Just to be clear, I like muzzle brakes and have them on several of my big magnum rifles.

They are extremely effective at reducing recoil. I don't find them ugly (at least not mine, which are all "slim-line" designs); I can't imagine how they would weaken a rifle in any manner; and I find them very easy to clean.

But all of my muzzle brakes are also removable and replaceable with a threaded cap for field use. Muzzle brakes should be used only for bench work, and then only with ear plugs and ear muffs in place. Not for hunting.

One more time for those who use muzzle brakes while hunting, a/k/a the hearing impaired:

MUZZLE BRAKES SHOULD BE USED ONLY FOR BENCH WORK, AND THEN ONLY WITH EAR PLUGS AND EAR MUFFS IN PLACE. NOT WHILE HUNTING.

Unless, of course, as a hunter, you are already deaf or willing to go deaf sooner for the sake of recoil reduction and you don't care about the second-hand deafness you are inflicting on others who hunt with you.

As for notmenotnow's question, I am generally familiar with the firearms/hunting laws of several, but admittedly not all, African jurisdictions, and I have never seen any reference to a ban on the use of muzzle brakes in any of them.

quote:

Originally posted by DB Bill:
I have one of these on my Lazzeroni Patriot and a friend's 300 Weatherby without a brake is noticably louder.

http://www.muzzlebrakes.com/

From the F.A.Q. page at Vais Arms Inc.;

“Q. What makes the Vais brake quieter than other brakes?

A. Our Vais brake has eight small holes drilled from the muzzle of the brake. These holes are drilled through all of the cross ports and terminate in a small expansion chamber just ahead of the barrel muzzle. This configuration very effectively vents most of the noise and concussion away from the shooter.â€

Their brake isn’t one bit quieter than any other brake. Just read the last sentence where it says “This configuration very effectively vents most of the noise and concussion away from the shooter.â€. All they do is redirect the noise away from the shooter which means those around you get the blast directed at them. And even with ear plugs and Walker’s Quad Muffs on the blast feels like your head expands when someone cuts loose with a brake equipped rifle. Been there and done that with two different shooters. There is a club member that has a .300 Weatherby with a Vais brake on it and it’s muzzle blast IS WAY worse than either of my .300 Weatherby’s. Lawdog

Well, gee, Lawdog, your dislike of muzzle brakes has clouded your reasoning ability.

You wrote regarding Vais' brake: "Their brake isn’t one bit quieter than any other brake."

Nor is it or any other brake LOUDER than the muzzle blast. What they and we are discussing is loudness for the shooter. No brake makes noise, it just redirects the noise and gas so that it is louder for the shooter in return for less recoil. Vais's are apparently quieter (that is the shooter hears less decibels when the gun is fired) to the shooter's ears than some other designs which is exactly their point.

All you seem to be saying is that MBs are loud(actually they are not loud, the energy from the powder burn is loud, all they do is redirect the resulting sound) and not for shooting in crowds. Duh. Thanks for the insight. I mean, if you don't like the guy's brake, step back 3 feet and it will be quieter TO YOUR EARS than your unbraked gun, assuming the same caliber, when you are shooting it.

I don't have a problem with people not using brakes, that's their choice. I don't like recoil for the fun of it, that's my choice. All you guys who claim to know so much about recoil haven't spent much time around competitive shotgun shooters. Recoil is a cumulative effect and can and in many cases will damage your shooting ability if you continue to abuse your body with it. Speaking for myself, I can stand not hearing very well, I can't stand not shooting well.

Personally, when hunting, if I was in a guided situation, I wouldn't use a brake or I'd tell him to cover his ears. Since most of my hunting is unguided I intend to use my .300 with brake whenever I feel like carrying it. I have shot it quite a few times without protection and it is indeed loud but not the death wave that some on here would have you believe. However, my hearing is shot from shooting long before now and long before the earmuffs/stoppers became widespread, so I'm not too worried about damaging it a bit more. The way some of you guys act, you seem to think you're going to be the same at 70 as you are/were at 30. A few of you seem to think that you're going to get out of this world alive. All you have to do is not smoke, not use muzzle brakes, not eat too much bad cholestrol, and not marry too many women. Sheeeit......Here come's Santa Claus.

