Re: Muscle brake?
I can shoot a few rounds through my .204 Ruger without hearing protection without damaging my hearing. That is why I own one. Can't do that with my brother-in-law's .22-250, even when I'm 10 feet away from him when firing. And, my .204 Ruger has similar ballistics to a .22-250.
I once had an M1 Tanker Garand with a muzzle brake from a BM59. As if shooting from a 16" barrel wasn't loud enough already. I forgot to put on hearing protection one day, and one shot had my ears ringing all day. The gun went up for sale. It would be dangerous for hunting or self defense without hearing protection.
I controll recoil in .308 Winchester by firing it through an FN FAL, not by adding a muzzle brake. I also have faster follow up shots and more reliable loading than guys who have bolt guns and muzzle brakes. My 1 MOA accuracy means that no matter how accurate their rifle is, it is no more accurate under handheld field conditions on the first shot than mine, and I have faster follow up shots and more of them. And my ears probably ring a lot less than theirs.
Actually, I already have hearing loss from military service, and I don't want any more. I receive compensation for it. Muzzle brakes have zero appeal for me. The .308 Winchester cartridge will kill any game animal in North America when placed in a vital spot, and an FN FAL will allow you to fire hundreds of rounds in a day with absolutely no sore shoulder at the end of the day if you choose to do so. I have no flinch from firing an FN FAL as it does the punishment on the FRONT side of the barrel, not the rear side.