What is more important, a bit less recoil or not having your eardrums blasted out every shot?

[ 07-31-2002, 04:30: Message edited by: jeremy w ]

Saving the ears by a large margin.

mike

Jeremy,

I think I am the stage where I should be wearing hearing protection at all times, including in the field. A muzzle brake would "force" me do it, so someone like myself maybe better off with a brake.

If you have never used a brake, they do seem to lower the recoil much more than the figures indicate, at least for a couple of shots. the rifle tends to feel as if it is just sitting there.

Take 416 Wby. The numbers say that with a brake on the recoil is close to 50 ft/lbs. But for the first couple of shots it seems far less. Then after a few more shots you start to become aware that it is kicking at 50 ft/lbs. In other words, the brake is very effective for field use where you might only fire a couple of shots in a row.

Mike

Take a look at the discussion on braks on the African Forum...the Vais brake reduces recoil without frying your ears....if anyone would like a copy of an article from Precision Shooting about this great muzzle brake e-mail your snail mail address and I will send you a copy.

Geez, I always thought that recoil was half the fun of shooting big bores. A life time of having my hearing is much more important to me than a split second ass stomping. Most breaks easily generate over 150bd of energy. No ear muffs can block the bone induce shock and nerve damage to the inner ear caused by this level of energy. You can be religious about wearing your muffs while shooting your braked rifles and still suffer damage.

If you don�t shoot much, recoil is always going to be an issue. Some guns can knock you around a good bit. If you are not used to getting stomped, it can be quite abrupt and a little unsettling. After awhile brain damage sets in and you begin to enjoy it; don't be afraid, it only hurts at first.

[ 07-31-2002, 06:12: Message edited by: Zero Drift ]

Not having my eardrums blasted. My buddy has a 340 weatherby with an accubrake on it. It sounds like a short barreled magnum revolver.

mike375.... It would depend on how much room there is from the muzzle to the front of the front sight or if you could move the front sight back. I would contact Ron in San Antonio...the brakes really work. If you send me an e-mail I will send you a photo of my Lazzeroni HellCat with the brake on it (plus some close ups of the brake).

Zero,

I am not sure about all of what you said.

Both my ears and neck are shot and I reckon the 375 is the reason.

Neck. Not the 460s and 378s because the recoil simply limited the number of shots you fired. Got any idea how much you will fire of a 375 when busting roos etc.

Ears. I think again the 375. The 308 Norma necked to 25 and 6mm/06 would make me wear ear muffs, but the 375 would not actually hurt my ears. Sort of a "flat" bang.

In short, if you shoot a lot when in the field, which is better, a brake and ear protection or no brake and no ear protection.

I am asking?

Mike

My only personal experience is with a David Gentry Quiet Brake, on a custom 338-06AI.
The recoil was simular to a 243. Very comfortable to shoot! Needless to say, I wore ear plugs or muffs when shooting it.
I did shoot it a few times sans plugs/muffs, and it is loud, dang loud.

Yes, I knew it would be loud, even louder then without a brake, but I wanted comfort more, because I always shoot with plugs anyway.

I've also worn plugs while hunting on occasion (with any gun being used), but only at the 'moment of truth' when I had a moment to use them.

I'd recommend the Quiet Brake, with the recommendadion to use plugs, too. ~~~Suluuq

Hearing is way more important to me!!! See I'm nearly deaf now and only 44 years old.
I have got 5% in my left ear and 35% in my right ear,thats it.With my hearing aids in I've got 15% left ear 60% right.
Being nearly deaf SUCKS,SUCKS,SUCK!!!!!! I can't hear a Bull Elk Bugle when I'm only 25 yds. away,birds no longer sing,can't hear sirens,whistles ect.
If you fellows with the muzzle breaks like them then fine but take it from me protect you hearing cause once it's gone it's gone forever.
Hunting deaf is better than not hunting at all but it makes it tuff.Protect your hearing!!!

