You do understand that they work about 20% as well in recoil reduction as a mediocre muzzel brake. Think real hard about why you don't want a muzzel brake. Then look real hard at all the real big kicking rifles. they ALL HAVE MUZZEL BRAKES.-Rob

Rob,
your 585 was the first gun i had ever shot that I thought needed, and did great with, a brake.... at 10.5#, it wasn't pleasent... but it was definatly shootable... I don't think that it would have been nearly as nice with it weighing 14.5#...

I still don't like them... but know I have actually SEEN that they work and MIGHT be worth the noise... and, with Mike's ears, not too horrible in the field.

IMHO- The people who complain about muzzel brakes probably have never shot a real big bore( greater than .375H&H) more than a handfull of times and probably spend all their time at the range bragging rather than in the field hunting. Yes at the Range a muzzel brake is louder than a non-braked rifle, but do you seriously think it will have any effect in the field? In the field with a BIG animal in your sights maybe even a dangerous one, the only thoughts going thru your mind should be how to place that first shot and how to QUICKLY reload and hit it again. Guess what! You don't do that very well with YOUR OWN BLOOD RUNNING down your nose because of a three stitch scope cut! Thats happened to somebody on nearly every big game hunt I've been on in the last 6 years( STC club members excluded of course). I have observed that it's almost always the guys who loudly proclaim I DON't want a Muzzel brake on my gun! OK the esthetics of most rifles are compromised by the looks of a break, however, NOBODY shoots well with a gun they are afraid of. One good wack in the head can induce a flinch that you'll never get over. That's why I insist on muzzel brakes on all my really big kickers. Mercury tubes do work but should be considered only an additional improvement to a good muzzel brake. IMHO they are not worth much by themselves except maybe in a very light shotgun. How's that for a highly opionated ramble?-Rob

Canuck

In my opinion the brake just does not reduce the recoil but makes the gun a lot more manageable than a smaller gun with the same recoil energy without the brake.

For example I have owned both a 416 Wby Mark V and a 416 Rem in the Rem 700 and the 416 Wby was far more useable for shooting across a rest.

Of course much of this all depends on the shooter and how he goes about his shooting. From the hearing point of view I am better off with the big banger and the brake because it forces me to use hearing protection.

With the 460 Wby or your 470 Mbogo I think very few people (if any)could shoot roos or pigs across a rest with a semi bench postion or hold without a brake. But you can with a brake.

In short, the muzzle brake means you do not have to make as many compromises to shoot the rifle except for having to wear muffs....but perhaps that latter compromises is a good one to have forced upon us.

Mike

Mike,



I agree with your logic. I only disagreed with Rob's sweeping statements that were very black and white (ie. the one's I quoted). Your statements about the hearing protection kind of remind me of my logic as younger man..."I am a better driver when I am drunk because I drive with more care and attention." ...but yours is obviously much more valid.



If I was to use a real hard kicking rifle for shooting 'roos (or springbok, or prairie dogs), where I would subject myself to high volumes of shots in benchrest type positions, I'd be very pleased to have a muzzle brake and some good hearing protection. And if that is what a big boomer is being used for, then installation of a muzzle brake is a heckuva good plan.



I mainly use my big bores the way they were intended...from my back feet. I don't do long sessions from the bench (mind you, sometimes they do seem long!)



I don't like muzzlebrakes, I don't need them for what I do with them (which is probably what most people do with them), and so I don't use them. Now if I ever got the notion to do a lot of shooting with something bigger than a 500 A2, I might re-consider and allow for some limited applications.



My only other point was that a little practice can offset the need for recoil reducing devices in most cases. I don't think that recoil tolerance is something you are born with, it can be learned.



Cheers,

Canuck

A GOOD MUZZLE brake will let you concentrate on your shooting techniques and also let you have a more enjoyable range session when the rifle bites at both ends.

I have put over 200rounds through a .458Win Mag in one afternoon without a brake and thought I had been in a heavy weight fight at the end of the day.

I have sat at the bench while wringing out loads for a .338WinMag all day and after 75 rounds through it my shoulder was hamburger.(I actually had more discomfort from the .338 because it was on a bench and not off hand as was the .458)

Now I plink with my .375H&H WITH a great brake on it and my only limitation is how much ammo I want to burn.

I ran over 1000 rounds through my .340Wby this summer doing 1000 yard shooting. It wears a brake. (now I finally have to rebarrel it)

The brake lets you shoot more without discomfort. The more you shoot, the better you get. the better you get the more skilled you become. The more skilled you become, the better you shoot, the fewer times you will HAVE to shoot when hunting.
You will shoot boomers more if they have a brake then if they don't. That should be a pretty good thing.

I'm not a real muzzle brake fan either but I must say that the muzzle brake that Rob designed for his 585 did impress me. I'm talking about the actual noise. But by the same token I've had a 416 Rigby with a muzzle brake that would nock your socks off. The two do not even compare. Just like rifles and stock designs all muzzle brakes were not created equal. Rob's is very tollerable and I think that is what his opinion is based on which makes good sense for his reasoning. I would venture to say that his is a very small percentage of the tollerable muzzle brakes out there. My rifles will still remain unbraked.

To answer the original question one would have to know the bullet weight and velocity. If it's 500 grains at 2300 to 2500 fps a staight inline stock with a large butt area,a Pachmayer triple magnum F990 pad and a weight of 10 to 10.5 lbs along with good balance should do it.
Take care,
Dave

Decibels increase logarithmically. To use your example, 105 db is about 3.2 times more intense (or louder) than 100 db.

I'm no expert, but I've read that unbraked gunshots are more like 140--160 db measured at the ear (the actual db depends on caliber and barrel length), while braked gunshots are about 5 or so db louder, or about 3-4 times more intense, than unbraked ones--which are already at a level that is incredibly intense.

Experts tell us that any prolonged exposure to sound in excess of 75-85 db can damage hearing.

And the more intense the sound, the shorter the exposure needed to cause the damage. Every time anyone shoots a firearm without hearing protection, immediate and irreversible hearing damage results.

So, I use brakes, but only from the bench, with earplugs and muffs, and never in the field. It's bad enough that I'm losing my high frequency hearing from shooting unbraked firearms. I have no desire to accelerate the process or--even worse--inflict it on others.

I have to agree with the last couple of posts. I haven't taken our noise dosimeter to the range, but an unbraked rifle is going to significantly reduce your exposure. Hearing damage is culmulative and it doesn't come back. Keep that in mind when you're trying to listen for an elephant in the jess