Up for discussion is the Ferfrans CQB Modular Muzzle Brake System (FF CQB System; U.S. and foreign patents pending)
Introduction
Muzzle brakes are valuable accessories due to the fact that they redirect propellant gas thereby mitigating felt recoil and muzzle movement which keeps shooter’s sights on target while firing multiple shots in rapid succession. The downside to muzzle brakes, however, is that it channels sound and expanding gasses sideways which may be extremely distracting for members of an entry team or fellow shooters at the range.
Thus, there is an unmet need for an effective muzzle brake that has minimal side blast or concussion and to redirect sound to the front of the shooter. As alluded to above, muzzle brakes are not typically used in CQB/urban environments due to undesired side concussion that could be distracting to entry team members shooting next to each other in a closed environment or when shooting prone. We’ve also heard of many complaints about how loud effective muzzle brakes are at indoor and even outdoor ranges.
The Modular Muzzle Device System
The FF CQB System meets the above-mentioned need for a muzzle brake that effectively mitigates felt recoil and muzzle movement while minimizing side blast/concussion and redirects sound to the front of the shooter. It is a two piece modular system that includes (1) a very effective high performance muzzle brake that has been extensively tested in full auto fire, and (2) a ported Concussion Reduction Device (CRD) that attaches to the FF Muzzle Brake using a quick detach mechanism. The CRD has strategically placed [u]side ports that allow the muzzle brake to retain its functionality [/u]as opposed to brake shields that cover the brake and negates its function.
The side ports on the quick release CRD, shown below, allows some of the expanding gas to exit sideways. This allows the FF CQB System to act as a compensator to minimize lateral muzzle movement.
Damn, that makes a Noveske KX3 look small. If the KX3 is the Pig then you should call yours the Buffalo! Someone will be along shortly to tell you that you need to say that you’re from a company in your signature or something to that effect. I only say this because your post said “We’d appreciate your thoughts and feedback on this muzzle device” as in you are in some way affiliated with the company.
I forgot to ask, what is the total weight on that thing? I do mean the brake and the CRD together? 10 to 16 ounces? Are you based in the Philippines, I don’t know what units of measure you might use, if it’s something other than ounces I’ll just convert it. I thought I had seen this somewhere before: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/03/30/simplistic-shooting-solutions-qd-brake-shield/. Looks alot like this setup but with holes drilled in it. This came out in March 2013.
I wish there was some kind of device that would do a little of both. What if something had cuts in the “top” (9-3 position) to direct downward force to counter muzzle rise, but solid on the “bottom” (3-9 position) so that escaping gasses would be less likely to create a dust rising effect. Less movement in sight picture, less signature to expose the shooter and get in his eyes.
Man. What a thing that would be. Maybe some day
I’m just kidding. I can dig it, PIG and a BattleComp had some nasty sex and this is the sin-baby. I’d be willing to give a try, if for nothing other than to support innovation. But I actually want one of these.
Maybe I want two. Need to see more. Good luck, thanks for trying something new.
If I may, I’d like to add some feedback specific to the video.
-Slow down the text scrolling in the beginning. I’m a fast reader, and I still had a hard time reading the information as it sped up the screen. While you do restate the same information later, it’s frustrating if not somewhat annoying when a video editing technique gives a viewer a headache in the first 30 seconds. Don’t lose potential customers because they don’t want to finish the video of your product.
-Would it be possible to add some traditional prone shooting? The whole side-shooting fad (I know, it has it’s applications) was a great demonstration should the shooter be in that position, but I’d wager most will be firing from the old school prone. Or not prone at all. Is the effect on underlying turf the same? I imagine it would be, but I’d like so see a demonstration in a more common firing position.
-I get the feeling Pro-Tec guy was/is an LEO? The benefit of your product was clearly demonstrated, and I was impressed. But I got distracted by the gear bomb and awkward stance (feet together in FA?), and couldn’t help but wonder if the rise/recoil would be reduced or different. It seemed that the gasses weren’t moving the cardboard, because they were too busy kicking his ass backwards. I’d rather have an A2 FH than a brake that has the demonstrator literally shuffling backwards from recoil.
I am truly envious of your job, if this is even a weekly event. Full auto testing…oh, so harsh. However, in the name of productive feedback, I can only suggest that when marketing your product it may be better received if the promo vid didn’t come off so…care free? I don’t know how to out my finger on it, or say it in a way that isn’t taken to be discouraging. I guess, if you’re trying to attract serious shooters, a little more “professional conduct” of those involved might lend you more credibility? If I saw some of these demonstrations out of context, I would believe they were home video of some customers out messing around with their new brake. Chuckling/giggling while filming, shooters appearing to be feeling the results for the first time, some questionable weapons handling…it just doesn’t come off as a promo from the actual manufacturer. I hope that makes sense…
Lack of flow in promo video. Typically, I see a format to videos introducing a new product. For example;
1. Introduction - what the product hopes to accomplish. Easy to accomplish with clear, legible text in a slow transition. Start with a clear picture of the brake, with name of the mfg and product name. In one slide, cover the current issues with brake blast, in the second cover how you’ve eliminated the problem. The picture and teaser info is to hook the viewer.
