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
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Which is the best all round of these 3
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="Rich Coyle" data-source="post: 1168594" data-attributes="member: 70559"><p>From lots of tests with a recoil slide, I can tell you positively if the ports don't angle rearward the brake is not as good as it could be for reducing recoil.</p><p></p><p>I made one with threads on both ends for a novel test. What the tests proved beyond argument is even with the ports forward facing they are way better than no brake.</p><p></p><p>I took the Savage with a Midway fluted 24" barrel chambered in .257 Weatherby. With no scope it weighs 6 lbs 5.5 oz. The load was Barnes TTSX 80 grain bullets pushed by 73.0 grains of IMR7828. The primer was a Federal 215 Magnum. The temperature was about 45 degrees. I fired three shots of each test. Instead of resetting the rifle back to the start after each shot I fired each subsequent shot where it stopped to get a<strong> total distance for the three shots</strong> fired.</p><p></p><p>I used a brake with four .800" slots .100" apart that were cut with a 5/16" endmill angled 20 degrees .</p><p></p><p>With no brake the <strong>total travel</strong> in the free recoil slide was <strong>39 5/16</strong>". </p><p></p><p>With the slots facing forward the<strong> total for the three</strong> shots was <strong>11 1/2</strong>". </p><p></p><p>With the slots facing rearward the rifle moved a <strong>total </strong>of <strong>4 9/16</strong>". </p><p></p><p>Conclusion: And rearward facing slots are way better than forward facing slots.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Rich Coyle, post: 1168594, member: 70559"] From lots of tests with a recoil slide, I can tell you positively if the ports don't angle rearward the brake is not as good as it could be for reducing recoil. I made one with threads on both ends for a novel test. What the tests proved beyond argument is even with the ports forward facing they are way better than no brake. I took the Savage with a Midway fluted 24" barrel chambered in .257 Weatherby. With no scope it weighs 6 lbs 5.5 oz. The load was Barnes TTSX 80 grain bullets pushed by 73.0 grains of IMR7828. The primer was a Federal 215 Magnum. The temperature was about 45 degrees. I fired three shots of each test. Instead of resetting the rifle back to the start after each shot I fired each subsequent shot where it stopped to get a[B] total distance for the three shots[/B] fired. I used a brake with four .800" slots .100" apart that were cut with a 5/16" endmill angled 20 degrees . With no brake the [B]total travel[/B] in the free recoil slide was [b]39 5/16[/b]". With the slots facing forward the[B] total for the three[/B] shots was [b]11 1/2[/b]". With the slots facing rearward the rifle moved a [B]total [/B]of [b]4 9/16[/b]". Conclusion: And rearward facing slots are way better than forward facing slots. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Rifles, Bullets, Barrels & Ballistics
Which is the best all round of these 3
Top