Muzzle Brake vs. Ported Barrel with a twist

[Bull45cal.]

Here is the question. I am going to purchase a 30" Shilen Savage Pre-fit Bull barrel chambered in .30-06. I will be shooting 208 -220gr bullets through it, and need some recoil reduction. This will be my long range hunting/target rifle, so I have been toying with the idea of adding a muzzle brake, or porting the barrel. Being a big "DIY" kind of guy, I will be doing all the machining work myself. I'm weighting the pro and cons of both, so please chime in. My porting work will essentially be an integrated muzzle brake (tank barrel style brake). Because I will be using it in situations where ear protection will not always be able to be used, I have come up with a simple solution I call my Sound Deflector. This device will essentially be a piece of pipe slipped over the ports, directing the sound forward. I am including a few pictures, so take a look at them and tell me what you think.

Here is the muzzle end of the barrel with the two 0.625x0.728 slots milled into the barrel​

Here is a side view of the muzzle. (threads to the right of the first port are for the Sound Deflector)​

Here is the Sound Deflector installed. Notice the gap between the barrel and the SD, as this allows the gases and sound to escape forward.​

 

[edge]

Looks interesting.

How much will you bore out the area between the slots and crown? I suppose that you will still have about a 27 inch barrel.

edge.

 

[Bull45cal.]

Edge,

I will be reaming out the barrel to .328, or 0.02 over bullet diameter, in for 2". Then I will crown the new muzzle. That will give me 28" + or - 0.05. Threads will be the same as the chamber end, for approx. 1". The Sound Deflector with be 2" OD, with 1.5" ID, 3" long, with a 1" threaded section to match the threads on the barrel.

 

[AJ Peacock]

I think your sound deflector will drastrically reduce the efficiency of any brake you have, as the gases will be redirected forward.

I've had one rifle with barrel porting (Magna-port) and even though it did reduce recoil (7mm Rem Mag), it made the barrel more handload sensitive (more picky to small changes in reloads).

A screw on muzzle brake that can be removed and replaced with a thread protector when you have no ear protection would be my choice.

When I hunt with a braked rifle, I use electronic muffs so I can hear whats going on around me, but still be protected.

AJ

 

[J E Custom]

I think your sound deflector will drastrically reduce the efficiency of any brake you have, as the gases will be redirected forward.

I've had one rifle with barrel porting (Magna-port) and even though it did reduce recoil (7mm Rem Mag), it made the barrel more handload sensitive (more picky to small changes in reloads).

A screw on muzzle brake that can be removed and replaced with a thread protector when you have no ear protection would be my choice.

When I hunt with a braked rifle, I use electronic muffs so I can hear whats going on around me, but still be protected.

AJ

AJ is right. The deflector will negate the recoil reduction of the break.

I tried something similar a few years ago on a assault rifle that was terrible and could not be
shot without ear protection.

I finally ended up making a cone/funnel shaped brake that did reduce the noise to a reasonable
level, But it did not reduce the recoil very much ,(And it looks weird).

There is a break that can be opened or closed that would be good for hunting because when
at the range the ports could be opened and when hunting could be closed reducing noise.

The way you have the brake drawn you could do the same thing buy making the outer sleeve
with holes to match your break and simply rotate the sleeve to open or close the brake.But the
sleeve would have to be strong enough to take the pressure when closed.

J E CUSTOM

 

[Bull45cal.]

Mr. Peacock & J E Custom,

Thank you, you two esteemed individuals, for your replies to this thread. I do want to ask further of your opinion concerning this matter. I would like to discuss the effectiveness of the sound deflector. Let me start by saying I'm not an expert in fluid dynamics, so some of my thoughts may not be complete right. With that said, I would purpose that sound deflector (SD) would, of course, reduce the braking effect of the ports. My thought is that I would see a marked and even felt decline, but not a drastic one. I'm leaving a 0.25 inch gap around the barrel for gas flow. With the SD walls being almost 90 degrees from the gas flow (gas coming from the ports), I would expect that a large portion of the force left in the gas would be used in pushing against the SD walls. Then the gas would take the path of least resistance, and flow out the muzzle end. I think the actual back thrust generated in the SD would be small.

Can you explain why you think that ports of this type would be more likely to make the barrel more "handload sensitive" than an equally designed screw on brake?

J E Custom, I definitely will consider the ports in the SD idea you presented.

Again, that you for your input.

 

[AJ Peacock]

I don't know 'why' ports like this would make it more sensitive. But the one experience I had with them, it did. Prior to getting my rifle ported, it would shoot nearly anything into 3/4" or less (much better for some loads). After it was ported, I had to be super careful and consistent to get under 1".

AJ

 

[J E Custom]

Mr. Peacock & J E Custom,

Thank you, you two esteemed individuals, for your replies to this thread. I do want to ask further of your opinion concerning this matter. I would like to discuss the effectiveness of the sound deflector. Let me start by saying I'm not an expert in fluid dynamics, so some of my thoughts may not be complete right. With that said, I would purpose that sound deflector (SD) would, of course, reduce the braking effect of the ports. My thought is that I would see a marked and even felt decline, but not a drastic one. I'm leaving a 0.25 inch gap around the barrel for gas flow. With the SD walls being almost 90 degrees from the gas flow (gas coming from the ports), I would expect that a large portion of the force left in the gas would be used in pushing against the SD walls. Then the gas would take the path of least resistance, and flow out the muzzle end. I think the actual back thrust generated in the SD would be small.

Can you explain why you think that ports of this type would be more likely to make the barrel more "handload sensitive" than an equally designed screw on brake?

