Late last year I published parts one and two of a muzzle device comparison; the third part was essentially complete at that time, but I decided to hold off on publishing it until I could verify some of my data.
Using high speed video (courtesy of SilencerCo) and multiple accelerometers, I will be able to show visually as well as mathematically how effective each device in the test is at recoil reduction. During a four month period, over 1500 rounds were fired to verify g-force data from the accelerometers. The results may be surprising to some.
Rearward Forces
Not surprisingly, the most effective muzzle devices in the test were also at the loud and bright end of the spectrum in the previous tests. SilencerCo’s massive Specwar triple port brake/silencer mount was by far the most effective device at recoil reduction, for example, but it was also loud and created a distinctive muzzle flash.
Downward Forces
If we think of limiting rearward forces as recoil reduction, then limiting upward forces must be called “combating muzzle rise,” right? Wrong.
Consider yourself shooting a rifle with a bare muzzle from the standing position. In scientific terms, the rifle is an arm with forces being placed upon it at the very end – the muzzle. The gases exiting the muzzle do so in a very uniform manner, with essentially no variation from side to side and top to bottom. They do not inherently cause the muzzle to move up – if the rifle were to be suspended in the air, it would move straight back.
But it’s not suspended in the air, it’s connected to your body. It has to move in some direction, because an external force has acted upon it and it is no longer “at rest.” Because your body is connected to this arm, and the rifle is long and essentially pointed at (in physics terms, not weapon terms) your body, the arm will move mostly to the rear. However, because there is much more of your body below the point where the stock meets your shoulder, and because that part of your body is eventually connected to the ground, there will be a natural tendency for the muzzle to move upwards. Unless, that is, you adjust your stance and hold to limit this effect.
In other words, the only reason “muzzle rise” exists is due to the way we position ourselves as we shoot, and we can position ourselves to minimize that, especially with a 5.56 AR-15. There is no inherent tendency for the muzzle to rise on its own. Therefore we should use devices that push the muzzle down, right?
Of course not. The ideal device in terms of muzzle control would keep the muzzle exactly where it was before the shot was fired. We don’t always fire from the standing position, and if you’re trying to shoot side prone or underneath the bumper of a car, a device which “combats muzzle rise” will be constantly forcing the muzzle left or right with every shot.
With that in mind, here’s a chart showing the downward forces caused by each device.
Muzzle Device Videos
For those interested in the specifics of individual devices, here are the videos, which were shot with a 16″ midlength upper on a registered full auto lower. We’ll start with the bare muzzle as a baseline and then move on to the other devices. For all videos other than the bare muzzle, the video of the rifle being fired with the specified device will be seen, semi-transparent, on top of the video of the rifle with no muzzle device being fired.
Bare Muzzle
While a bare muzzle offers no recoil reduction, it has no quirks and recoils in a fairly straight line to the rear.
A2
The A2 did very little to retard the rearward movement of the rifle, but did force the muzzle down with every shot.
AAC Blackout
The rifle with AAC Blackout attached tracked in a nearly identical manner to the bare muzzle.
BattleComp 1.0
The BattleComp forced the muzzle down with every shot.
B.E. Meyers 249F
The 249F, for an unknown reason, tracked higher than the bare muzzle. It’s likely that this was shooter error, but all due care was given to maintaining a consistent position and stance.
BWA X-Comp
The X-Comp reduced recoil and kept the muzzle flat.
PWS FSC556
Similarly, the FSC556 reduced recoil and kept the muzzle on target.
PWS Triad
The PWS Triad forced the muzzle down more than almost any other device tested.
Proto Tactical Z-Comp
The Z-Comp did a good job of reducing recoil, but pushed the muzzle down slightly.
Proto Tactical Z-Tac
Performance of the Z-Tac was nearly identical to that of the Z-Comp.
Rainier Arms XTC
The XTC reduced recoil significantly, but pushed the muzzle down slightly with each shot.
SilencerCo Specwar Brake
Recoil with the Specwar brake was minimal and straight to the rear.
SilencerCo Trifecta
Performance of the Trifecta in this regard was nearly identical to the bare muzzle.
Simple Threaded Devices
The STD tracked in a nearly identical manner to the bare muzzle.
Spike’s Tactical Dynacomp
The Dynacomp pushed the muzzle down with each shot.
VG6 Precision Gamma 5.56
This early version of the VG6 Gamma reduced recoil but pushed the muzzle down significantly with each shot.
Vltor VC-1
The Vltor VC-1 reduced recoil slightly and kept the muzzle on target.
YHM Phantom
The YHM Phantom reduced recoil very slightly and kept the muzzle on target.
