quote:

Originally posted by Clayman:

Jacobite, I just meant that in sporting situations in the field, you never really feel recoil. The extra blast and noise associated with brakes is simply unnecessary.

Trust me I felt the recoil when blastin that yote a few years back with a buddies winchester M70 in 30-06. Especally the part where that cheap-o 3x9x32mm Simmons scope pulled a nice cookie cutter impression ON MY FOREHEAD. I still have the scar to proove it.

Now given this was a really poor setup. But on some guns with certian stock combinations you just cannot get that scope far enough forward. My 300wby Vanguard was one of them even after installing a Bell & Carlson stock.

quote:

Originally posted by two canoes:
In all the posting on this subject, all i read is OPINIONS. where is the factual data to prove good/bad-more/less-up/down. haven't seen it anywhere

Apparently you overlooked my simple explanation of recoil. Let me reiterate: Mass x velocity = recoil.

If the bullet represents 75% of the mass, then you can affect AT MOST only 25% of the recoil by diverting the gas.

It is true that to the extent that you can "trick" the gas into pushing forward against baffles you are actually reducing recoil by more than the mass of the gas, but it is also true that this "forward push" is very limited even with the most sophisticated of brakes.

Now, some may counter that the the gas is still expanding and may leave the muzzle at a higher velocity than the bullet, thus creating a disproportinate amount of the recoil. This is acutually true in the strictest sense, but again, the volume (mass) that is involved and that is available for diversion is so small as to make the higher velocity of the gas deminimus.

Claims that recoil is "cut in half" or "my .460 Weatherby with a brake just kicks about like a .30-06" are simply hyperbole. Claims that muzzle report is anything less than significantly increased by any kind of (legal) brake for the shooter and bystanders is, likewise, wishful thinking.

Physics, not opinion.

quote:

Claims that recoil is "cut in half" or "my .460 Weatherby with a brake just kicks about like a .30-06" are simply hyperbole

Have YOU ever fired a rifle with an effictive brake?

How about some real DATA instead of armchair physics.

quote:

An example for illustration are the Barrett weapons currently manufactured for sale in the United States and other countries that weigh approximately 28 pounds, and function from the closed bolt position. When an efficient anti-recoil muzzle brake is used, the .50 caliber Model 82A1/XM107 produces recoil energy of approximately 35 foot-pounds. Recoil energy increases to approximately 60 foot-pounds if the muzzle brake is replaced with a sound suppressor

http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.asp...ion&id=7055422&HL=ON

The part of "physics" that is being missed here is the same as the rocket engines of the space shuttle.... The escaping gas at the muzzle without a brake is acting in the same way... Do you think the 4ish millions pounds of thrust is created with 4ish million lbs of propellent in the shuttles external engines???

This is why muzzle brakes work as well as they do, by diverting that HIGH speed gas... The acceleration of the bullet by the burning propellent is much less then you are imagining... The sudden acceleration of the bullet at say 225 grains plus even the propellent weight is fairly insignificant to the weight of the rifle...

Ken....

quote:

Apparently you overlooked my simple explanation of recoil. Let me reiterate: Mass x velocity = recoil.

For one, this is incorrect. Even as a rough approximation, you'd be off by orders of magnitude.

Originally posted by Stonecreek

quote:

Claims that recoil is "cut in half"
or "my .460 Weatherby with a brake just kicks about like a .30-06" are simply hyperbole. Claims that muzzle report is anything less than significantly increased by any kind of (legal) brake for the shooter and bystanders is, likewise, wishful thinking.

Stonecreek,
It is obvious that you have never fired a boss equipped rifle. I have an a-bolt stalker in 300 win mag. With my 180 gr. reloads loaded to 3100 fps, I would say recoil is roughly equivalent to a 260 rem. Replace the brake with the cr device and you will take a beating. I would rather shoot this rifle in an extended range session anyday than my model 700 25-06, so there is no doubt in my mind that brakes are effective. Now as for the second part of your statement, you are right on the money. The noise produced from this device is deafening! That is why I only use it on the bench, and then replace it with the cr while in the field.