Well notmenotnow, can you get some definitive information from Chuck Hawks? Like what African jurisdictions he's referring to. This is a new one to me and I'm sure to others on this forum. Thanks-

John

The idea that all brakes create louder noise for the shooter is not universally shared. No doubt many of them do, with the BOSS system being the worst I've ever been around. I mentioned in an earlier post that BP-Tec says that they have a brake that does not increase the sound to the shooter. I have one and would agree with their claims. From my experience, the claim that all brakes are bad just doesn't hold water. The designer of this BP brake is Rick Herbert. If you doubt his claims or want to know how it works, I suggest you call him. His number is at the bottom of his explantion below.

Here is part of Rick's explantion of how brakes work, including his which does not increase the noise level:


Muzzle brakes come in all shapes and sizes. They all work to some degree. They all use the same principle of spent gas. Modern rifles operate in the 30,000 to 100,000 psi range, depending on barrel length and the amount of powder being used. By the time the bullet exits the barrel there is residual gas that is actually traveling faster than the bullet, but since the gas has little mass it doesn’t go very far. With simple porting, you can cut small ports in the barrel near the muzzle and if they are correctly located and the correct size they will vent high pressure gas for a short period of time and push the muzzle down. These don’t do much for recoil, but they do help muzzle flip. This is translated to less recoil due to less muzzle flip, but you cant fool Mr. Newton, the motion is still rearward and all you are really doing is keeping it in the same plane (straight back).



Holes in a "round-pipe" screw-on device are also very popular, as anyone with a lathe can thread the barrel, take a piece of round stock and drill a hole close to the diameter of the bore, then drill tiny little holes through to the bore from the outside. This allows the gas to strike the bottom of the holes and vent through the holes. This type of device works somewhat to reduce recoil; it doesn’t generally do much for muzzle flip. The byproduct of this type of device is noise. The gas is divided over a larger field and since sound is pressure, it increases the noise. Modern firearms operate in the 160+ db range, by increasing the area that produces the pressure, the increase can be as much a 6 to 9 db (every 3 db is double the sound pressure) “What was that you said?†can be a recurring problem if you shoot with this type of brake.



Baffle-type compensators are the other most common. They work by high-pressure gas striking baffles that are at right angles to the muzzle. This type works better as the area of the baffle is increased. Bigger is better in this case. Since the rifle is already moving away from the bullet (recoil starts during the ignition process) the stored energy in the rifle is what causes the rifle to keep moving after the bullet leaves the barrel. With a baffle-brake the gas strikes the baffle wall and pushes against the stored kinetic energy in the rifle. The difficult part is getting the gas to strike more than one baffle and increase the force of the retreating barrel. A single large baffle is optimum; leave a hole just large enough for the bullet to pass through and try to have all the expanding gas strike the baffle. This is hard to do as you need several square inches of baffle, since the gas has no mass and only pressure, it needs to be used as soon as possible and as close to the muzzle than it can be mounted. You also have to vent the gas as fast as possible after it strikes the baffle; this again brings our friend noise back into the picture. The baffle system also doesn’t do much for muzzle rise, the gas is used to push forward and the muzzle rise has already started.



The VA-Compensator addresses all the weaknesses and strengths by using both Baffles and Ports. The gas is controlled in each chamber and the pressure is equalized to obtain the maximum effect. The VA-Comp actually shapes the high-pressure gas in each chamber and releases it through the venturi ports along the top. Because the gas speed is reduced the sound pressure is not increased. It involves an extensive manufacturing process with 4130 Chrome Molly Steel and Ceramic Inserts. It is the first solution to a long misunderstood problem.

Rick Hebert 636-467-7223

From Ray:

quote:

If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen...

Ditto here, but probably a different meaning. I don't want anyone near me with a brake. Neither does a PH whether he admits or not.