Saving the ears! I only shoot what I can handle. Was sitting next to a guy while guiding in Montana that had a 7mm W Mag that had been Magna ported. I was looking at a deer through binoculars. When he fired I thought someone hit me in the side of the head with a brick. Made a believer out of me.

Bruises heal, but ears never do. I will never own a gun with a muzzle brake on it.* If the recoil is too much for me, I need less gun.

H. C.

*Except one of those quiet brakes maybe. I'd be willing to shoot one of those to see how quiet and effective it is, I guess.

I am, generally, anti-brake.

I hate brakes. I don't like to be beside someone shooting a magnum(read 6MM & above) with or without a brake. With a brake it's painful. I have a brake for my 375 H&H; it's only on the barrel when my wife shoots it.

I always wear hearing protection at the range but must admit I don't in the field. I also have to admit I have never shot a rifle with a brake on it. My .375 is the heaviest rifle I've shot and I have no problem without a brake but I wouldn't want to take it on a prairie dog shoot. Personally I find a 12 ga. with slugs or worse, turkey loads, to be the most uncomfortable gun out there. I think experience is the best way to overcome recoil and my opinion is that there is a large psychological component to it. My observation is that a majority of hunters are not serious riflemen and that a 30-06 is the upper limit of recoil tolerance for them. Spend some time on a public range and watch the flinches. Most hunters that use brakes I think would be better off taking a step down in horsepower. My main objection to muzzle brakes is that I don't like being subjected to the blast when I'm at the range. Even with hearing protection (I normally wear plugs and muffs)I find the muzzle blast from a shooter next to me extremely annoying. Some shooters are very conciensious about others and set up accordingly. Others unfortunately seem to have the attitude "I'll put a brake on if I want and the hell with anybody else". I don't much care for that sense of selfishness. It is all too common in society today so I guess I should get used to it.

Jeff

I like brakes on anything above my .300 win mag. I shoot a .340 Wby, a .358 STA and a .416 Rem. I have brakes on the first two and am putting one on the .416 Rem as we speak. I shoot between 1500 and 2500 rounds per year practicing with all sizes and types of rifles. The brake makes those shots much more tolerable, when I get to the field I can either remove the brake or use hearing protection at the point of the shot, and shoot without flinching. I will shoot only 5-10 rounds at the larger animals per year. All shooting should be done with hearing protection, braked or unbraked. When I shoot hundreds of rounds at ground hogs or ground squirrels or P. Dogs I certainly use hearing protection. The point is the most shots are practice, either at targets or small animals and hearing protection should be used. The hunting situation is a very small part of the shooting, then hearing protection can still be used. Good shooting.

I'd rather deal with recoil than noise any day of the week. Muzzle breaks are not a viable option for me. I've lost enough hearing the way it is, and muzzle breaks are vulnerable to damage plus they collect gunk, and they are not very attractive, either.

AD

Mike375 - I spoke with an auditory specialist about blast induced hearing damage - i.e. gun blast. He happens to be a competition bench shooter so he fully understands the problems associated with shooting. According to him, the pressure wave created by a non-braked gun travels largely away from the shooter. Something like 90% down range and 10% back towards the shooter. The back blast is a fraction of the total pressure wave. This energy is effectively canceled with any good 20+db ear muff.

The problem with most brakes is they must deflect much of the muzzle energy back towards the shooter to be effective in reducing recoil - the ole physics �equal and opposite reaction� principle. Unfortunately, this deflected energy greatly incenses the exposure to the shooter. Tests have shown that some brakes generate more than 150db. Some estimates go as high as 180db when shooting under the roof (or rain cover) at a shooting range. At these energy levels, the bone in your head acts like a tuning fork. It absorbs and transfers this energy. You could effectively cancel all energy traveling though your ear and still suffer nerve damage due to bone induced energy.