Overall Results
After three rounds of comparing muzzle flash, sound pressure level, and recoil reduction, how do the devices compare overall? And do I have any recommendations?
For the best flash reduction, the B.E. Meyers 249F would be my choice.
For truly outstanding flash reduction at a more affordable price, the AAC Blackout is excellent.
For the best recoil reduction, the SilencerCo Specwar Brake was the clear winner.
For an excellent middle ground of recoil reduction, neutral muzzle position, and fireball mitigation, the FSC556 is a great compromise.
For recoil reduction on a budget, albeit with higher muzzle flash and some downward force on the muzzle, the Rainier XTC is a good choice.
For those seeking acceptable levels of muzzle flash without cash outlays, just keep the A2 that came with your rifle.
Despite its lackluster overall showing in the test, I rather like the STD simply because of its appearance, relatively low cost, and ever-so-slight reduction in sound levels at the shooter’s ear.
Is That All She Wrote?
There may be followups to these articles as I test more devices, devise additional test methods, or write more subjective articles about each device, but this constitutes the bulk of the testing I initially set out to complete.
Thank for talking the time to do this buddy, it is much appreciated.
Looking forward to the individual testing of more SilencerCo products.
PS: Where can I find that awesome “Snake Oil”!??! haha
Thanks for doing this test, it has been extremely informative.
My take-aways:
-The A2 is hard to beat for essentially free.
-The Phantom is an excellent value if you don’t already have an A2, or are comparing .308 devices where the A2 is not so cheap (at Midway, a .308 A2 is around $23 while a .308 Phantom is around $40).
-The Battlecomp looks like so much hype. Which matches my thoughts on it all along, having used them on other people’s rifles and never being convinced they were worth $155 or more to get my own.
thanks brother, you’ve saved me a LOT of time and money. really enjoy the near as possible neutrality and photos/graphs too. this is so much better than what some mall ninja snipers tend to be posting.
my takeaway mirrors Zach’s above; the A2 birdcage i’ve known from service to now is still hard to beat for the price. and there are several expensive hyped-up items I can now cross off my list.
please, keep up the good work in all manner of tests!
Very interesting to see so many muzzles going down or straight…with all the advertising, you would think that the muzzle would flip over your head if you didn’t buy their devise.
I’m happy with my A2, but I’d like to save up for a Blackout or FSC556….decisions decisions.
Thanks for all of the work in creating these reviews.
Good work.
Some free advice. The chart that you built is a little too busy and confusing. Three characterisitics have different measurement criteria. Use 3 charts/graphs. When reading a chart, it should be readily apparent to the viewer if a big number is good or bad (not always one or the other). As is, I have to search for a good while to read it.
The summaries are helpful and the article is good information.
I know it’s confusing and has a lot of data. That’s because it combines data from all three parts in one graph. There are already separate graphs.
Once again Andrew demonstrates a non-biased approach to testing gear. But question: does shooter technique factor into this or fatigue when firing a lot of rounds. I mean, is this which is best or which is better for Andrew at this point?
Hey Andrew,
Great compilation once again!
It would be great if you could include some linear compensators in your next test(s). Since I shoot indoor a lot and prefer not to use muzzle devices that direct flash and pressure at my buddies on the firing line, it seems like a decent choice. But the verdict is still out on the behaviors & effectiveness of these linear compensators.
Thanks!
You wrote, “I rather like the STD simply because of its appearance”. You might want to get that checked.
I wonder where the BCM Comp would fall… If I had to guess it would be a slightly cheaper alternative to the PWS.
Pure speculation on my part.
One nitpick – I think that a gun suspended in midair would still exhibit the flipping motion due to the fact that it’s own weight is not distributed evenly around the barrel.
Reducing felt recoil appeals to me the most, but I’m torn about whether or not to go down that road due to the huge increase in noise projected to either side (I shoot at a range 95% of the time).
True, I thought about mentioning balance but wanted to keep this fairly simple.
For a novice shooter which would dial in the best balance to work from, or practice with, on a constant basis? The PWS FSC556? I find the M4 clone I built with a mid length gas system and Vltor VC-1 pinned to be reasonable. But my fiance, who I gave the rifle to, wants more recoil control. So my next build for her I’m looking at a compromise. Suggestion? This is a range and hunting rifle not for combat (I hope) keep that in mind please. On that thought, she has no problem with my other rifle with a full custom brake. But it’s freaking LOUD!
Very impressive data set! If you would like samples of our NightBrake muzzle compensator and Eclipse flash hider just shoot us an email and we will get you set up for the next round of tests.
