Muzzle brakes...

[25WSM]

I've used several Gentry's quiet brakes and they are very slightly less concussive to me. I still have one on my 300wsm that only has the ports on the sides. It's recoil reduction is plenty but not on par with the extreme hardcore brakes I normally put on bigger recoil rifles. I stopped using extreme hardcore brakes when Harrels came out with the tactical brake. Half the cost and works great.
Don't be fooled by the price the Harrels brakes work perfectly fine.
Shep

 

[25WSM]

Anyone here use the Badger fte brake. According to the test it has a good Ballance of recoil reduction and noise. And it's got very similar ports to the Harrels tactical which cost 1/4 the money.
Shep

 

[Tulsa Reiner]

Interesting. Wouldn't that increase recoil?

I would say, Yes. You can't have your cake (recoil reduction), and eat it too (reduced muzzle blast noise).

 

[Rich Coyle]

I thought I posted this before, but can't find it. But then I don't seem to be able to make "search" work. The text explains the same brake forward and reverse ports.


12/6/14 60* brake with four angled slots at about 15 1/2degree threaded on both ends

Today I used the Weatherby Mark V ultralight six lug action without the scope. It has a Pac-Nor 26" barrel. The rifle weighs 5 lb 10oz. The load consisted of .270 Winchester cases necked down and blown out leaving about 3/16" neck. H4831 from WW2 @ 65.0 grains was ignited by a Federal 215 Magnum primer. The average velocity for the eighty-five grain G.S.Custom bullets was slightly over 3,800 feet per second. I fired three shots with each setup to verify the free recoil travel information generated.

Without a brake:

14 7/8"
14 5/16"
14 5/16"
Average - 14 ½"

With the brake installed so the ports angled toward the front:

4 5/8"
4 7/8"
4 7/8"
Average - 4 13/16"

reduction – 66.8%


With the brake installed so the ports angled toward the rear:

3"
3 ¼"
3 5/16"
Average - 3 3/16"

Reduction – 78%

Reduction - 51% better than angled forward

I have no idea how these numbers would compare to a free hanging rifle with a way to record its travel. But at least we can see a pattern developing.

 

[asd9055]

I thought I posted this before, but can't find it. But then I don't seem to be able to make "search" work. The text explains the same brake forward and reverse ports.


12/6/14 60* brake with four angled slots at about 15 1/2degree threaded on both ends

Today I used the Weatherby Mark V ultralight six lug action without the scope. It has a Pac-Nor 26" barrel. The rifle weighs 5 lb 10oz. The load consisted of .270 Winchester cases necked down and blown out leaving about 3/16" neck. H4831 from WW2 @ 65.0 grains was ignited by a Federal 215 Magnum primer. The average velocity for the eighty-five grain G.S.Custom bullets was slightly over 3,800 feet per second. I fired three shots with each setup to verify the free recoil travel information generated.

Without a brake:

14 7/8"
14 5/16"
14 5/16"
Average - 14 ½"

With the brake installed so the ports angled toward the front:

4 5/8"
4 7/8"
4 7/8"
Average - 4 13/16"

reduction – 66.8%


With the brake installed so the ports angled toward the rear:

3"
3 ¼"
3 5/16"
Average - 3 3/16"

Reduction – 78%

Reduction - 51% better than angled forward

I have no idea how these numbers would compare to a free hanging rifle with a way to record its travel. But at least we can see a pattern developing.

This makes sense to me. I expect any ports to reduce recoil and I would expect reward ports have greater effect than forward pointed. Just need to find the right balance between recoil and sound

 

[J E Custom]

I have seen one guy that had what looked like a suppressor on his rifle but the end was open and it didn't have any baffles . He said there was no reduction in recoil that it just channeled the sound and gas's forward more for use under the roof over the benches for his and others benefit . That was interesting to me . I wonder what would the out come of putting a shield around a brake be like ?

Some machine guns had a funnel on the muzzle to do just that It worked like a megaphone to concentrate sound forward to prevent sound from exiting the muzzle at 90 o and reduces the sound intensity for the shooter.

J E CUSTOM

 

[asd9055]

T

Some machine guns had a funnel on the muzzle to do just that It worked like a megaphone to concentrate sound forward to prevent sound from exiting the muzzle at 90 o and reduces the sound intensity for the shooter.