Effective brakes work period. Anyone who has shot a shoulder fired .50 BMG can attest to that. Also anyone who has shot a magnum or other thumper with a good brake knows that it is made comfortable to shoot. My shoulder does not lie. As for noise yes they are noisey. So are loud pipes on motorcycles but for some reason guys dig them.

quote:

If the bullet represents 75% of the mass, then you can affect AT MOST only 25% of the recoil by diverting the gas.

The stanbdard recoil formula assigns 4700 f/s to the powder weight which is based on an assumed average. Before the bullet the clears the barrel the average velocity of the powder can be assumed at 50% of the muzzle velocity.

So let's take a 11 pound 460 and 115 grain 4350 and 500 grainer which does 2500 f/s in just about every 460.

Using the original formula we then have:

(500 X 2500) + (115 X 4700) = 1,790,500

1,790,500/11/7000 = 23.25 which is the velocity of the rifle.

23.25 X 23.25 X 11 / 64.32 = 92.44 which is the recoil energy.

Now let's assume a muzzle brake is 100% efficient and diverts all the gas sideways.

(500 X 2500) + (115 X 1250) = 1,393,750

1,393,750/11/7000 = 18.1 which is the velocity of the rifle.

18.1 X 18.1 X 11 / 64.32 = 56 which is the recoil energy.

So recoil has dropped from 92 ft pounds to 56.

Now we assumed the brake was 100% efficient which of cours eit won't be, but we did not allow for the gases impacting on the holes in the brake. In the case of some brakes the gas is also diverted backwards rather than just sideways.

Now if we move down to the 378 and then down to the 30/378 the reduction will be greater.

Actually the 4700 f/s assigned to average gas velocity (without a brake) is from 30/06 days and undoubtedly the figure is too low for calibres such as 30 and 338/378, 300 RUM etc.

If go to www.huntamerica.com there is a recoil calculator there (the home page) there assigns higher velocity to the has than the old 4700 and the formula does give a truer valuer for the 300 RUM, 30/378 etc. From memory the AR member Customstox did the formular.

I must say I have never seen claims that a brake turned a 460 into a 30/06, except perhaps when said in jest.

However, brakes dramatically reduce recoil. Try firing a 378 with and without a brake

In addition brakes also stop the rifle from jumping about. Also and for reasons which completely escape me they also for the first few shots seem to create an illusion that the recoil is being reduced by more than the actual true recoil reduction.

I think with the real big kickers part of the illusion is because once you get up around 375 H&H recoil each extra foot pound seem like 10 extra foot pounds.....in other words around 375 H&H is about a threshold.

For example, a 378 without the brake feels like it kicks about 100 times more than a 375 However when a bag of lead shot is behind both the 375 and 378 the movement of the lead bag confirms the true increase in recoil of the 378 over the 375.

Mike

Mike:

Good explanation of the gas velocity and why it has a disproportinate effect on recoil. Also a good illustration of why even a hypothetically 100% effective muzzle brake can only reduce recoil a limited amount. Given that even the best muzzle brakes are only fractionally that effective, it becomes easy to see why the actual percentage reduction in recoil is much less than most believe (or imagine). I didn't want to get into it, but you touched on the issue of smaller calibers with a lower expansion ratio (more powder, smaller bore, lighter bullet) tend to have both a higher gas velocity and a higher percentage of the ejecta being gas, therefore can be more effectively braked. Unfortunately, those are generally (but not always) calibers that don't generate as much recoil to begin with. Your big, slow pounders like a .600 Nitro Express create the most recoil (among sporting rifles) but are the least effectively braked.

Most muzzle brakes send a significant percentage of the gas that they divert upwards, counteracting muzzle jump (remember though, muzzles only "jump" upward because the line of the bore is higher than the center of gravity of the gun.) The lessened muzzle jump tends to give the impression that the recoil has been reduced more that it actually has, as muzzle jump is one of the more objectionable aspects of recoil in that it impacts the more sensitive face and head rather than the shoulder.