If a brake is necessary, get a smaller gun or stay home.

Here is a picture of one of my rifles with a "muzzle break." The "muzzle break" fits on all four of the rifles. It's so quiet you can hear the firing pin hit the primer.

Gatogordo,

Proven fact is that all brakes INCREASE the level of sound from the muzzle blast. Re-directing the gases away from the shooter doesn’t deter the fact that the blast has been increased. This is fine if you do all of your hunting alone. There are some that say let the others stand behind you when you shoot. This will work especially if they are baking you up. Your right about my not liking brakes. I have lost enough hearing in a life time of hunting/shooting and law enforcement to want to loose anymore to some artificial device that increases muzzle blast.

M16,

Doesn’t look like a muzzle brake to me, looks more like a silencer. Which is a whole different matter. Lawdog

I am getting ready for a Tanzanian trip in June-July and I am working with four rifles: a 425 Express Savage, a 416/404 (416 Howell), a 375HH, and a 9.3x62. This past weekend I took my CZ602 375HH and my Argentine Mauser 375HH to the range for load testing. The Mauser and Savage have muzzle brakes installed.

Generally, I do all my bench testing with ear plugs and ear muffs. This weekend, I had occasion to shoot both the 375's back to back. Both rifles weigh essentially the same. I immediately noticed a distinct difference in the recovery time between shots with the two rifles with the "braked" rifle being noticeably faster. The difference is sufficient to automatically preclude use of the 602 although the accuracy was essentially the same. The same difference is apparent in comparing the 416 and 425.

Later in the session, I had occasion to shoot the "broken" 375s without muffs and just ear plugs. For the first time I noticed the sharp report from the "broken" rifle.

I think that when shooting dangerous game one should weigh the amount of damage a buff or lion can do if you cannot get a quick second shot into it against the damage that the sound can do to your hearing. While I love classical music and my hearing is deteriorating from age, if not the impact of heavy rifles, I hate to think of the damage a buff or lion could do not only to my hearing, but my warm, soft body if I am delayed getting a second shot into it!

The CZ is punishing although I have added at least a half pound of shot to the stock. The 416/404 is very light being unscoped, and it recoils at just bit less than the 425 (44 vs. 45 ftblbs) nothwithstanding lower velocity. Believe me when I tell you that there is a big difference between unbroken and broken rifles. The 375 w/ brake shoots like a 3006 and the 425 like a heavy 300 magnum. Both unbroken rifles are not only "painful," but slow.

There is more to this debate than decibels and machisimo. In the end, whether you can really get a second shot off as quickly without a brake as with a brake must be considered. I don't care how good you are, I believe you will be faster with a brake than "sans" brake.

I plan to take both "broken" rifles with me and use them as necessary during the hunt. I also intend to take some hear plugs for myself, the ph and trackers. It will cut the sound enough to prevent any damage given the infrequency of shots and the open nature of the area in which the shots are made. Kudude

Not only will you need ear plugs in your ears but a few in your shorts wouldn't hurt any, when that lion you can't hear comes up to bite you in the a$$.

Hey, take some blindfolds, too!

lawdog:

Are you pretending to be dense or what? The "sound" of any given shot in any firearm is caused by the firing of the round in the rifle and to be technical is measured in W/m2 which we commonly convert to the Decibel A scale, there are B and C scales as well. A muzzle brake ABSOLUTELY cannot affect the total amount of energy, W/m2, which causes what we perceive as sound, that is released from the powder of the round. A muzzle brake obviously redirects some larger portion of the energy back towards the shooter and he experiences more of the energy (sound) than if the gun was not braked. However, the total amount of energy is unchanged. In sum, the shot isn't any louder en toto. The shooter and anyone in the redirection cone of the brake hear more of the energy than if the firearm were not braked. Louder to them, yes, louder in total, NO.

One of the features of a muzzle brake which is not usually mentioned is the controlability it gives the rifle. Thus there is more to the equation than just recoil reduction.

