First of all I will agree with you 100% that the recoil reduction differeance between the two brakes would be almost un-noticable. about the "V" brake needing to be longer, that is not neccessaraly true at most they would need to be .1 longer. Maybe if they were triangles,yes but the V's have no more distance between the baffles than the straight baffles. The smith that fits the brake to the barrel can change the length more than the V's would change the length. I will also disagree with you to a point on the straight baffles being more efficiant as they are perpendicular to the bore, while the bullet is plugging the hole in the first port, the gas is forced to meet my angled V's perpendicularly. The v also helps to direct more gas and make the forward baffles more efficeiant... if this makes any sense. I am not saying this is any better than straight baffles, but it does work amazingly well.
I have about 15 of my "V" brakes out on customers rifles and they all have been very excited about the recoil reduction they have received form my "V" brake.
I had a good discussion with Barney Lawton about muzzle brake designs and he deals with a lot of large bore ,large cases and he feels the Holland style brake lets too much gas out in the first baffle thus making the further out baffles less efficeiant, He talked about a gas chamber with small holes for takingthe first bit of gas off anf then going with ports starting with maybe 1/8 ,3/16,1/4 and then 3/8 for the last baffle. He claims they work awesome, and I won't argue,but it did get me thinking about my V brake, starting with an 1/8 v then 3/16 then 1/4 and then maybe finishing with a 5/16.
And yes, if we said "this is good enough" where would we be today? again I am not claiming my V brakes are any better than straight baffle brakes. I will also say I have heard nothing but good about Shawn and his brakes.
the length of the 3/16 x4 baffles brake is 1.6 from muzzle. The 1/4" three baffle is 1.55 from the muzzle. (just for referance)