Compensators

[HansTheHobbit]

Not necessarily true. Several linear comps effectively reduce muzzle climb with no top port(s).

The best I've seen from linear ports is around 40% reduction. With a good muzzle brake, you can eliminate it altogether. I have built several ARs with zero recoil.

[Waylander]

The best I've seen from linear ports is around 40% reduction. With a good muzzle brake, you can eliminate it altogether. I have built several ARs with zero recoil.

I believe you're confusing recoil reduction via muzzle brakes and muzzle rise reduction via compensators.

Muzzle brakes reduce recoil not necessarily muzzle rise.

Comps, especially linear comps, sometimes create more rear linear recoil than a standard FH or bare muzzle in order to decrease muzzle rise.

See below post.

Are you looking for a brake or a comp? Brakes are for reducing rearward recoil, comps are for muzzle movement.

If a comp, I like the Griffin Armament Flash Comp.

[HansTheHobbit]

Anytime you reduce recoil you will also reduce muzzle climb, as the climb is itself a byproduct of recoil. The most effective brakes I've used have had an aggressive vertical first stage with pretty generous side porting. IMO, the Rolling Thunder is the only brake on the market that really gets down to business, and independent testing shows that. People don't like them because they're fugly as all getout, but you just have to decide whether you're looking for appearances or performance. The only downside to it is its size and weight, so I'm not going to say that it's the best one on the market because there are other ones that do a good job for their bulk. For example, the one from Ops Inc is a great no nonsense design in a smaller package. Surefire also has one that does excellent work for its size. You also have to decide if you can live with the noise and gigantic fireball that fully featured brakes produce. Then again, once you start trying to mitigate side blast and flash, you start to have to wonder if it's even worth having it in the first place, as those interventions tend to greatly diminish the effectiveness of the brake. At the point when you've got an extra pound hanging off the end of your rifle to reduce recoil by 30% or less, I think it's time to go for a flash hider and call it a day. I'm also against hybrid devices, as I've yet to see one that does anything it's supposed to to any tangible extent. What I'm say is, if you're going to get a brake, then get one that actually gives good return.

[SomeOtherGuy]

Anytime you reduce recoil you will also reduce muzzle climb, as the climb is itself a byproduct of recoil.

Yes.

Muzzle brakes reduce recoil not necessarily muzzle rise.
Comps, especially linear comps, sometimes create more rear linear recoil than a standard FH or bare muzzle in order to decrease muzzle rise.

I don't think this distinction between brakes and comps is universally recognized, although I see it commonly mentioned in discussions like this one. A device can affect muzzle rise only without reducing recoil, but most devices affect both. Even the A2 flash hider has a slight recoil reduction compared to a bare muzzle.

There are many effective brakes, but most are really unpleasant to be around (even with excellent hearing protection), and some of them are ridiculously big and heavy as well. The grand-daddy FSC-556 is very effective and fairly small, but unpleasant when shooting next to a barrel or other solid surface. The common 2- and 3-port brakes (like the Surefire brake) are even worse. Use one of those under an awning (like at many ranges) or next to blue barrels (in competition) and it's like someone is tossing stun grenades at you.

If you want an effective competition brake that costs less and weighs less than the barrel it's mounted on, I would recommend this one:

http://www.ar15performance.com/inc/sdetail/2121/26101

It also doesn't seem to generate too much flash, even though no claims are made about flash reduction. In my personal testing this has been among the most effective I've tried, and far less unpleasant than anything I've tried that's in the same ballpark of effectiveness.

The more muzzle devices I've tried, the more I appreciate the A2.

[MegademiC]

With the ar, I thought there was not muzzle climb when isolating the rifle, it all comes from the interface of the user. Is this correct?

I do know titan brakes are popular for competitions. I used the fsc before and found I prefer flash hider for my uses so I can't really help with experience, but I think it's important to know what you expect, and how to get it.

Reducing recoil should reduce muzzle climb significantly since all the climb is from the gun recoiling into your shoulder, unless that is incorrect, but everything is in line so...

[Waylander]

With the ar, I thought there was not muzzle climb when isolating the rifle, it all comes from the interface of the user. Is this correct?

That's my unscientific opinion. If the barrel was positioned with a back stop directly in line with the bore, it would make a difference due to simple physics. With our shoulder below the bore we are already at a disadvantage.

Reducing recoil should reduce muzzle climb significantly since all the climb is from the gun recoiling into your shoulder, unless that is incorrect, but everything is in line so...

That's generally true unless you direct some blast upward. The A2 does this and also is in effect a linear compensator. In the video notice the A2 recoils almost as far back as the bare muzzle but rises a lot less.


-----------

I've went back and learned a lot from the video. Yes all good brakes will reduce muzzle climb by reducing recoil and simple physics. Some people find just the flash annoying let alone the noise.

But...there are so many hybrid devices it's hard to generalize. Check out the BattleComp in the video. It attempts to compensate and reduce recoil and flash. It's excellent at muzzle rise and compensation almost too much so as mentioned. It's also expensive. From what I understand it's more noisy. As mentioned, the PWS FSC is similar in that it helps everything but noise.

There is no free lunch because if the blast doesn't go forward it has to go somewhere. The good old A2 still wins IMO.

[HansTheHobbit]

I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that muzzle rise is a product of gravity. I remember something from physics 101 about how a gun would recoil directly backwards in space.

[ColtSeavers]

I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that muzzle rise is a product of gravity. I remember something from physics 101 about how a gun would recoil directly backwards in space.

Muzzle rise is a product of your body acting as a fulcrum despite the recoil of the AR being designed to be in a straight/linear path directly rearward.

[Waylander]

I could be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure that muzzle rise is a product of gravity. I remember something from physics 101 about how a gun would recoil directly backwards in space.

Yes, a gun would recoil directly backward in space because there is nothing to cause axial force.

Positioning the shoulder, or hand on a pistol, below the bore creates a bore axis which causes rotation about the center of the axis. If the back rest of a gun was positioned directly inline with the center of the bore, the rifle would recoil directly backward on Earth as well.

[HansTheHobbit]

Yes, a gun would recoil directly backward in space because there is nothing to cause axial force.

Positioning the shoulder, or hand on a pistol, below the bore creates a bore axis which causes rotation about the center of the axis. If the back rest of a gun was positioned directly inline with the center of the bore, the rifle would recoil directly backward on Earth as well.

That makes sense, but there's still muzzle rise even if you don't actually hold the pistol grip on an AR. If that's the only thing to cause muzzle rise, then you should be able to hold an AR to your shoulder with your support hand and touch off the trigger without actually touching the pistol grip. It's pretty common to do that from the bench, and there's still muzzle jump.