I agree there are other advantages to using a muzzle brake then just recoil reduction.
While many say that the noise of dramatically louder with a brake, I feel, for the shooter, it really is not a great deal more.
Most who really hate muzzle brakes are those that have been off to the side of a rifle when it was fired and they got the full brunt of the brake.
I have been using brakes on rifle and handcannons for years and have never had a problem with ringing my ears in the field.
I can not say the same for my big bore revolvers that I hunt with. In my opinion, these are much harder on the ears then any muzzle brake.
From the number of brakes I machine a year, for everyone that goes out, I generally get two more come in from guys that have shot the braked rifle and now se no reason to put up with the beating of an unbraked magnum.
There is also another advantage to using a brake. If any of you have doen load testing at 1000 yards and had a spotter sit up near the target in a protected location while you shoot and report your groups over radios.
If you have ever been the target watcher, you know the different sound a braked rifle makes compared to a bare muzzle.
I discovered this while shooting the 50 BMG. My father wanted to try a few pulls at 1000 yards so I when up and spotted his hits.
Upon firing, at least when the sound finally reached my position, it sounded like he was shooting through a muffler. There was no crack at all to the blast and it was almost quite at 1000 yards.
Comparing that to other rifles such as my 300 RUM that produces a much more noticable crack and instead of a soft BOOM, it is a loud crack.
This really means little to the big game hunter but for predator hunters that may set up ambush sites every mile or so and call yotes, this can make a real difference.
I am not saying that the yotes will not hear the rifle with a brake, only that they are not as spooked by it because of its lower intensity crack.
Good Shooting!!!
50