Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Testing APS PainKiller muzzle brake
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Fiftydriver" data-source="post: 211054" data-attributes="member: 10"><p>Most impressive test proceedure, the old addage still stands true, in most cases the simplier the better and in this case that is certainly true.</p><p> </p><p>For those wanting the dimensions of Painkiller brakes as far as across the flats, the large 5 port is right around 1.000", the medium 3 port is roughly 0.850" and the soon to be released small 3 port will be roughly 0.725" across the flats.</p><p> </p><p>I would like to add a bit to give some perspective to the performance of the large PK brake on ss7mms rifle. He contacted me about wanting to try one of these brakes on his rifle to test it against the Holland QD brake that was already on his rifle. I would also like to state that he paid for the brake so he could remain and offer an unbiased report on the results that would be credible.</p><p> </p><p>In talking with him I made it clear that the big 5 port PK was designed specifically for use with my 408 based wildcats or any other chambering of similiar case capacity and expansion ratio. The port sizes are designed as such to work best with a case capacity of roughly 130-150 grains of powder in the class of H-50BMG.</p><p> </p><p>As such, they are really oversized for the class of chambering that this rifle has which is the 7mm AM with a roughly 100-110 gr powder capacity. I really had no idea how it would perform with this class of case capacity but I was just as curious to try it out and see how it worked with the smaller then intended case capacity.</p><p> </p><p>When I finished the conversion, I was very happy with the results. Not surprised that it worked as expected but very happy with what I was feeling on my shoulder compared to the very well estabilished Holland QD brake.</p><p> </p><p>While I did not free recoil test the rifle I did shoot the rifle with air between my shoulder and the recoil pad with both brakes. You will say that is free recoiling but I made sure my shoulder was positioned close enough so that the recoil pad would contact my shoulder long before I was introduced to mister NXS!!!</p><p> </p><p>In shooting the rifle, and perhaps Dick can add to this some, I also noticed a dramatic difference in how the gas was vented off the muzzle. Certainly the back rake angle on the ports dramatically redirects the venting gas but I was suprised at the difference in the apparent velocity of the venting gas. </p><p> </p><p>With the Holland, the gas plume was instantly there at the shot. With the Painkiller, it seemed that the gas volume flowed out of the ports MUCH more slowly, in fact after the shot remaining gas could be seen exiting the brake long after the shot was released.</p><p> </p><p>I believe this is caused by two things, the main one being that the ports are simply larger then need be for this capacity of chambering. Had the ports been reduced from 3/8" width down to around 1/4" width, the venting gas would have been forced out of the brake at a much higher velocity then it is. That may or may not add to the effectiveness of the recoil reduction.</p><p> </p><p>Two, on the internal design of the PK brake, there are sharp wedges at the top and bottom of each bore hole. Wanted something that would SHAVE the venting gas and redirect as much as possible away from the base of the bullet. The theory here is that there would be very little if any turbulance ahead of the bullet as it passed through the ports. With the 30 degree back rake on the ports, if there was no diverting wedges, I believe that the venting gas would be directed directly ahead of the bullet which would create turbulance. Is this a fact, I did not test it to see but from what I have seen so far, accuracy is extremely good with these brake. On my 300 AX rifle, the rifle shot much better after the PK brake was installed then before. When I say much better, I am saying average groups were around 0.47 moa at 100 yards before and averaged 0.35 moa after with the 240 gr SMK. Noticable, measureable difference. </p><p></p><p>This added level of accuracy may simple be from the added weight at the end of the muzzle dampening barrel harmonics but simply put, they seem to help.</p><p> </p><p>Now some will say this is really not a fair comparision simply because of the size of the Painkiller compared to the Holland QD. That is true, the QD does extremely well for its size, no arguement here. The PK brake was designed for one purpose and that is to reduce recoil as much as possible while staying relatively attractive in appearance. So far, the design seems to be working as expected!!</p><p> </p><p>Thanks for the report Dick, hope your happy and let us know how the rifle performs as far as being able to spot your hits down range.</p><p> </p><p>Kirby Allen(50)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Fiftydriver, post: 211054, member: 10"] Most impressive test proceedure, the old addage still stands true, in most cases the simplier the better and in this case that is certainly true. For those wanting the dimensions of Painkiller brakes as far as across the flats, the large 5 port is right around 1.000", the medium 3 port is roughly 0.850" and the soon to be released small 3 port will be roughly 0.725" across the flats. I would like to add a bit to give some perspective to the performance of the large PK brake on ss7mms rifle. He contacted me about wanting to try one of these brakes on his rifle to test it against the Holland QD brake that was already on his rifle. I would also like to state that he paid for the brake so he could remain and offer an unbiased report on the results that would be credible. In talking with him I made it clear that the big 5 port PK was designed specifically for use with my 408 based wildcats or any other chambering of similiar case capacity and expansion ratio. The port sizes are designed as such to work best with a case capacity of roughly 130-150 grains of powder in the class of H-50BMG. As such, they are really oversized for the class of chambering that this rifle has which is the 7mm AM with a roughly 100-110 gr powder capacity. I really had no idea how it would perform with this class of case capacity but I was just as curious to try it out and see how it worked with the smaller then intended case capacity. When I finished the conversion, I was very happy with the results. Not surprised that it worked as expected but very happy with what I was feeling on my shoulder compared to the very well estabilished Holland QD brake. While I did not free recoil test the rifle I did shoot the rifle with air between my shoulder and the recoil pad with both brakes. You will say that is free recoiling but I made sure my shoulder was positioned close enough so that the recoil pad would contact my shoulder long before I was introduced to mister NXS!!! In shooting the rifle, and perhaps Dick can add to this some, I also noticed a dramatic difference in how the gas was vented off the muzzle. Certainly the back rake angle on the ports dramatically redirects the venting gas but I was suprised at the difference in the apparent velocity of the venting gas. With the Holland, the gas plume was instantly there at the shot. With the Painkiller, it seemed that the gas volume flowed out of the ports MUCH more slowly, in fact after the shot remaining gas could be seen exiting the brake long after the shot was released. I believe this is caused by two things, the main one being that the ports are simply larger then need be for this capacity of chambering. Had the ports been reduced from 3/8" width down to around 1/4" width, the venting gas would have been forced out of the brake at a much higher velocity then it is. That may or may not add to the effectiveness of the recoil reduction. Two, on the internal design of the PK brake, there are sharp wedges at the top and bottom of each bore hole. Wanted something that would SHAVE the venting gas and redirect as much as possible away from the base of the bullet. The theory here is that there would be very little if any turbulance ahead of the bullet as it passed through the ports. With the 30 degree back rake on the ports, if there was no diverting wedges, I believe that the venting gas would be directed directly ahead of the bullet which would create turbulance. Is this a fact, I did not test it to see but from what I have seen so far, accuracy is extremely good with these brake. On my 300 AX rifle, the rifle shot much better after the PK brake was installed then before. When I say much better, I am saying average groups were around 0.47 moa at 100 yards before and averaged 0.35 moa after with the 240 gr SMK. Noticable, measureable difference. This added level of accuracy may simple be from the added weight at the end of the muzzle dampening barrel harmonics but simply put, they seem to help. Now some will say this is really not a fair comparision simply because of the size of the Painkiller compared to the Holland QD. That is true, the QD does extremely well for its size, no arguement here. The PK brake was designed for one purpose and that is to reduce recoil as much as possible while staying relatively attractive in appearance. So far, the design seems to be working as expected!! Thanks for the report Dick, hope your happy and let us know how the rifle performs as far as being able to spot your hits down range. Kirby Allen(50) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Testing APS PainKiller muzzle brake
Top