotgun barrel on the underside, simply drilled a series of holes, similar to porting that has been used on factory guns over the years, but starting further back from the muzzle. He reported he made the gun quiet enough that you could hear the SHOT hitting waterfowl.

Click to expand...

Porting a barrel will in no way, shape, or form reduce the blast heard at the shooter's ear. Porting and brakes ALWAYS increase the sound report at the shooter's ear.

speerchucker30x3 said:

Pretty pointed and pretty far reaching all at the same time. It pretty much says: "we don't care what you did or how you did it. If its quiet, it's a silencer."

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)
(24) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

Click to expand...

Chucker found the legal definition. But from past experience, there are things that quiet the report of a firearm that the ATF does not qualify as a suppressor. #1 most common is barrel extensions. 2nd to that are certain "open-framed" muzzle devices that may direct muzzle blast in a different direction so as to reduce the report as heard by the shooter. Obviously there are fake suppressors as well that may reduce the report by a few fractions of a dB but they allow.

Of course, Sig Sauer's new carbine they have out that is meant to compete with the MP5 and MP5SD is an interesting one. The non-silenced version comes with the baffles of the silencers permanently attached to the barrel as a "muzzle brake". If you want to "add" the silencer you just buy the tube that goes over it and have to get that transferred.

In the end, the ATF doesn't follow any set pattern, there are some things one would think to be a definite no-go that is allowed and others that seem logical to be ok but the ATF says no...

And then there are the 2 guys at the gun show.


The one guy says : “Hey, this is my Ruger 10-22 and with this cordless drill and a rubber band I can make this sucker full automatic.” The second guy says: “This is my Browning, Heavy Water Cooled Machine gun which I bought from a collector and registered it and I shoot it at the range all the time. As a joke I gave the government $200 and had a gunsmith stick a suppressor on it just for giggles. Would you like to shoot it? Oh forgive me my manors, you were probably just going behind the high school to fire your rubber band gun!"


Moral of the story: It only costs $200 to get a permit for a suppressor. Why not just get the permit and get or make a real one that really works? Here we can't even own the damned things.

Stupid question but during Speers above story he mentioned a suppressor on a belt fed machine gun. I was wondering if you did such a thing wouldnt the fast rate of fire cause pressure build up in the suppressor faster than it could dissipate the gas from the previous shot?

Has anyone ever tried this, I cant think of why you would want to but if you can then why not?

Charles

Not a problem. The Swiss and the Finns use cans on their MG's. The only issue is heat build up. You can and will smoke a can and get it red hot, in which it starts coming apart.

I sell lots of suppressors. Many NFA guns, M-16's in particular, use cans on their guns during full auto shoots. It is worthy to note that not all cans are full auto rated and the ones that are usually are much heavier duty than those that aren't.

speerchucker30x3 said:

Moral of the story: It only costs $200 to get a permit for a suppressor. Why not just get the permit and get or make a real one that really works? Here we can't even own the damned things.

Click to expand...

As far as I know silencers are illegal in California. I know, move to Texas...

speerchucker30x3 said:

And then there are the 2 guys at the gun show.


The one guy says : “Hey, this is my Ruger 10-22 and with this cordless drill and a rubber band I can make this sucker full automatic.” The second guy says: “This is my Browning, Heavy Water Cooled Machine gun which I bought from a collector and registered it and I shoot it at the range all the time. As a joke I gave the government $200 and had a gunsmith stick a suppressor on it just for giggles. Would you like to shoot it? Oh forgive me my manors, you were probably just going behind the high school to fire your rubber band gun!"


Moral of the story: It only costs $200 to get a permit for a suppressor. Why not just get the permit and get or make a real one that really works? Here we can't even own the damned things.

Click to expand...

The $200 is not the issue usually. The issue is if all the local LE who are able to sign the form have decided NOT to. Many of them use it as a way to try to stop people from having things they think only the Police should have.

We did have the avenue of using a corp, an llc, or a trust, but word on the street is that Lord Obama has decreed that THOSE people must now get a CLEO sign off too.

Bill

Anvil Jenkins said:

We did have the avenue of using a corp, an llc, or a trust, but word on the street is that Lord Obama has decreed that THOSE people must now get a CLEO sign off too.

Bill

Click to expand...

Heard that, but I haven't seen evidence of it in my or my friends' transfers yet.