300WBY: Replace Muzzle Ports with Brake?

[Dr. Vette]

I prepared two 300 Wby Mark V stainless rifles for a moose hunt last year. One was 26" plus muzzle brake, the other 26" with Mag-Na-
ports. Those don't have as many holes as the OP's ported rifle, but you get the idea.

Both shoot the same 180TTSX load at 3210 fps. Zero difference, repeatedly.

I suspect that differences in barrels may cause more variation in fps than the porting vs muzzle brake in the case of my two rifles. In the end, I surely would not cut down the barrel of the ported one because I was worried about velocity loss.

 

[DarryH]

Keep the ports. They are very effective and velocity loss is very little. By cutting the barrel back behind the ports you lose even more velocity. Anything threaded on is likely to come loose unless permanently attached, I can't see why you would mess with a perfectly good setup.

 

[jarnold37]

I guess it is a decision between a little less velocity or a little more recoil. In my situation, I usually have opted for maximum velocity, chambering most of my barrels at 30"-32" Even one at 36." But I have rechambered those barrels, losing 50-75 fps in velocity and have juggled with different powders to regain some of the velocity. But after the smoke cleared, I realize that 50 fps loss actually made little or no difference. But with a 100+ grain capacity case, losing the muzzle brake would make a big difference in recoil and comfortable shooting.

 

[Dean2]

I am of a different opinion than most on here. A quality brake almost always produces significantly more recoil reduction than any ported barrel design. They also produce far more noise, the more recoil reduction the more noise to the shooter and those near them, and hearing protection for even one shot is an absolute must. If your goal is maximum recoil abatement, cut it off and add a quality brake. Your other choice is to install a Mercury Suppressor in the stock and add a good recoil pad like the Falcon Strike. The amount of velocity loss is irrelavant in this equation.

https://falconstrike.ca/product/hydraulic-recoil-reduction-pad/

 

[FEENIX]

@MtnMann, I have shot rifles that are magnaported and they are nowhere as effective as a well-designed muzzle brake. An effective muzzle (and there's plenty of them) serves two purposes, a reduction in felt recoil and a reduction in muzzle rise. The latter is often not realized. Being able to spot your target on impact is priceless.

I do not think what you are losing in velocity how with the magnaporting is significant enough to matter if toy go with a muzzle brake. I agree with @Dean2, what you lose in velocity, you gain a reduction in felt recoil, not to mention the reduction in muzzle rise - something your dad would appreciate.

 

[jarnold37]

I am of a different opinion than most on here. A quality brake almost always produces significantly more recoil reduction than any ported barrel design. They also produce far more noise, the more recoil reduction the more noise to the shooter and those near them, and hearing protection for even one shot is an absolute must. If your goal is maximum recoil abatement, cut it off and add a quality brake. Your other choice is to install a Mercury Suppressor in the stock and add a good recoil pad like the Falcon Strike. The amount of velocity loss is irrelavant in this equation.

https://falconstrike.ca/product/hydraulic-recoil-reduction-pad/

I have come to the practice of never shooting any firearm without ear protection. Even when shooting a rimfire. Having a muzzle brake ensures that I will absolutely not shoot without ear protection. Kind of ironic; the fact that with a brake it is much louder to the shooter, makes it sure that my ears are always protected.

 

[FEENIX]

I have come to the practice of never shooting any firearm without ear protection. Even when shooting a rimfire. Having a muzzle brake ensures that I will absolutely not shoot without ear protection. Kind of ironic; the fact that with a brake it is much louder to the shooter, makes it sure that my ears are always protected.

I spent my 1st 10 years in the Air Force in aircraft generation without hearing loss because I used hearing protection. Some of my colleagues did not and they suffered from significant hearing loss/problems. I also use hearing protection when operating household equipment/tools that generate high noise levels such as a mower, snow blower, leaf blower, impact wrench, chainsaw, etc.