Obviously opinions vary as to how worthwhile the inevitable muzzle brake trade-off of lessened recoil (whether marginal or significant) versus increased noise (always significant) might be.

For rifles adequate for game the size of elephant and under, the trade is a poor one. For rifles necessary for game larger than elephants (sperm whales, stegasaurus, armored vehicles) there may be a compelling argument for muzzle brakes.

By the way, did you ever hear of anyone installing a muzzle brake in order to enhance the resale value of a gun? The market is not always right, but those who ignore rarely fair well.

quote:

Originally posted by Collins:

quote:

Apparently you overlooked my simple explanation of recoil. Let me reiterate: Mass x velocity = recoil.

For one, this is incorrect. Even as a rough approximation, you'd be off by orders of magnitude.

Admittedly an oversimplification. But for the much of the audience present, severe simplification is necessary.

So, rather than just criticizing, why don't you provide us with your formula for recoil, Collins? While you're at it, you might explain just how you keep 80% of the gas from following the bullet's vector to eliminate its recoil.

I have had two center fire large caliber rifles with porting. The increase in noise is significant. Last guide I hunted with refused to guide a hunter with a muzzle brake because of the noise.
You are kidding yourself if you do not think the increase in noise is signicant. John

BRAKES work, and in more ways than have been discussed here thus far. I have used them extensively for years, and before you start calling me a pussy, I have shot dozens of all sizes without brakes for years also, to the tune of 3000 plus rounds per year, both braked and unbraked. My son-in-law and nephew both own 50-BMG's, I have shot the nephews, the son-in-laws is a collectors item and remains unshot. I hunt Elk yearly, and large animals in big Bear country, and African game, and prefer to use the larger chamberings for hopefully guick humane kills. The why I use brakes on the larger rifles is for me they are far more accurate, whatever the reason, be it less recoil, thus less flinching (all shooters flinch to a degree), or the braked barrels are more accurate. Yes, the braked rifles have more blast, yes, they are lauder, yes you need hearing protection. If you shoot a rifle you need a stupid sign on your neck if you do not use hearing protection, if you shoot a braked rifle you need a double stupid sign on your neck if you shoot whithout hearing protection. I use plugs and muffs from the bench, plugs when hunting. I own and shoot many unbraked rifles up to .300 Win mag. The braked rifles I shoot are 7mm STW, .340 Wby, .338 Lapua, two .358 STA, .416 Rem and Rigby. All of them will shoot one hole groups, when I have a good day from my end. I shoot dozens of rifles for my buddies, who don't take the time to do it right, but want an accurate rifle. All my rifles will act quite calm from the bench, where I use them extensively preparing for an upcoming hunting trip. I do not take the brake off while hunting, that can be done or a CR unit used on the barrel, but usually the POI changes considerably, and I certainly don't want to do deal with that after perfecting a load. In the field, usually only one killing shot is required, and it is quite easy to put in plugs just prior to the shot. I also use the sound inhancing muffs on occasion, that also muffle the rifle report to safe levels. I use that only on calm days, the wind affects the muffs considerably. My brakes come in all sizes and shapes from the Vies to the Weatherby Accubrake. I shoot on my own private range of 100 and 200 yards three days a week, and longer distances prior to the hunt. If you come shoot with me, shut the hell up about laud brakes, then check out my accuracy very closely. Well there you have my opinion for what it is worth. Good shooting.

I should have just read phurley's post. But the formulas and charts were interesting. For my .02, I only have the one muzzle brake-equipped rifle, the 340 Weatherby. I chose the braked version when I ordered it because it will be shot at the range much more than hunted with, and if it keeps my narrow ass from being beaten up, so much the better. I don't know its exact recoil figures, but it doesn't feel much worse than my 30-06 with 200gr bullets, and I've never shot it with the brake removed. Maybe I should so I can appreciate it more!

No complaints from fellow shooters about the noise, maybe it's because it's the factory Weatherby brake.