Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Videos Of Tech Stuff And Reviews' started by J E Custom, Nov 11, 2013.
Wow! Fantastic video, truly informative and to the point. Thanks for caring to share with us.
For some reason, the link would not open so I re copied it so everyone could review it.
J E CUSTOM
Interesting video. There is obviously a down ward force, but did you take into account the front rest flexing and possibly not the barrel? Would a heavier barrel stop the flex? Can you break a wood stock with a brake? Thanks for sharing.
The front rest did not move and we even moved the straps to make sure they were not contributing any. the lighter the barrel, the greater the flexing. the heavier barrels started flexing the stocks(The weaker of the two). While holding the rifle off hand, flexing was less because you could not hold the rifle perfectly level, and your body allowed the rifle to move so much that slow motion could not measure it well, but it still occurred.
What started all of this testing was a little 5.6 pound rifle in 338 RCM that
getting a follow up shot on multiple animals was impossible because the rifle climb almost 90o every time I fired it off hand (Standing) so the first chance I got, I installed a good top ported brake hoping to solve the problem.
The next time I went hunting, I got a chance to try it out on three coyotes. This time all I could see after each shot was the ground and one of the coyotes got away because I could not acquire him fast enough.
So the testing began. And the results are very plain in slow motion to me.
Also a lot of my time has been spent replacing or repairing broken stocks. and armed with this information I started noticing a large percentage of broken stocks had a top port brake install and most of these were broken while firing the rifle ether off a rest or from a blind.
Most of the rifles with this problem are magnum rifles with heavy barrels that transfer the down force to the stock.
This would explain many of the broken stocks that I assumed were broken out of miss handling (Some were dropped from great heights and some were simply ran over with a vehicle, but some were well taken care of and in great condition).
J E CUSTOM
Holy cow. I never thought of that. That is some serious flex action! That video was really good JE. Well done my friend.
Did you happen to test a radial port brake with holes spaced evenly around the circumference? After seeing this video I wonder if the radial brake would be more accurate?
We did test many different types of radials and found that as long as they had apposing ports we could see no flexing or torqueing. Radial brakes with un-apposing ports did react differently depending on the direction of the ports. Some of the ports were closer to the top of the brake than to the bottom in an attempt to lower muzzle rise and they had the same effect as the drilled top ports, but just not as prominent and some barrel flexing still existed.
As far as accuracy difference, It appeared that as long as the ports were apposing the accuracy was unaffected because the bullet had left the barrel before any of the flexing had a chance to effect the bullet flight. But the constant flexing of the barrel and subsequent shifting of the action in the stock did effect the accuracy.
In most cases the brake has more effect on the shooter than the rifle except for the constant pounding of the stock. (rifles are designed to recoil backwards and when down force is added, it can change The dynamics of the design) we did find that rifles that shot really well with a apposing port brake did not fair as well as it did with an unbalanced/unopposed ported brake using the same ammo.
So to answer your question, If any brake is well designed with no added
dynamics whether it is a side port or a radial design there is no apparent advantage in accuracy. the type of brake has more impact on the type of shooting it is being used for.
J E CUSTOM
That is awesome video and some great info to have. Thanks!!