The best muffs only cancel about 20 to 25db. At a 150 to 160db you can only reduce the noise level to about 125 to 135db. Nerve damage is an accumulative thing and any consistent exposure above 120db begins to erode nerve sensitivity. 40db is considered quiet and has been established as a base level. 130db is considered to be 512 times as loud as the base level.

Since most of us shoot a lot and often, noticeable hearing damage can begin within a few years. After 5 to 10 years, you can lose much of your high and low frequency range sensitivity. After 15 years you can loose most of your midrange capability.

Considering that I started shooting when I was 13, I have over 30 years of consistent excessive noise exposure due to gun blast. I have partial hearing damage in my left ear - thanks in large part to shooting trap for 10 years with no hearing protection. I learned early on and started constantly wearing my hearing protection at the range. Furthermore, I use a Walker game ear in the field to help reduce blast exposure while hunting. (BTW they may be expensive, but they work great!)

If you are young, you could care less about your ears. However, hit 40+ and have difficulty hearing simple conversations and you suddenly become more concerned about it. Unfortunately by this time, it is far too late. Take heed. Protect your ears. Loose the muzzle break or switch to something like the Vasi brake.

Hearing. My shoulder will heal, my ears won't. I had a Winchester Timber Carbine, 444 Marlin with a 17.75" ported barrel. 1st shot without ear plugs, my ears rang for 4 days. That was enough of that.

As I sit at my desk in my quiet office, my ears are ringing and my shoulder doesn't hurt at all. Hearing by a long shot.

-Steve

Amen to what Allen adn Zero Drift said.

Or as a smith friend of mine from Boze says he'll charge you to put em on, and then he'll charge you to cut em off for ya when you are tired of them.

I have no/none/zero use for em, not even as a paper weight-grins!

"GET TO THE HILL"

Dog

When in doubt, use the wisdom of the market as a reference.

The addition of a muzzle brake never adds and usually subtracts from the resale value of a rifle. I think that says it all.

Zero,

Like you I also started banging away at about 13 but am now 54.

I found my hearing seem to stabilise many years ago. However, since about maybe 7 or 8 years small bore high speed calibers, even 270, will make my ears sore even wearing muffs. Magnum small bores will make them sore even with plugs and muffs.

However, with my bag of lead shot (wish I had strtaed using that years ago) I can shoot calibers like 338, 358 STA or 375 until the barrel melts and don't get sote ears. Same thing with 378 Wby.

I suspect pitch has something to do with it. I am also OK with either 416 or 460 Wby with Accubrake on.

It is for these reasons that quitea few years ago I got rid of 4 bench style guns I had that were in calibers like 6mm/06, 270 and 7mm Rem etc.

Even a 22 PPC will give me sore ears at the range with only muffs on.

Your friends seems to be referring to "noise" since decibels is mentioned. Larer bores do make more noise, when measured from some distance back from the gun. Several years ago our range was noise tested for 7 day a week opening and the loudest calibers when measured well back from the range were the 375s, 458s and muzzle loaders.

If you stand next to a chainsaw engine without muffler or a model aeroplane engine without muffler they will hurt your ears but a big Kenworth semi revving it guts out won't hurt your ears. However you will hear the big truck engine much further away.

Mike

Muzzle brakes are for pussies! If you can't handle your rifle without a muzzle brake, get a smaller gun. I've shot up to and including 416 Rem Mags without brakes and I'm a very small framed person. I won't hunt with someone that has a muzzle brake on their rifle. We can camp together but when it comes time to hunt, they go one way and I go the other. My hearing is too important to me for that.

Easy 257AI

I dont know what kind of hunting these guys suggesting the use of ear protection are doing but listening is a very important element where I hunt. Earplugs are absoloutly out of the question.

I have a muzzle brake on my 35/338 and love it. I don't feel I need it, but it came with the gun. I hope I don't classified as a P____Y because it.

