Anybody running a suppressor?

[B23]

I am thinking about getting one , but I would want to use it on a 338-408 ? The gun would be tough to shoot without the brake. So I am wondering if they do anything to help the recoil? I like the help with the noise but wont trade it for the kick HaHa

As was already mentioned, suppressors do a pretty good job of reducing recoil but a well designed muzzle brake is always going to be the best option for reducing recoil. I'm not sure who has a suppressor rated for the really big 338's like those based off the 408 case. I'd give the folks at TBAC a call and Zach or Ray will be more than willing to answer any and all of your questions. I would also call Tim at SAS and ask if his 338 Vengeance would be rated for a 338-408.

My 338 can is a SAS Vengeance and it's a great suppressor. I think the TBAC 338 Ultra and SAS Vengeance are two of the best 338 suppressors on the market and are definitely two of the lightest 338 cans out there.

 

[mason3379]

I have to respectfully disagree with 5RWill and say that I does reduce recoil a noticeable amount over just the brake. I run several brakes for my Saker and there is a definite difference in recoil from the brake to the suppressor. It may only be the fact that you are attaching an extra 12-20oz. (give or take) to the end of your barrel which in any case WILL reduce muzzle rise. So maybe the fact that it is less muzzle rise equates to less recoil. At any rate I can tell you the suppressor makes my .300WM and 7MM much more fun to shoot. I am more that willing to put 50 rounds +/- through my Mags when before, even with a Holland's brake 20-25 rounds and I was tired of it.
Just my 2cents worth.

 

[5RWill]

I don't disagree that it's more fun to shoot but i don't even think it's debatable as to which one which effectively reduces more recoil. Especially when you consider the suppressor trapping gas and not effectively dissipating it like a brake would. I'd point to competition scene and personal experience. I put 1200rds down my 6.5x47 in competition in the last year or so every one of them suppressed. Buddy that i started out with that now shoots for K&M also shot suppressed exclusively. He switched to a brake whilst shooting a 6XC and Dasher. I asked why and that was his reason. So i went back to a brake and couldn't agree more. It's not even close with a good brake like the hellfire or little bastard. Don't get me wrong sucks to be anyone that isn't behind me on the hellfire but the thing is ridiculously effective.

I'll put it on the SAUM and go back and forth between it and suppressed to see how it fairs.

 

[mason3379]

I don't disagree that it's more fun to shoot but i don't even think it's debatable as to which one which effectively reduces more recoil. Especially when you consider the suppressor trapping gas and not effectively dissipating it like a brake would. I'd point to competition scene and personal experience. I put 1200rds down my 6.5x47 in competition in the last year or so every one of them suppressed. Buddy that i started out with that now shoots for K&M also shot suppressed exclusively. He switched to a brake whilst shooting a 6XC and Dasher. I asked why and that was his reason. So i went back to a brake and couldn't agree more. It's not even close with a good brake like the hellfire or little bastard. Don't get me wrong sucks to be anyone that isn't behind me on the hellfire but the thing is ridiculously effective.

I'll put it on the SAUM and go back and forth between it and suppressed to see how it fairs.

I had a little bastard on my 7MM previously, better than the Holland's but I still don't agree. There is a notable difference from brake to suppressor, I think you are the only person I have ever interacted with that feels differently about the subject. A suppressor IMHO is far better than a brake since all gases are directed straight out the front after the expansion chambers and baffles that it passes through.
Not that I am right or wrong but I still respectfully disagree. Fact is shooting with a suppressor is more enjoyable for the shooter and those around them.
I will leave the debate for the guys who build them and know the science behind them.
I think we can all agree that you will enjoy having a suppressor once you purchase it.

 

[Rich Coyle]

I fired both ways. Shooting with a can is not more enjoyable, as far as recoil, to me.

 

[George Dean]

Any particular brands to avoid?

I own a .30 cal and 5.56 cal can, from Yankee Hill Machine. To be practical; I could have purchased the .30 and saved about $1400. The .30 works almost as good on 5.56 or .223 & I do use it on one .223 Wylde barrel which I purchased with the same thread as is common on .308 rifles. The barrel builder suggested that as he felt that thread pitch provided superior holding power over the standard pitch on AR platforms.

My suggestion to you is:

1. Determine what caliber or calibers you need a can in.
2. Buy a can that is rated, in your caliber for any cartridge in its range, min to max. i.e., anything up to or including one certified for full auto. Why; refer to the adage: Buy once, cry once.
3. If you are buying only one, or even more than one, and for example wish to use a .30cal on a .223. Make certain (And I should have said--if you are going with QD, quick detach, systems) That your choice of mfgs offers QD adapters in the different thread pitches for the rifles you intend to use.
4. In other words, IMHO: Best not to mix and match brands of suppressors. And even when buying from the same mfg, make sure that not only there are QDs for different thread pitched barrels, that those QD adapters will accept the particular model you are buying. Most mfgs make several models in the same caliber, but the different models may not all fit on all of the adapters.

I can suppress most of my long guns except those in .22LR, and don't like to fool with thread protectors and certainly cannot afford to have a suppressor dedicated to each rifle, so I like the QD systems.

