I’ve been working on a second round of muzzle device testing, and light is beginning to appear at the end of the tunnel. Like the first test, this would not be possible without help from multiple industry sources. In addition to the muzzle devices from the first test, I have been provided with the following devices:
– Knight’s Armament Co. Triple Tap
– Smith Vortex/Good Iron
– White Sound Defense FOSSA-556
– Surefire MB556K
– AAC BrakeOut 2.0
– Fortis RED
– Noveske KX3
Andrew,
I know this isn’t the first time that this has been brought up, but I’m hoping that you manage to test out the BCM Comp Mod1. I’ve used it for a while, and it seems to do what I need it to do, but it would be nice to see someone test it in a scientific manner, toe to toe with other reputable manufacturers’ devices.
V/R,
Sam
He’s doing a mod 0, which is the same device, bit a bit longer
I would like to see the Rainier Arms XTC and Strike Industries newest(double chamber?). The SI was just released, supposed to be friendlier to bystanders? Thanks.
Thanks for everything you do Andrew!
Maybe after this round…what about doing one for 30 cal rifles. Maybe include brakes. You see those youtube videos where guys say, “This makes the 308 feel like a 22!” But is that true?
As an engineer…it would be interesting to put some kind of load cells on the three axis to actually measure the force as you fire the firearm.
To “see” the action and to ensure that it is the same for every device, you could support the buttstock (both vertically and longitudinally) and then hang the barrel from something with springs. Maybe use springs on both the top and bottom (down to the ground or to some kind of frame) to ensure the muzzle is controlled. Using springs would provide repeatability. Using your arms…well that might change depending on what you had for breakfast that day. Trigger pull could be done with some kind of remote trigger system. If you went this route, you could also put a 2 or 3-axis accelerometer on the rifle to get the g’s, velocity, and actual displacement. If you knew the displacement, you could figure out the force (instead of using the load cells) because springs come with ratings in lbs/inch or kg/inch travel.
But, your article is great. I have referred to it a couple times as I contemplate updating my A2, but I just seem to stop that thought when I see this article.
I’m glad you got the Fossa in this test. That’s one I am interested to see the results from. I wanted to send you one but was unable to re-allocate the money to buy one and send it to you. I’m thinking if it’s at least like the A2 but slightly better it will probably be the muzzle device for me.
How about a Wilson Accu-Tac?
KAC QDC flash hider (3 prong )
KAC QDC flash hider
In so glad you’re doing more testing. Just earlier today I commented that you did the only objective, large-scale test of muzzle devices that I’m aware of. Will this test be the same as the previous (except with more devices), or will you be changing the rest protocol somehow?
If you do more years in the future, it would be cool if we could contribute in some way, such as donating devices. (We’d need an up-to-date list, like a gift registry, to avoid buying the same device twice.) Or we could donate funds, and maybe have an online poll of which devices to buy with the donations.
How about the Strike Industries Type 89 J-comp?
I’d be interested how it performs compared to other muzzle devices for only 29.95
I know a LOT of people contacted LANTAC about sending you a Dragon; if they didn’t, I’ll be pissed. I am about to buy one (because I like the idea of their blast mitigation device coming out in a few months), BUT if they didn’t send you a dragon for testing, I’ll reconsider my purchase and go with Surefire.
-jf
Did you ever post the results for this 2nd test? Im curious how some of these stacked up