To Muzzle Brake or not to Muzzle Brake

[300magman]

So would a brake with the ports facing roughly 45 degrees forward be far quieter than a brake with ports facing straight sideways?
I believe I saw something like that one this site while doing a search.

Not that you can really put a number on the effectiveness of a brake, but there are companies that do claim reductions of 50% or more. Assuming that is Roughly true, that is a LOT of recoil reduction. So a brake design that faced 45 degrees forward, even if only half as effective, would still make a very noticeable recoil reduction of 25% (again, not that you can really put a # on it, but I need some way to make comparisons)
This is just uneducated theory, but if that is the trade off, I personally think I would be much happier with the less effective, but quieter brake.


Anyone care to weigh in on whether or not things really do work that way in practice?

 

[woods]

Personally I don't like muzzle brakes much but realize their advantages. Presently only have one gun with sorta a muzzle brake that was cut into the barrel on a rebarrel on a 338RUM

really muzzle porting. That gun weighs 11# all up and I installed 2 recoil compensators in the stock

and it kicks like a 300 win mag and no one complains on the adjacent benches about blast.

I have had in the past 2 rifles with Briley Brakes

which look good and have the slots closest to the shooter slanted forward like you were talking about. The recoil reduction was not as much as on some other brakes but it was not as noisy and did not blow that puff of wind in your face like some do.

My 375 Ruger is a recoil monster but I had it made as a heavy gun with a #5 contour 24" barrel and a Knoxx stock which has a butt that compresses against a spring and really reduces the recoil

again like shooting a 300 win mag. Just need to make sure and get a scope with 6" eye relief.

I like being able to shoot in the field without worrying about ringing my ears if I don't have my protection on.

Just some ideas

 

[ken snyder]

I can put actual numbers and reason to it. The angles of the ports do make a difference, However the design is the most critical and design is a trade off. The 2 items of trade are recoil stopping effectiveness and the other is noise. I have tested brakes useing a recoil sled. From my personal but not the Gospel testing I found that about 25 - 30 percent reduction yields the best compromise between felt recoil and noise. But recoil reduction in itself as a percentage of reduction can not be used as an indication of how loud the brake is. The trick is to direct the shock wave as much as possible forward, while haveing as much of the energy from the gas oppose itself, about half of the recoil energy is from the charge weight and its escapeing velocity, the other half is from the bullet. Multi- chamber brakes can also act as a resonator and reduce the pictch as a high frequency ear splitter, The difference being about the same as haveing a whistle blown in your ear or ha eing someone shout in your ear. The good news is that maximum recoil stoppers are inexpsnsive, The bad news is the quiter brakes are not, and require the rifle to be sent to the patent holding manufacturer. -- I am not one of those people, I pay the same price as everybody else. I do not wear hearing protection while hunting and insist that the brake used will not leave me half deaf for 5 minutes after shooting.

 

[barthmonster]

7mm Remington Ultra Mag with brake.

I would never shoot a session at the range without good hearing protection. I was hunting a couple years ago and spotted a doe on the move at close range and had no time to do anything except release the safety and shoot. Being surrounded by trees, etc. must have absorbed the sound, I don't remember any ringing in my ears or anything.

Not that it was good for my ears I just noticed no ill effects...

I love the muzzle-brake. Before the brake, it sucked shooting at the range.