Muzzle brakes seem to disguise recoil. In other words for a few shots the recoil seems to be reduced a lot more than has been the case. For range use I much prefer the bag of lead shot behind the gun.

Calibres like the 30/378, 378 and 416 Wby without a brake want to jump up and all over the place. Being able to deal with the recoil does not change that aspect. But a brakes seems to make them just "sit there".

I agree with Gatogordo on total noise except in reality total noise is probably reduced because the gas does not get out all in one go. Of coure muzzle blast is more severe for the shooter and bystander because of the redirection.

Mike

Gentlemen,

There is no such thing as a "quiet" muzzle brake.

All of them are LOUDER than a rifle that does not have a muzzle brake.

Mike & Gat,

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but out of curiosity is it possible for a ported attachment on the end of a barrel (muzzle brake) to increase the noise? By the way it is "brake" not "break" and "safety" not "safty" for those that "cornfuse" the two.

The reason that I am asking this is a whistle or a musical wind instrument does the same thing. It increases sound pressure over and above the hot air moving out of my mouth without those things attached. With the porting on a brake, I could see that this would be possible. Also, the Boss will alter the harmonics of a barrel (that is the purpose) which leads me to believe that there is something else at play rather than just negative tugging on the barrel.

Of course, I could still just be full of hot air.

Longbob

I think you have to distinguish between noise and blast.

For example, a 458 with 70 grains of powder is "louder" than a 257 Wby. You can hear a 458 from further away and a few years a noise check on our range, taken a fair distance back from the firing point, registered the 458s and 375s and muzzle loaders as "louder" than the small bore magnums.

But the small bore magnums have more blast when up close.

But for the shooter the braked rifle is worse than non braked but that is redirected blast. But if a decibel reading was taken from some distance I would not be suprised if the braked rifle registered lower.

Mike

Longbob:

Re the sound: I don't think so but I'll have to admit I can't prove it.

As far as the "harmonics" issue goes. That is barrel vibration, a completely unrelated issue, and the Boss is essentially a tuner (as well as being in brake) that fools the barrel into thinking the end of the barrel is the "dead" spot. Bill Calfee wrote an excellent article in Precision Shooting (not sure of exact issue but not too far back)on this relating to the now allowed use of barrel tuners in big bore benchrest and how he developed their use in .22 LR and why they worked. He predicts that just as in rimfire BR, the records are going to start to fall when the use of big bore (meaning essentially 6PPC) tuners becomes widespread.

Very briefly and it is hard to describe in words what a pic can do in a second, the barrel of any firearm acts like a piece of wire held by one end. The back (chamber section) has a long wave of vibration, about 10 to 15 ten thousandths IIRC, followed by a inch or two long transition area (the dead spot) and then the end of the barrel whips back and forth a few ten thousandths (about 2.5 IIRC). Very thin barrels have more movement than this. Easy to see that if your bullets leaves the barrel at opposite sides of the "whip" then they would be on a slightly divergent path which adds up over a distance of several 100 yards and is critical in the game of Benchrest.

Mike,

Benet Laboratories is a US Army research laboratory. Their research leads me to believe that muzzle brakes create their own acoustic waves.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
lawdog:

Are you pretending to be dense or what? The "sound" of any given shot in any firearm is caused by the firing of the round in the rifle and to be technical is measured in W/m2 which we commonly convert to the Decibel A scale, there are B and C scales as well. A muzzle brake ABSOLUTELY cannot affect the total amount of energy, W/m2, which causes what we perceive as sound, that is released from the powder of the round. A muzzle brake obviously redirects some larger portion of the energy back towards the shooter and he experiences more of the energy (sound) than if the gun was not braked. However, the total amount of energy is unchanged. In sum, the shot isn't any louder en toto. The shooter and anyone in the redirection cone of the brake hear more of the energy than if the firearm were not braked. Louder to them, yes, louder in total, NO.