J E Custom, I definitely will consider the ports in the SD idea you presented.

Again, that you for your input.

There are brakes with holes in the end facing forward (Like the VIAS) and they work well and
they are known to be a little quieter than some others but are not as efficient as other breaks in
reducing recoil.

The principle way the brakes work is that they redirect high velocity gasses to reduce the push
as the bullet leaves the barrel. The more gas that is directed away from the center line of the
bore the more effective it is at reducing recoil.

Some of the most effective brakes have the ports facing slightly backwards. (But they are very
loud) .

Your design will reduce recoil by some margin because you are enlarging the exit hole thus
reducing the gas velocity. And it will be quieter than normal (No Break).

You could do the same thing by drilling or milling the holes/openings at a forward angle.

As to the accuracy, a break can change a rifles accuracy to good or bad with the same load
before the break was added and you may have to start all over with load development.

The main thing is go ahead and build the break and test it and see. if it doesn't do what
you wanted it to try something else. Who knows you may come up with a better mouse trap.

Be Careful

J E CUSTOM

 

[Bull45cal.]

J E Custom

I have also pondered a design similar to what you are talking about, but my concern is that the BATF may not like it. To make a "holes in front" design effective I came to the conclusion that it would need a lot of surface area for the gas to push against. What I ended up with was a four baffle tube with holes in the baffles allowing gas to travel from one chamber to the next. I'm not sure if this design will reduce audible muzzle blast to a level less than it would be without any device, but I suspect it will. With that concern (that it may be labeled a sound suppressor), I decided not to build it yet. This is the progression that has brought me to the design that I posted here.

 

[J E Custom]

J E Custom

I have also pondered a design similar to what you are talking about, but my concern is that the BATF may not like it. To make a "holes in front" design effective I came to the conclusion that it would need a lot of surface area for the gas to push against. What I ended up with was a four baffle tube with holes in the baffles allowing gas to travel from one chamber to the next. I'm not sure if this design will reduce audible muzzle blast to a level less than it would be without any device, but I suspect it will. With that concern (that it may be labeled a sound suppressor), I decided not to build it yet. This is the progression that has brought me to the design that I posted here.

I hear you but maybe I am using the wrong term.

A suppressor does just that . it is designed to suppress the sound buy using baffles and some
type of filler (like Steel wool) to absorb sound.

What you are talking about re-directs the sound away from the shooter so it appears quieter
but in reality it is not much quieter and could not considered a suppressor.

J E CUSTOM

 

[TAC]

Why not go with a "clamp on" style muzzle brake? you can buy it or if you're into it build one of your own design. The advantage of a clamp on style brake is you can easily remove it in the field.

Here's a few from AI and one from Pete Lincoln (bottom) who's a member here.

this one has a single chamber and is reported to be very inefficient... but shows the single bolt mounting.

this is their new design.

This is the brake from Pete Lincoln.
http://http://www.webshop.roedale.de/product_info.php?info=p251_Muzzle-Break-C21.html

TAC

 

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Hello everyone,
I have mentioned that a friend of mine is selling me his Savage 116 rifle.
He said the barrel is ported which would help with the recoil.
I've read this thread and a few others and none seem to talk about what i see in the picture of the rifle my friend sent me.

That is taken from the full picture, showing only the end of the barrel.
Anyone have an opinion on what you see ?

Here is the full picture:

I am a bit confused about all this as it doesn't look anything like what you folks have been talking about.

 

[Bart B]

If you'll be shooting NRA long range matches at bullseye targets, muzzle breaks are not allowed.

And if it's raining, most of them will shoot less accurate as the rain drops in them deflect bullets.

Note also that the recoil that makes hard kicking rifles hard to shoot happens before the bullet exits the muzzle. It's the back thrust while the bullet goes down the barrel that moves the barrel off where it was pointed when the firing pin fired the round. After the bullet leaves and the jet effect causes most of the recoil, it doesn't matter.

 

[Richard Owl Mirror]

If you'll be shooting NRA long range matches at bullseye targets, muzzle breaks are not allowed.

And if it's raining, most of them will shoot less accurate as the rain drops in them deflect bullets.

Note also that the recoil that makes hard kicking rifles hard to shoot happens before the bullet exits the muzzle. It's the back thrust while the bullet goes down the barrel that moves the barrel off where it was pointed when the firing pin fired the round. After the bullet leaves and the jet effect causes most of the recoil, it doesn't matter.

Bart, I'm in the 'GUNS for DUMMIES' category. And my body is broken down so much, I am not even sure I'll be able to go hunting. So, NO I won't be 'shooting NRA long range matches at bullseye targets' anytime soon ;>}

My friends are encouraging me to join them this hunting season.
I've never owned or shot a gun and I'm 55.
It's not a matter of dislike or liking a ported barrel, regarding this porting on the rifle. My friend says out of the rifles he has, this one would offer the lessor recoil in a caliber able to be used for both deer & elk.
I'm more interested in not having recoil damaging my shoulder any more than it already is. And to be truthful, besides maybe having a nice rack as a trophy.
(If I'm lucky)
I plan on donating all meat to the Meals on Wheels Program in my hometown.
I know I have to have a cert. butcher process it before they can accept the meat but, they have done so much for me and many others I want to return the favor.

If I can fill one of their freezers, simply by going through this effort. The cost of the rifle, recoil pads, Knife, License & some type of Ear Protection, Plus the Processing fees. It will be worth the effort (to me).

There is so much wildlife around here yet, most folks naturally keep it for themselves. That is really the only reason I'm doing any of this.

Thanks for the info though !