J E CUSTOM

that is what the Bren had. Never thought of why

 

[41magnut]

I have a suppressor in the works and have for the better part of 8 months now...
I ordered this one for my hunting rig. I'm not sure it's suitable for my rifle with the brake/concussion issues I've mentioned above. Anybody have any real life experience with a suppressor that can hold up and is intended for the magnums?

Been a while since I shopped for one, but vast majority of suppressors are full-auto rated, and manufacturer will list the maximum caliber the suppressor is rated for i.e. 300WM 338 Lapua ect. Barring a baffle strike, or shooting a 338 through a 30 cal can, I don't see how one could ever wear out a suppressor on a hunting rifle, bolt gun or semi auto.

 

[DSheetz]

I have seen on this site where some cans cracked . If they have built in stress raisers such as square corners in the engraving of the manufactures name and serial number and such when they grow with the sudden raise in pressure and temperature during use they may fail or crack at these stress points . Other then that there aren't many parts to fail in most of the suppressors I've looked at they are pretty simple designs without moving parts to reduce the temperature , pressure and expanding gas's to the point that the shock waves don't create sonic booms or cracks when exiting the muzzle .

 

[Doublezranch]

These muzzle brake threads always get the energy going!!

I do have several and tried several brakes. Vías to prototypes people have made and all of them work. Lots of incredible information on this thread from trusted members who never give up on making products better.

I enjoy shooting large bore rifles and have many of them. Since I have bilateral reverse total shoulders, a muzzle brake is a must for me.

There is a brake that I know of that is as effective as they claim. The reason I know is because I witnessed my kids (my oldest and middle were 14 when they received their rifles) shoot a 378 Weatherby Improved (135 grains of powder and 396 hammer), a 340 Weatherby Improved with (110 grains of powder and 236 hammer) fireform 30 rounds each without a flinch. They love shooting their rifles.

My thought is if a brake can allow two 14 year olds to enjoy shooting rifles that many adults are scared of, that is enough proof for me.


Jayson

 

[Pdvdh]

It's hard to conceive of any credible criticism of the Muzzle Brakes & More testing apparatus, for purposes of direct comparison of the reduction in rearward force (recoil reduction) of the various muzzle brakes on the individual test rifles.

The method doesn't separate out the multiple recoil reduction design factors that could be in-play on the various muzzle brakes. Do I care about that? Not really, other than for the sake of curiosity. I don't feel the need to know the minutiae of cause and effect for my purposes. The test apparatus informs me of the comparative recoil reduction of the various brakes tested, no matter the manufacturers claims, or other users claims. Just the final result captured in a simple, straightforward, unbiased demonstration of comparative recoil reduction.

I wish such a simple demonstration of the accuracy of factory rifles, or custom rifles, were available. Would make rifle shopping so much simpler. Of course, many more factors are in-play when it comes to the average accuracy of a rifle. Comparative muzzle brake efficiency, on the other hand, is quite handily displayed with a straightforward video, such as those provided by Muzzle Brakes & More.

I eagerly await Nathan's next round of videos, comparing another slew of muzzle brakes as tested side by side. It may not be the equivalent of Paul Harvey's "The Rest of the Story", but it's all of the Story I need, prior to purchasing my next muzzle brake.

When it comes to pressure wave blast and perceived decibel levels causing headaches, I'm afraid no such simple test will ever exist. I've got a MB&M 5-port brake on my 338 Rogue. Never experienced a headache from shooting it. On the other hand, I have suffered headaches from excessive recoil in the past, from a 7lb 375 Weatherby. 1st shot was punishing. 2nd shot no better. 3rd shot I'd had my fill of fun. 5 minutes later came the headache. Never shot it again, until a Muscle brake was installed. End of headaches. So I consider myself fortunate that I don't (so far) suffer from sound wave induced headaches. Would take all the fun out of it, for sure. And be cause to purchase a suppressor.

 

[Rich Coyle]

phorwath,

I can almost relate to your headache. But mine was flinching. Forty years ago I had a .30-378 Weatherby wildcat in a sort of light rifle. This is before I discovered brakes. I could fire two three shot groups but began to flinch on the third group. I traded it for a .30-06.