Is this a dumb idea?

I had a brake put on my AI, when it was built. Great for bench work. But, test fired it twice (yes I'm not very smart) without ear protection. I think that I used that s%b for a trout line sinker. Never (did I say never), will my hunting rifle wear a "weed burner"!!! Not even for bench work! I guess that I'm getting soft in my old age, I started using a PAST recoil shield about 2 or 3 years ago, for my bench work!! memtb

Having worked on a design to minimize all of the bad effects of brakes, I found that all brakes are not created equal and perform in many different ways based on there design.

All brakes are loud and you need to wear ear protection, BUT Ear protection should be worn at all times while shooting a high powdered rifle because the lowest DB we found was 105 db and the loudest was 108 db the safe level is around 85 db.

Also some brakes direct the muzzle blast backward at up to 45o and they play havoc on your ears even though the Sound levels (DB) are no higher than a rifle without a brake, it just directs the sound backwards at the shooter.

Muzzle brakes are not for everyone But they do have there place and they allow recoil sensitive people to shoot much more powerful cartridges more accurately.

J E CUSTOM
 
I just can't get into hunting with ear protection while hunting, although I should. Though is already late, I always wear ear protection when working from bench. Started shooting in the 60's and we weren't educated enough at the time to realize the hazazrds. Between shooting (a lot) with a 4" . 357, racing motorcycles,and 40 years in industry, I'm a little weak in the hearing department. memtb
 
I think I figured out what path I want to take. I want to find a rem 700 in 338 win. Load up some barnes or accubond and start there. Considering the idea of looking ammo while traveling, the 338 makes sense. If I shoot some animals and find I still want the 358 norma, I'm a barrel swap away. I still am going for the lightweight build idea though. Carbon fiber stock and No brake.
 
Hopefully the hearing protection act will get passed in the coming years and we can simply just get cans for our rifles and pistols like buying a jug of milk at the store...am I being overly optimistic??
 

Attachments

  • 1g63la.jpg
    1g63la.jpg
    52.2 KB · Views: 58
I just can't get into hunting with ear protection while hunting, although I should. Though is already late, I always wear ear protection when working from bench. Started shooting in the 60's and we weren't educated enough at the time to realize the hazazrds. Between shooting (a lot) with a 4" . 357, racing motorcycles,and 40 years in industry, I'm a little weak in the hearing department. memtb
Get a set of electronics and wear them around your neck. You shouldn't be shooting a gun without it braked or not anyway. I'm deaf as a post too and I love my muffs now.
 
IDK if its dumb or not but it is INSANE. I don't want anything to do with that kinda HP out of a 10lb rifle with a brake much less 7lb WITHOUT. Heck if you are that tough I don't think most bears would wanna mess with you anyway.
I don't like recoil. Used to and then I discovered brakes and weight and 338s.

Some of the stuff I see guys sighting in to deer hunt with makes me cringe. Sporter weight 7 mags and 300 WM make me glad I shoot heavy stuff. Of course I hunt out of a truck so......

Dang deer are tuff man! Gotta have something to punch through their armor plate!!:rolleyes::cool:
 
I have read this thread several nights and thought some on this project. I have a rifle I bought in about 1993. As a suggestion.
338 WM 700 SS Remington. With the factory plastic stock it seemed to flex and get a running lick at your shoulder. I replaced the original stock with a H&S Precision with the Aluminum bedding bar. This stock cut the recoil till to me it is tolerable. The Nosler Part., Swift A-Frame or Barnes or Hornady one piece 225 gr. or heavier .338 bullet is hard to beat at any distance. With 3X9 Leopold and Nylon sling, 4 shells around 9 1/4 lb. Good Luck in your choice, Happy Hunting.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.
Top