2. Installation/Nomenclature - How do I put this on my rifle? Maybe a rifle in a display setup, with one of you (or someone you have available) giving a video tutorial of the mounting process, installation/removal, name of parts, and doing so with good vocabulary and professionally dressed.
3. Demonstration - your comparisons were pretty good to go. It might be better to have a tripod for the camera, and encourage no talking from the shooter or spectators. By this point, you’ve introduced the product, now you’re showing it off. Edit the side-by-sides. Pretty good already, but each demo should start with the shooter in his stance, raising and firing, and should end when the rifle is lowered to a resting position. Quick and effective demo, no speaking role from shooter, and remaining “objective” in performance. And I know it’s a range, so a three-piece suit isn’t necessary, but full HSLD kit is almost as over the top. Clean khakis, polo shirt, casual and professional at the same time.
Sorry if I’m way off base here, or if you weren’t looking for video feedback. Can’t offer feedback on the brake. I’d like to see you succeed and I really do want to run one of these. Count me in. And I’m not a professional advertiser, so take my comments as what a “layman” sees. It’s a tough industry these days, and I would hate to see a good idea fail, when better advertising could be done easily with low cost.
Thank you all for your constructive feedback!!! I sincerely appreciate your comments!
The vid is obviously a personal vid and not meant to be an official promo video. I’ll update it based on comments in this thread. I’ll also take a vid shooting regular prone to show the effects.
I’ll post weight info tonight. Ferfrans is based in Southern California.
As mentioned in the original post, the CRD is different from a brake shield in that it has side ports that allow the brake to function as a compensator when the CRD is attached. So you’ll still get some benefit from running a brake without the side concussion.
The CRD idea was in the works long before the brake shields cam on market. It took a while to balance reduction in side concussion while maintaining muzzle control. There were many prototypes and this was the best “compromise” among all of them.
The CRD might maintain the leveling effect of a brake, but it doesn’t seem to preserve the other main purpose behind muzzle brakes. In both standing tests, it looks like the CRD significantly increases the rearward push of the recoil versus the brake alone. This is not unexpected, but it is something that will be mentioned by independent testers, so it makes sense to get in front of it with how this is marketed.
That is correct. You get a slight, straight to the rear push, with the CRD on (it’s more of a softer recoil feel, not the typical sharp kick).
It’s, of course, a compromise between reduction in side concussion versus recoil reduction. We believe we have found a balance of sufficient brake/ compensator functionality (leveling effect) and concussion reduction. That is why the CRD is quick release so when you want a full brake to minimize recoil, you can easily remove the CRD.
Well I’m a jackass. Sorry man, I don’t doubt your ability to make a good promo video. You don’t need my advice but there was enough that it seemed like more than home video.
Hope I didn’t stomp on my crank.
Is there any hope that I could see an AK model, or .308 in the future works? If it works as well as it appears to, I’d use your brake on either of those over a 5.56 gun.
10.4 oz at the very end of the barrel might help control muzzle rise just from the added weight. Some think the KX3 is heavy at 7.2oz. I’ve heard of Ferfrans, but most of the guys I know haven’t. You might have a ruff time getting people to buy it at $175 when so many other manufacturers make Levang or Krinkov type comps/brakes that don’t kick dirt into your face when fired in rollover prone and cost anywhere from a 1/4 to 3/4 less. A cheapo Levang is $35 dollars, a Troy Claymore at $65, or the KX3 at $125. I’m sure others exist, I’m just thinking off of the top of my head. I understand that it does reduce recoil and/or muzzle rise, I just don’t know how much of that can be attributed to the brake and not the added weight. I’m mechanically inclined so I could probably make something like this for myself, I’ve done the whole look for a better mousetrap muzzle device (recently, that’s why I remember the prices), reading posts here convinced me to just stick with the good old A2 FH. I do like new products that make you more effective but this just isn’t for me. I do wish you the best of luck though!
The krinkov type brakes and KX3 don’t do much to control muzzle movement eventhough they direct muzzle blast forward. With the Brake + CRD combo, you can have a full brake if you wish or attach the CRD when the need arises.
Optimal muzzle control and recoil reduction is best without the CRD on as you can see from the video. So no, it is not the weight that matters. Also, as mentioned, you do not have to install the CRD all the time if you wish to keep the muzzle light.
Keep in mind, when looking at the price, you get a brake and a CRD; so that’s $80 for each part.
I’ve been looking at different options of brakes, flash hiders, and linear type compensators for a 10.5" pistol build as of late. This new product has me intrigued.
