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
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Can switching muzzle brakes change muzzle velocity??
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="J E Custom" data-source="post: 1232011" data-attributes="member: 2736"><p>There are several items that I would have to disagree with but to be fair I had much the same</p><p>beliefs before testing on a Autonomous test bed that did not care what kind of rifle or what style of brake was used. My theory was that the greater the port angle, the more back thrust it could develop and the more recoil reduction it could produce. we proved this to be wrong in testing two brakes with the same port volume and one with 60o port angles to the bore and the other 90o to the bore. much to my surprise the 90o brake performed better and had much less effect on the shooter a the spotter.</p><p></p><p>The problem we found with the angled ports being all the same was that the gasses were not managed and each port had its own signature creating separate shock waves and making the perceived sound and shock wave much greater. they also impacted the ground closer to the shooter</p><p>kicking up more debris. </p><p></p><p>I mentioned controlling/managing the gas more efficiently to minimize some of the negative effects</p><p>and we found that by allowing/designing the gasses to converge instead of all of them facing the same way they went farther away from the shooter and went subsonic farther away from the shooter making it more desirable to shoot and the perceived sound less. (But less desirable to your neighbor because the shock wave had more energy at distance).</p><p></p><p>The other thing we found was that none of the steep angled ported brakes exceeded 50 to 55% efficiency. most were 30 to 40% and that if you controlled the gasses to the optimum angle and converged them the efficiency went consistently from 60% to as much as 75% on some cartridges.</p><p></p><p>The other theory was that the bigger the bore the less efficient the brake could be. the real reason it proves true is the bullet to powder ratio is higher in the bullets favor increasing the inertial/bullet recoil with less powder to compensate for the increase in bullet weight. before testing, I thought it had something to do with the size of the bore hole allowing more gas to escape out the front making the brake less efficient. Turns out to be nothing more that the bullet to powder ratio that reduced the efficiency of the brake, not the bore size.</p><p></p><p>When I started trying to improve the design of muzzle brakes there was only "ONE" design that had tried to direct/control gas discharge (The muscle brake) And it was/is one of the best performers</p><p>tested. On some rifle/cartridge combinations so I was curious why it did not perform as well on other cartridges. The answer came when we discovered that "NO" brake design is efficient on all cartridges. So this is what lead to tuning a brake for optimum performance based on the cartridge</p><p>bullet to powder ratio. The down side to tuning, is that the brake has to be built for that cartridge</p><p>and load to reach 98 to 99% efficiently for the available gas.</p><p></p><p>Everything is important if you want to reach these efficiencies. Port volumes, angles, width, height, depth, number of ports, even the finish inside the brake has a large bearing on its ability to flow gases well.</p><p></p><p>I am glad to see some new designs appearing and the efficiency improving finally because at one time all that was required to make a brake was a piece of round stock with a bunch of holes drilled in it.</p><p></p><p>J E CUSTOM</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J E Custom, post: 1232011, member: 2736"] There are several items that I would have to disagree with but to be fair I had much the same beliefs before testing on a Autonomous test bed that did not care what kind of rifle or what style of brake was used. My theory was that the greater the port angle, the more back thrust it could develop and the more recoil reduction it could produce. we proved this to be wrong in testing two brakes with the same port volume and one with 60o port angles to the bore and the other 90o to the bore. much to my surprise the 90o brake performed better and had much less effect on the shooter a the spotter. The problem we found with the angled ports being all the same was that the gasses were not managed and each port had its own signature creating separate shock waves and making the perceived sound and shock wave much greater. they also impacted the ground closer to the shooter kicking up more debris. I mentioned controlling/managing the gas more efficiently to minimize some of the negative effects and we found that by allowing/designing the gasses to converge instead of all of them facing the same way they went farther away from the shooter and went subsonic farther away from the shooter making it more desirable to shoot and the perceived sound less. (But less desirable to your neighbor because the shock wave had more energy at distance). The other thing we found was that none of the steep angled ported brakes exceeded 50 to 55% efficiency. most were 30 to 40% and that if you controlled the gasses to the optimum angle and converged them the efficiency went consistently from 60% to as much as 75% on some cartridges. The other theory was that the bigger the bore the less efficient the brake could be. the real reason it proves true is the bullet to powder ratio is higher in the bullets favor increasing the inertial/bullet recoil with less powder to compensate for the increase in bullet weight. before testing, I thought it had something to do with the size of the bore hole allowing more gas to escape out the front making the brake less efficient. Turns out to be nothing more that the bullet to powder ratio that reduced the efficiency of the brake, not the bore size. When I started trying to improve the design of muzzle brakes there was only "ONE" design that had tried to direct/control gas discharge (The muscle brake) And it was/is one of the best performers tested. On some rifle/cartridge combinations so I was curious why it did not perform as well on other cartridges. The answer came when we discovered that "NO" brake design is efficient on all cartridges. So this is what lead to tuning a brake for optimum performance based on the cartridge bullet to powder ratio. The down side to tuning, is that the brake has to be built for that cartridge and load to reach 98 to 99% efficiently for the available gas. Everything is important if you want to reach these efficiencies. Port volumes, angles, width, height, depth, number of ports, even the finish inside the brake has a large bearing on its ability to flow gases well. I am glad to see some new designs appearing and the efficiency improving finally because at one time all that was required to make a brake was a piece of round stock with a bunch of holes drilled in it. J E CUSTOM [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Can switching muzzle brakes change muzzle velocity??
Top