Nate,don't want to sound argumentative but i just don't agree with most of what you said.all things being equal,your V slots will be a longer brake. there's no 2 ways about it.as far as that goes,you're wasting space with your design by not making the first hole a complete triangle instead of a V shaped slot.this would allow more gas to escape thus making the brake more efficient.the same goes for the last slot.could be cut so the bottom of the V would be a flat side, thus allowing more gas to escape.as far as what Barney wants do to with the smaller to larger holes.that seems counter-productive.so what if the first hole vents more gas.putting smaller holes in the beginning just makes it less efficient.i thought the idea was to vent as much gas as possible.
as far as hitting them more perpendicular,most of the benefit of recoil reduction, due to muzzle blast pushing on the baffles,comes after the bullet passes each baffle or all of them,not while the bullet is inside the brake.my way of thinking is a perpendicular to the bore baffle is more efficient at reducing recoil.
No problem and no offense taken.
There is nothing like a good discussion without getting upset about things.
[ QUOTE ]
all things being equal,your V slots will be a longer brake. there's no 2 ways about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are right and as I stated in my previous post my "V" brakes are only .100 this is 1/10 of an inch longer. As I can see I am going to need to give an explanation. From the forward point of my "V" the baffels come back .100 this being said only the last "V" is where you get the extra length. for a visual, take four funnels of identical size then stack one inside the other then measure the overall length of the funnel stack, now measure the overall length of one funnel and multiply it by the four funnels as you can see my "V"'s are stacked with even amounts of space between, just as they would be with straight baffles. This is why the triangles you think would be more efficeint would make a much longer brake.
[ QUOTE ]
as far as that goes,you're wasting space with your design by not making the first hole a complete triangle instead of a V shaped slot.this would allow more gas to escape thus making the brake more efficient.the same goes for the last slot.could be cut so the bottom of the V would be a flat side, thus allowing more gas to escape.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are right, I am wasting space by not making just the first "V" a trianle. A muzzle brake operates on pressure and quantity of pressure,if you drop the pressure too much with the surface area of one baffle the following baffles will do nothing thus making it useless. If you want to dump everything all at once, then put on a tank style brake with tons of surface area. I am just trying to make my brake the most efficeiant without going to a large tank style.
[ QUOTE ]
i thought the idea was to vent as much gas as possible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Dave, if this was the case why put baffles in the brake ,why not open up all the baffles to a big rectangle.In my mind this would drop the pressure way too fast. If your going to dump the pressure all at once you need massive amount of surface area to push on.
for example:your finger can plug an 1/8" hole with 125 psi behind it,but you would be hard pressed to hold a gallon pail over a 12" hole with 5 psi. and again I am not claiming my brakes are any better than any other brake..I let the users make all claims. In the past I have made several brakes like the holland and defense edge, hole style brakes, even short slotted brakes that do not need indexing (and still do if the customer requests)and I feel the "V" brake offers a very efficeiant design.
I will think about turning the first "V" into a triangle, but I'm not sure I would like the looks. What are some of the other members thoughts on the looks of the first being a triangle?
again the above is just my honest opinion and experiance.
without God their is no hope for this country
I think that the first "chamber" that the bullet enters is going to be catching most of the gas thus being the most important baffel in the desgine , would an open triangle be moe efficient than the regular baffel , of course it has more area for the gas to escape. Truth be know if the first chamber were shaped like a diamond it would probably be the only one needed , just like the big brakes on the M1 tanks , maybe another V baffel after it on big rounds like the big mags and up but on a smaller round your probably gonna be wasting steel and time by making more baffels.
who want the big hole desgine of a tank brake , I personaly don't care for the look , I had installed a JP Enterprise Bennie Cooley brake on my dads 300RUM and it worked great , its only got two big chambers and baffels like the Holland but I personaly diden't like the look. The OPS inc brake has one huge chamber with a concave wall then a smaller chamber , they are said to be very efficient but I think their are ugly.
I believe that their are alot of things that play into making the most efficient brake , it you wanted to start splitting hairs their would probably be a differance if you adjusted the baffle size according to the case capacity and bullet diameter , for example the RUM case , if tyou were to make a brake that worked great with a 243-300RUM it probably wouldent work as well on a 50-338RUM as the gas from the latter you be able to leave the barrel much faster.
Maybe not. I know that indepth discussions like these are alway very intersting to me and I feel that they are very productive , so long as they don't turn into a ******* match over whos idea is better.
i think what most of this boils down to is when it comes to these brakes, it's a compromise between looks and function. as stated, the jp tank brake is probably the most efficient at reducing recoil but most will tell you it's butt ugly.on the other side you have the Vias brake, or any of the radial hole pattern type of brake, which is a "very appeasing to look at brake" to most.too me at least, the larger the case size, the more efficient type of brake is what i'm concerned about.so yes i agree with everything said,if you vent a whole bunch of gas and make it more efficient,then the looks tend to suffer.i don't know what the percentage would be as far as how people choose what brake they're using,but i'd guess it's way more than half go by what looks good to them, rather than how efficient it functions.i personally like the looks of your V port brake but i love the look of Shawn's baffle style with the flats on top and bottom.might make an interesting post,polling everyone on what style of brake they like.
hope i didn't sound argumentative, didn't mean to be. was a very interesting discussion. i also agree with the .1 !
The DE four slot brake is on a 7AM and the Vias is really a Spencer but same general design on a 240Wby. The 7AM bullets are twice as heavy and the case holds twice as much powder as the 240Wby. Both guns weigh about the same. I have shot both off of a bipod in the desert. The 7AM with 100+ grains of powder would just be unshootable with holes in the bottom of the brake in my opinion unless you wore googles. The DE brake is just right for that kind of shooting. It will allow you to stay on target easily once you learn to tighten up the bipod enough that it doesn't torque the gun out of position. Once you learn how to avoid getting torgued off, then the recoil is minimal and the gun just stays set on target.
The Spencer/Vais type brake is OK to shoot in dry dusty dirt with 50+ grains of powder behind a 115 grain bullet. I was worried about shooting it off the hood of my truck so I used Jimm's truck hood the first time and when it didn't burn up the Chevy paint I figured the Toyota paint would hold up OK. I made the mistake of shooting it one day without hearing protection and even with most of my hearing gone it is painful and I do mean pain.
I would say that the proof of the pudding is in the eating and you can go back in the hunting story part of the forum and find the story of the elk I shot at 968 yards and the one Shawn Carlock shot with his 338 Edge at 1K+. We both were able to stay on target with the DE Brake and take a second shot when needed. I had my bipods propped up on two big rocks at a pretty significant angle and still the rifle stayed well lined up. So if you want a brake for a gun shooting a heavy bullet in front of a lot of powder and would like for the gun to still be lined up on the target after you shoot, then the DE brake will do that.
Thanks for the response. I do want to be able to control the rifle through recoil and don't want to kick up a bunch of crap. I also do not want to get whacked in the head with severe muzzle blast/concussion. I almost find my 6.5/.284 Vais unpleasant to shoot not because of the recoil but because of the concussion. Was wondering if people shooting the DE three and four ports were experiencing the same. The brake would be going on a 7STW shooting full throttle 180gr bullet loads.