We were out at the range last weekend and the Weatherby crowd moved in next to us. Three of their rifles had muzzlebrakes on them. One was a 340 Wby Mag, one was a 300 Wby Mag and I don't know what the third was. The one guy even said, "Lets see if I can clear the range." Then picked up his rifle to shoot. This tells me that he knew that his rifle was loud and obnixous but didn't care and even found it funny! These were a bunch that obviously had more money than brains. I would not hunt with these people under any conditions.

OK, brakes work. For a lot of range practice with big bores (and I mean BIG, 450 AIand down don't count) I can see their usefulness. Common courtesy (something severly lacking at public gatherings, I find) would suggest that you don't use them when sharing the range with other people. I use my ears to hunt, along with my other senses of course, so no muffs or plugs. Therefore taking them hunting is out of the question for me, as well. Yes I own a braked rifle, it came with the gun. Do I follow these rules myself? Yes I do. So, we've established that there's a small but useful niche for muzzle brakes. Putting them on smaller caliber rifles doesn't strike me as useful, but that's just me. If I hunt with someone who has one, well we're almost always in differant areas anyway, so not a big deal. I won't hunt beside someone with one, I value what is left of my hearing too much for that. JMHO - Dan

My vote is for the ears. When I see someone on the range with a 7mmMag and a BOSS, I go home. I hate the things.

For me, the answer is, like it is for many other things, "It all depends".
Hearing is important, very important. In some cases, the particular gun/muzzlebrake may be important.
Wear ear protection if you can, no matter what you're shooting. As for muzzle brakes; the jerks who move in right next to someone else on the rifle range and shoot their braked guns gleefully are just that, jerks, and they would be jerks whether they had muzzle brakes or not.
I don't have a brake on my .338-06; I do have a brake on my .416, and I intend to keep it on there. I don't put thousands of rounds through either of those guns. I always wear hearing protection when I'm shooting on the range or at home; I don't wear hearing protection in the field. For the kind of thick, brushy country I'm in, I need to be able to hear clearly. Every single brown bear that I have encountered I have HEARD before I saw it.
I don't shoot my .416 at the range if there are other people there. In fact we try to shoot at the range when there's noone else there; we just like the "peace and quiet". Now that we have a place to shoot at home, it won't be a problem.
If the brake sends 150 db back towards the shooter, that's a real serious problem for someone who shoots with a brake a lot. If that wae the case for me, I think I'd consider a custom shoulder pad and forget the brake.

I was convinced by an "older more experienced" man that when I purchased my Elk rifle (a .338 Win Mag) I should have a brake put on it because of all these reasons, and he began to repeat his thoughts.
I had to have the last 2 1/8 inches cut off my barrel and had it target crowned. The brake had adversely affected the accuracy, was loud, and really didn't change recoil enough to justify it. It was a EPDM lazer cut job into the barrel. Biggest mistake I think I've made. I lost a couple inches of barrel to gain this experience. It now will shoot MOA with hunting bullets and I actually like the shorter barrel. The elk can't tell theres a loss of 70 fps.

In hind sight ( 15+ years worth)I've fired two different rifles with removeable brakes that did help from the bench, but I won't be spending any money on one unless I just can't tolerate the recoil. Even then, what kind of gun do I need that fits that catagory? I think there are alternatives to consider. To me a big, fat, slower slug seems to shove where the big Wby cases seem like a jab. A .458 Win Mag is pretty potent but doesn't seem to cause the same sharp jolt that a .378 Wby does. Just my $.02 worth for free!

My ears are much more important, I hate muzzel breaks and hate shooting next to someone who has one.

With the relatively cheap cost for hearing protection, it is NEVER a good idea to shoot without it. Even in the field, Walker's game ears are only $150 each. You can get two for the price of a mid-priced scope and they are more important. Tac-6 lightweight electronic muffs are only $140. I never understood why people will spend $1000 for a good scope so they can see and not be sure they can hear. Same goes for eye protection. For $50 you can get polycarb glasses with clear lenses if needed. I never shoot anytime without both (except if someone breaks into the house, another story).