I'd even suppress my .22LR gear, but would hate to have that kind of money tired up in the ATF's pipeline and croak before my approvals arrived. The older you get, the more "timing is everything" applies.

Deciding how many you want, what calibers you want, what you intend to use them on and whose brand you choose requires a well thought of plan, in advance, to avoid buyers remorse.

Good luck with your plan. Some calibers can be fired suppressed outdoors with minimal ear protection. Indoors or under an outdoor roof, full protection is best.

 

[86alaskan]

I'd say shooting in general is more enjoyable with lighter calibers through the suppressor. It's when you step into heavy magnums that the brake makes more recoil difference than the can. For a while, I ran the ASR brake on my 300WM for my Omega. Without a doubt, even the small ASR brake had less recoil than the Omega with anchor brake installed. It wasn't a huge difference, but the brake was more effective at reducing recoil. Now, the brake on a high pressure magnum definitely lowers recoil but reduces pleasure due to the concussion. Recoil aside, for me, it's suppressor all the way.

As for the 338-408, the silencerco Hybrid may be a choice as it's rated for the 338 Lapua and has a larger bore diameter. It may be suited to handle the extra gas volume from that large case.

 

[longrangebo]

I'd say shooting in general is more enjoyable with lighter calibers through the suppressor. It's when you step into heavy magnums that the brake makes more recoil difference than the can. For a while, I ran the ASR brake on my 300WM for my Omega. Without a doubt, even the small ASR brake had less recoil than the Omega with anchor brake installed. It wasn't a huge difference, but the brake was more effective at reducing recoil. Now, the brake on a high pressure magnum definitely lowers recoil but reduces pleasure due to the concussion. Recoil aside, for me, it's suppressor all the way.

As for the 338-408, the silencerco Hybrid may be a choice as it's rated for the 338 Lapua and has a larger bore diameter. It may be suited to handle the extra gas volume from that large case.

After reading what everyone said, I think I will stay with the brake for now! I hunt mainly long range and with the brake it is doable but the kick without it is absurd there is a tradeoff with everything

 

[5RWill]

Not that I am right or wrong but I still respectfully disagree. Fact is shooting with a suppressor is more enjoyable for the shooter and those around them.
I will leave the debate for the guys who build them and know the science behind them.
I think we can all agree that you will enjoy having a suppressor once you purchase it.

No worries friend id he interested to see a comprehensive test done as well. I think about it like a semi obviously without a gas tube. I think some of that gas contained in the can would effectively cause more gas to be retained vs dissipating out of a brake. Hence why barrels heat up faster and foul more when shooting suppressed. Though we're both in agreement on one thing i won't hunt without my cans less it's illegal lol.

After reading what everyone said, I think I will stay with the brake for now! I hunt mainly long range and with the brake it is doable but the kick without it is absurd there is a tradeoff with everything

Cans still effectively reduce recoil don't let me or anyone saying brakes do it better (which i think they do) shy you away. I still think hunting suppressed is the way to go. As i just noted you won't find me hunting without the can. I'll put up with the length and weight to avoid ringing ears, take more follow up shots if needed, and hear that "smack" when the round hits the animal. I still say it's the best firearm investment I've ever made. Even more notably so on Short ARs.

 

[86alaskan]

OK, so.... recoil is different, but not really severely so. I can tell the difference on my 260 from brake to can, but it isn't that much. On the 300WM, shooting with the can is a breeze and truly far better than no brake or can at all. It does have more recoil than with the brake, but not that much. I run 180gr NBT from that rifle at about 2900fps and straight barrel the recoil is still and sharp. It is an all-together different animal with the can on. My advice would be..... buy a can and start the process. No reason to put if off now and only have to wait longer because you waited. Don't cheap out though, you'll really appreciate a well made high quality can. In the mean time, run a really good brake like a BEAST so you can get more practice without getting beat up.

 

[CA48]

On my 6.5's there is a noticable difference. The brake reduces recoil much more than My can.

For a Chey tac suppressor desert tech makes one 12" long 2" di.

I think manufacturers could design suppressors that reduce recoil more, but its a give and take that results in higher db levels.

 

[Kimber7man]

I will state this:
On my mule deer hunt last fall, I sure wish I had my Ultra 7 on the end of my 6.5 SAUM instead of the Vias brake. Had a snap shot at a buck that popped up over a ridge and those 2 shots without ear protection definitely damaged my hearing.

 

[B23]

For me, shooting suppressed versus brake and trying to compare felt recoil, is sometimes rather deceiving. With a can on it's so much quieter and I tend to want to think their was less recoil than it really had due to the lack of muzzle blast.

 

[santee116]

Here is a good article comparing brakes to a suppressor.

http://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/07/07/muzzle-brakes-recoil-results-for-6mm-6-5mm/

A snippet from the article that I agree with, comparing my suppressors and muzzle brakes on the same rifles.

"Another thing you may notice is the suppressor is more effective at reducing the peak force of the recoil (31% reduction) than reducing overall momentum (24% reduction). That means the suppressor is spreading the recoil force over time, but isn't as effective at actually reducing the total amount of force coming back. This aligns with how I've heard shooters talk about the recoil with a suppressor as more of a "push" than sharp recoil."