I really would like to see your opinion on the Griffin M4SD II Flash Comp. It is something I have become interested in and am looking to purchase.
Excellent article, was thinking of replacing the A2 flash hider but no real need now. Could you add a share option with your articles so people can link you to facebook, twitter, etc?
Good test! I am also struck by how good an overall muzzle device the lowly A2 is. I got a non-mount Blackout for my 10.5″ just because I knew I really needed to knock down the flash. I need to work on my shooting technique because I get a lot of muzzle bounce. Your testing confirms what I’m seeing on the range, the Blackout is about like a bare muzzle in terms of recoil.
Thank you for your hard work. I recently watched another video by you, where you go over the different phases of the AR recoil. Do you by any chance have a head on video do each of these devices in action in terms of recoil control. My rifle has the standard a2 on it. Instead of noticing a muzzle rise, I’m noticing significant drift in the x axis to the right. At 20 yards, the sights come entirely off the target. Part of me thinks that it might be an issue with my stance. others tell me that it s a normal phenomenon for right handed shooters because you don’t have a third arm to counteract the force of your support hand side, and thus the force is dispersed in that direction–causing the barrel to drift right.
I shot a PWS fsc on a 300 AAC setup just recently and was very happy with the results. I found this writeup while searching for alternatives. Based upon what I see here, the PWS device is right where I want to be for the shooting that I do.
Thanks so much for the excellent writeup and visual demonstrations. Great work!
One consideration concerning recoil forces – and an area in which the AR-15 is rather unique – is the relationship between the action and the stock. The operation of the AR-15 is linear – straight back from the muzzle, to the BCG, into the receiver extension, into the shoulder of the shooter.
Contrast that with, for example, the AK-47, which places the barrel over the stock, and the bolt carrier/piston above that. The operation of that weapon creates a positive torque value when the shoulder is taken as the reference point and WILL cause natural muzzle rise.
The AR-15 rewards a specific shooter/rifle interface with an almost entirely linear recoil impulse – that is almost unique the the shooting world, which is the reason most muzzle devices, historically, are designed to counter the naturally arising torque created by the shooter/weapon interface.
For shooters that tend to mount the AR-15 high, to where the receiver extension sits above the meaty part of the shoulder pocket, the linear recoil impulse of the AR-15 will cause torque/rotation upwards around that point on the stock the shooter is actually engaging. Depending on the type of shooting they do, and their willingness to adapt their shooting style, a compensator may offer better recoil control.
The pictures/charts no longer appear as of right now. Could the author please repost them?
Hi. I’m really glad to see someone doing scientific testing of muzzle devices and I want to thank you for all your hard work.
There are three devices I haven’t seen anyone test, and am curious about them, in terms of both flash suppression and recoil reduction.
The ultra-short, ultra-light DoubleStar Carlson Mini Brake, which claims flash reduction “comparable to” that given by an A2, which would be extremely impressive given the unit’s tiny size, as well as muzzle rise reduction comparable to that given by an AK slant brake, which is not such a high bar to pass (I’ve never been able to feel a bit of difference in recoil or muzzle rise between rifles with a slant brake and rifles with a bare muzzle).
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/419930/doublestar-carlson-mini-muzzle-brake-1-2-28-thread-ar-15-steel-matte
I’d also like to see someone test a couple of older muzzle devices made by Bushmaster, prior to the Freedom Group buyout.
Supposedly they were designed by a Bushmaster employee named Izzy. Both were created at least partially for the purpose of permanent attachment to a 14.5″ M4 barrel to bring it up to the 16″ legal limit. Both are rather long devices with three long slots and a closed bottom. There’s a flash suppressor with an open end and a closed-end “brake” version. I’ve seen old complaints on the Internets that they don’t suppress flash very well, but given that they look almost identical and especially during the “assault weapons ban” of 1994-2004 we saw them both sold as “brakes,” it isn’t clear which version the bad reviews are talking about, since they usually posted no images.
http://gettactical.net/firefighting/phase-5-bushmaster-izzy-flash-suppressorcompensator-5-56mm-223/ is the actual flash suppressor version
http://www.climags.com/ar-15-223-izzy-muzzle-brake-1-2-28-thread-bushmaster/ is the closed end “muzzle brake” version, with one single largish baffle at the very front
I would also note that there seem to have been at least two versions of the flash suppressor sold by Bushmaster, with different internal geometry. See the pictures above, now look here:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-90iPzQJJhX8/UuBIvhg8lCI/AAAAAAAAABE/oMUzo2NbYSA/s720/SANY0193.JPG
Though I suppose it’s also possible someone had the brake version and decided to mill out the end baffle to get better flash reduction.