No I am not "dense" or what. Anyone that won't believe the proof that the dB level is increased by muzzle brakes is either foolish or uninformed. If you do a search of the net you will find where they did tests on various brakes and showed that the dB level is increased. This is an old discussion and the links on these tests have been posted many times before, here on AR and on other forums. No one has yet come forth to disprove these tests with lab tests of their own. Lawdog

Longbob,

You could be right as I just basing my opinions on what I have seen (sorry, heard ) in my own circumstances.

For example, at our range there is a board that runs down the firing line and is designed to stop the shooter elevation the rifle. If you stand 50 yards behind the firing line a 416 Wby is louder with the brake removed. Obviously this caused by the brake stopping a lot of the gas directly hitting the board across the firing line.

As a side note, I have been spotlight shooting where the calibes have ranged from 223 and 460 Wby with brake and that inlcudes in betweens such as 257 Wby and 7mm STW, a real cracker with 120 grain bullets. You can bet your last dollar that the 223 will be responsible for catching either the driver or passenger up front with blast and ring ears. They knoww hich shooters in the back that are firing the big guns and at the slightes hint of a big rifle being fired they have fingers in the ears. But the 223 catches them.

It is similar with the safety issue on the 223 and 22/250 Vs the 375 and up calibres. When the 375 and up is going to be fired there is sort of a double check that no sheep or cattle are there. But a cow or sheep hit with a 223 or 2/250 will not suitable for the auction next week

For the last several years I wear muffs no matter what I am shooting and my ears are sensitive. At our range a 270 Wby or 300 Wby will make my ears sore after 20 shots with both plugs and muffs. A 270 does it after about 30 shots with muffs only but with plugs and muffs I can shoot one all day. With muffs only I can shoot a 375 all day and can also do the same with a 416 Wby with brake on and loaded back to about 416 Rem/Taylor ballistics. But with no hearing protection then the loaded back 416 with brake on would esily be the worse.

With field shooting I think I am better off with the big bore and brake because it insures that I wear ear protection.

Mike

Ok Lawdog, you are dense. Show me one link that shows where the TOTAL sound/energy delivered by a shot from a Muzzle braked gun is more than that from the same gun with the same barrel length unbraked. As a matter of fact, since you are now converting part of the gas blast into forward movement of the gun, the total might be lower, but I wouldn't bet on that either.

IMO, the law of conservation of energy says that an inert object cannot add energy to a reaction.

This would actually be an easy test, you'd just have to put meters in front of, behind and beside the barrel at equi-distances and fire a few shots to get an average.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts or real money if you want to put it up, that if you stand IN FRONT of (and obviously very slightly to the side) of a braked gun vs an unbraked gun, the braked gun's shot report will be QUIETER THAN THE SAME GUN UNBRAKED AT THAT POSITION. It will be LOUDER AT THE SHOOTERS POSITION.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
Ok Lawdog, you are dense. Show me one link that shows where the TOTAL sound/energy delivered by a shot from a Muzzle braked gun is more than that from the same gun with the same barrel length unbraked. As a matter of fact, since you are now converting part of the gas blast into forward movement of the gun, the total might be lower, but I wouldn't bet on that either.

IMO, the law of conservation of energy says that an inert object cannot add energy to a reaction.

This would actually be an easy test, you'd just have to put meters in front of, behind and beside the barrel at equi-distances and fire a few shots to get an average.

I'll bet dollars to doughnuts or real money if you want to put it up, that if you stand IN FRONT of (and obviously very slightly to the side) of a braked gun vs an unbraked gun, the braked gun's shot report will be QUIETER THAN THE SAME GUN UNBRAKED AT THAT POSITION. It will be LOUDER AT THE SHOOTERS POSITION.

Like I said before this has been discussed before. I don't have the time to waste doing it all over again or to waste on fools that don't care about their hearing. The tests have been done and are out there for those that do care that have the ambition to look them up. Lawdog

Let me sum it up, you don't have any site that says that a muzzle brake increases TOTAL shot report as I suspected.

Discussion is just that, talk.

My grandaddy used to tell me, "Talk is cheap, it takes real money to buy good drinking whisky."