Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 47 of 47

Thread: noveske kx3

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    639
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by T-Dot View Post
    Thanks for the replies.

    Yeah, I really can't speak to the recoil effects on a 12.5'' barrel since I've never experienced it. I can imagine that any drawbacks in recoil are far outweighed by the advantages at a 12.5'' barrel length.

    Mega: when you say that the felt recoil on a 12.5'' were similar to the 16'' form, I assume you're saying you've used a KX3 on a 16'' barrel? I'm interested in how that shot: was it noticeably more unwieldy than a 16'' without the KX3? The reason I ask is that my 13.7'' is a little front heavy and I'm trying to figure out if it's the KX3 or the 12'' VIS upper that's the culprit...

    viperashes: Thanks for the reply. I guess the question I should have asked myself was "Does a 13.7'' barrel really need as much help as a shorter barrel with cycling gases?" I'm imagining the answer is no.

    Next question: what barrel length warrants a KX3? My first vote goes for 12.5'' (like I said, the 13.7 doesn't seem to need it).
    Well honestly, this is kind of subjective. Just as anything else, it depends on what someone is using it for. If someone wants to use a 20" barrel A4 style AR in a CQB environment and for whatever reason wants to run this FH because of it's noise projection, then in their situation, people are probably going to call them stupid, but it's their prerogative.

    I think the right question to ask is what barrel length is going to see the most benefit from this muzzle device, and in that case, I would say 12.5" and shorter because at these lengths, there is less barrel in front of the gas block to create enough back-pressure to reliably cycle the weapon. Also when you start getting into the shorter barrel lengths there is more muzzle noise, so directing it forward and away from the shooter is an added benefit.

    The 13.7" and 14.5" barreled carbines are still going to see some benefit from this FH, but again it shines on the shorter SBR and PDW class weapons.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE FL
    Posts
    14,148
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by viperashes View Post
    You're pretty much right on track T-Dot. The force of all the propelant gasses exiting the front of the rifle, rather than laterally, can increase felt recoil a bit. If you apply the physics to it, the device is designed to add more force to the BCG to increase dwell time and gas pressure, so in turn, yes, you are going to get a little bit more felt recoil because of not only that, but again, what you were speaking of, the gas being expelled directly forward.

    Edit: I don't really want to speak in absolutes, I said originally that it does, but changed it to "can" because as with anything, there are other variables that come into play that may negate or add to felt recoil.
    Is this increase in felt recoil something you've experienced firsthand?

    I ask because it does not match my observations as part of a brake test I'm working on based on the amount of distance covered by the rest when firing as compared to other brakes, and A2, and bare barrel, but I will eventually have accelerometer data to actually quantify the issue. My observation was simply that the rest wound up ~the same distance from a line in the table with almost all of the devices I was testing. I made a mental note of this because it struck me odd at the time and I wanted to verify with the hard numbers later.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    639
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
    Is this increase in felt recoil something you've experienced firsthand?

    I ask because it does not match my observations as part of a brake test I'm working on based on the amount of distance covered by the rest when firing as compared to other brakes, and A2, and bare barrel, but I will eventually have accelerometer data to actually quantify the issue. My observation was simply that the rest wound up ~the same distance from a line in the table with almost all of the devices I was testing. I made a mental note of this because it struck me odd at the time and I wanted to verify with the hard numbers later.
    Rob, I don't necessarily want to call it an "increase" in felt recoil per-se, because it may not have been that. I did notice a difference, but it wasn't something that was being compared and I didn't have anything to compare side-by-side with. The KX3 was installed on a 10.3" (?) Colt AR. I had shot the rifle with the previous muzzle device that was on it, I think just an A2 birdcage.

    The rifle was shot with the two different muzzle devices on two separate, consecutive weekends, so again, my observations are FAR from scientific. My personal reflection was that the KX3 seemed to recoil more linearly to the rear. While it may not have been "more" felt recoil, it was definitely different than with what, for argument's sake, a birdcage was.

    Basically, the sensation I recall was that it felt like the BCG had a more solid rearward movement. I felt more solid, but wasn't harsh. To use an analogy the KX3 felt similar to getting punched in the shoulder with the same force as someone poking you in the shoulder (A2).

    Especially when talking about things like this, I hate to use the wrong terminology and show my ignorance, but hopefully you understand what I'm getting at.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Annapolis, MD
    Posts
    424
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by T-Dot View Post
    Mega: when you say that the felt recoil on a 12.5'' were similar to the 16'' form, I assume you're saying you've used a KX3 on a 16'' barrel? I'm interested in how that shot: was it noticeably more unwieldy than a 16'' without the KX3? The reason I ask is that my 13.7'' is a little front heavy and I'm trying to figure out if it's the KX3 or the 12'' VIS upper that's the culprit...
    Yes. I had that same KX3 on that same carbine, but with a 16" barrel before SBR'ing it.
    The 16" version was nose heavy, which was one reason for shortening it, but I really cannot say I noticed a difference in felt recoil between the two versions.

    Subjective for sure, but if there was a difference, I didn't notice it.
    "Keep your teeth sharp Wolverines."
    - Whiskey2

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    All over the place.
    Posts
    93
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mega View Post
    Yes. I had that same KX3 on that same carbine, but with a 16" barrel before SBR'ing it.
    The 16" version was nose heavy, which was one reason for shortening it, but I really cannot say I noticed a difference in felt recoil between the two versions.

    Subjective for sure, but if there was a difference, I didn't notice it.
    I see. Thanks for the feedback!

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1,503
    Feedback Score
    8 (100%)
    They are pretty cool mounts. If I didn't run suppressors on my rigs I would have one on there.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    639
    Feedback Score
    0
    It would be interesting to see a "KX4" that was also a suppressor mount. I figure the pig is right about the same diameter as most current cans, and that it essentially uses a blast baffle to complete it's job. It wouldn't be too difficult to build something around that design that was detachable.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •