Picked up a Sako AV LH 375 H&H. Very clean rifle with a spotless bore.

The brake almost turned me off. I've never shot a bigger bore rifle with brake before. I have a 358 Norma (no brake of course) and shooting it, even from a bench, doesnt bother me a bit.

Should I leave the brake? Will it make much of a difference?

Here it is.

I suggest you remove it and replace it with a simple screw cap. If it is not removable, cut it off and re-crown the barrel. A .375 doesn't need a brake and it will ruin your hearing and your PH will hate it! Nothing short of a .50BMG requires a brake.

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
I suggest you remove it and replace it with a simple screw cap. If it is not removable, cut it off and re-crown the barrel. A .375 doesn't need a brake and it will ruin your hearing and your PH will hate it! Nothing short of a .50BMG requires a brake.

I agree in part with the above comment but think it's a tad simplistic (to say the least) to suggest that " Nothing short of a .50BMG requires a brake".

Felt recoil is at least as dependent on weight of rifle and stock design as it is calibre and the Sakos (IMO) seem to be heavy kickers..... maybe that means they aren't a particularly well designed stock/weight so felt recoil is going to be more than with a stock of better design and heavier weight. There's also the issue that some people seem to be more susceptible to recoil than others and that also should be taken into consideration.

That said, I loathe muzzle breaks and the bloody things have cost me a fair bit of my hearing over the years.

I'd recommend you definitely take it off if you can refit it but if you have to cut it off, you might either think hard about that before you do it and if you do, then see how you shoot with it and if you find the recoil uncomfortable, then consider other recoil reduction options such as having a mercury tube or tungsten bead recoil arrestor fitted....... but don't let anyone tell you you're a wimp because you battle with the recoil of it.

If you do decide to shoot it with the brake on it, you might like to consider buying a pair of Walker's Game Ears for yourself and perhaps a set for your PH as well.

It looks like an older KDF so it should just screw off and then you can have a thread protector made to cover the threads. Barrel harmonics are funny so it might be prudent to see if the rifle is a tack driver with the brake and then shoot it without it for comparison.

I have a 300 WM that I specifically asked the smith that built not to put a brake on but he did it anyway. I have to say it just shoots better with the brake. Last time at the range it was giving me sub MOA groups at 300 yards.

Now as others have said if your going to hunt with it in Africa your better off without it. The hunting party will like you a whole lot more if they still have their hearing when you leave.

Mark

I've got a brake on my CZ 375 H&H. As I get older, my recoil tolerance has gotten less. I find it to be loud if there's any structure around, as a roof over your shooting bench. Out in the field I can't tell the differnce between braked and unbraked. Could be I'm deaf as a post. Brake takes the recoil impulse (to me) down to a 30-06 level.

quote:

Brake takes the recoil impulse (to me) down to a 30-06 level.

Definitely have agree with that. Went out this morning and fired a couple rounds of factory Hornady 270 grainers from the off-hand. It felt more like the light M700 8x57 with stout reloads. Definitely does not recoil on the level of the 358, which was the biggest caliber I had to date. This Sako AV is lighter than the 358 which weighs around 9.5 pounds.

The brake might be handy for bench work during load development. I'll look into the thread protector for the field. Still dont like it from the cosmetic POV.

I have Woodleigh 235 and 270 PP on the way. Along with some 285 grain Speers.

I have a lot of test loads to put over the chrony that I was unable to get to last year. 8x57, 7x64,38LC, and now 375.

Nonsense and BS. That muzzel break will allow you to shoot your .375 more accurately by reducing the felt recoil by 30-40%. It will make you more accurate because you also won't develop a flinch and it will punish you less. No PH I ever hunted with ever complained about the "noise" of my breaked gun either. If they did I'd find another PH to hunt with. period. A break wil be highly effective on any gun with high muzzel pressure and I never take mine off. The reason these guys think they are louder is a brake may change the velocity of the muzzel blast to a higher frequency which is all the hearing these folks have left after decades of shooting with no attention to hearing protection other than sticking their fingers in their ears.To them it would be a lot louder. To the rest of us, ho hum. - Rob

Paul

My recomendation is; Chuck the muzzle brake away.

If the 358.Norma doesn't bother you. The .375 H&H won't bother you either.

As a matter of fact you can get virtually the same performance from both.

Pyzda

Gents:
Most folks here don't see the need for a muzzle brake, also on the African hunting and double rifle forums. However, many may feel the need for one. A gent on the lever action forum, the second post comparing a .357 to a .44 magnum in a rifle states the .44 will "beat your shoulder to a pulp." I had to reread this a couple of times. I can't think of the .44 as anything but a popgun but some do feel it can kick one into next week!
My opinion, remove it as they are ugly and life is too short to hunt with an ugly rifle.
Cheers for a good new year.
Cal

I say leave it or find a better looking one. I have 3 rifles now that have muzzle breaks on them and they still are not as loud as any of my single action pistols. Use some hearing protection and enjoy the reduction in recoil.

For those of you who like brakes I sell a very effective one in stainless and chrome moly $45 shipped

quote:

Originally posted by Robgunbuilder:
Nonsense and BS. That muzzel break will allow you to shoot your .375 more accurately by reducing the felt recoil by 30-40%. It will make you more accurate because you also won't develop a flinch and it will punish you less. No PH I ever hunted with ever complained about the "noise" of my breaked gun either. If they did I'd find another PH to hunt with. period. A break wil be highly effective on any gun with high muzzel pressure and I never take mine off. The reason these guys think they are louder is a brake may change the velocity of the muzzel blast to a higher frequency which is all the hearing these folks have left after decades of shooting with no attention to hearing protection other than sticking their fingers in their ears.To them it would be a lot louder. To the rest of us, ho hum. - Rob

+1 --- keep the muzzle break. Better yet, shoot the gun with and without the muzzle break and YOU decide.

Let us know how it goes.

I'll bet good money that none of you guys would shoot my .600ok at full tilt 2400fps, 900gr bullet without the break more than once! I known I wouldnt ever shoot that load without the break. With the break you can shoot 3-4 rnds before your survival instincts finally kick in. I assure you that you will hear no difference in the soft tone of the muzzle break either. After that first unbraked shot you'll be too busy calling 911 anyway. why otherwise intelligent shooters would knowingly rob themselves of the second most effective recoil reducing device known ,is frankly beyond me, but your always free to do as you please. -Rob

The weight is something what I don't mind and there is no recoil that weight can't fix. If it has to be 20 pounds rifle, it will be 20 pounds rifle.

I'll never ever put a muzzle brake on my rifles.

Shooting .735gr./2100fps.(COL 4.2") casts in unbraked 27"/460Wea. Ruger No.1

It has barrel profile of 45/70 weigh 8.5 pounds, Decelerator pad and gives me recoil pleasure of 150fp./33-35fps.?? whereabouts.

Not the recoil of the .600 OK. but again I shoot a box of 20 at time. It is absolutely perfect for a cheap practice.

The next day is always the same, quiet bruised and tender, I can tell you.

Pyzda

Muzzle brake's work well but you need to decide if you are going to wear hearing protection or are prepared for the damage that is increased by the use of one.

quote:

Originally posted by Safari James:

quote:

Originally posted by Robgunbuilder:
Nonsense and BS. That muzzel break will allow you to shoot your .375 more accurately by reducing the felt recoil by 30-40%. It will make you more accurate because you also won't develop a flinch and it will punish you less. No PH I ever hunted with ever complained about the "noise" of my breaked gun either. If they did I'd find another PH to hunt with. period. A break wil be highly effective on any gun with high muzzel pressure and I never take mine off. The reason these guys think they are louder is a brake may change the velocity of the muzzel blast to a higher frequency which is all the hearing these folks have left after decades of shooting with no attention to hearing protection other than sticking their fingers in their ears.To them it would be a lot louder. To the rest of us, ho hum. - Rob

+1 --- keep the muzzle break. Better yet, shoot the gun with and without the muzzle break and YOU decide.

Let us know how it goes.

Good idea! Shoot it both ways, and then try to tell yourself that it isn't louder with the brake. That assertion is impossible to make.

My first .375 was exactly the same gun as yours, a Sako AV Hunter, and it had a brake...actually, Magnaport. I found the muzzle blast far more unpleasant than the recoil. I'm sure that today's brakes are more effective for reducing recoil...the porting reduced vertical movement but didn't make that much difference on my shoulder. The muzzle blast was insane. I freely admit I have little experience with true big-bores, and none with anything over .458, but I know for a fact that porting that particular gun in that chambering made it impossible for me to enjoy shooting it due to muzzle blast, whereas shooting it before it was ported was quite comfortable. I don't know or care about muzzle blast frequencies...I don't care how many readings and measurements show that, in theory, it wasn't louder...I only know that the same level of hearing protection that sufficed perfectly before the porting was completely insufficient afterwards.

Thanks for the imput guys.

I would unscrew the brake and throw it in the river, then I would have the threads cut off and the barrel recrowned.

Screw brakes. I won't own a rifle that requires a brake. And a hunting weight(8lbs +) 375H&H does not require a brake to be shot effectively.

If it makes you a better shot, then leave it on. I have owned both braked and non-braked and never had anyone complain about the noise. It's a gun for crying out loud. Of course it is loud when fired;-)

This is your decision to make, not ours, but I believe Robgunbuilder offered the best advice.
This is my analyis on the subject.

Some dudes love recoil, some don't, it is purely subjective, suit yourself not others.
Brakes are an effective tool when sighting in and I believe help develop confidence and accuracy.
You don't notice recoil in a hunting situation, so use a screw on thread protector while hunting if you find the brake unsightly.
I think most brakes are unsightly but you can barely notice Magnaporting. Magnaporting is not as effective at recoil reduction as a brake but greatly reduces muzzle jump. Magnaported firearms don't really change the look of the firearm and the muzzle blast is not very noticeable to the shooter (I speak from 30 years of experience), but of course noticed by bystanders. Muzzle brakes are very noticeable to the shooter though, so wear good hearing protection.

I am recoil tolerant to and thru .458 WM, and shoot a .470 DR as well, but still Magnaport all my African battery because with reduced muzzle jump I can recover for a second or third shot much faster (which became very important in my 2011 safari).
In seven safaris I have never had a PH say one word about my Magnaported rifles. They will take your money if you show up and that is all there is to it.
The bottom line is that brakes/porting are useful tools and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. As I said at the beginning, it is your decision.

Originally posted by LionHunter:
I suggest you remove it and replace it with a simple screw cap. If it is not removable, cut it off and re-crown the barrel. A .375 doesn't need a brake and it will ruin your hearing and your PH will hate it!

quote:

Nothing short of a .50BMG requires a brake.

i have a TRG42 in 338 Lapua that begs to differ sir!

Yeah, try firing a .378 or .460 without one either. I owned a .378 with no brake, and it most definitely is easier on the shoulder with one.

My new muzzle break design offers pitch alteration, aroma therapy and unmatched esthetics. You'll just have to have one on your next gun! The best people always do!

quote:

Originally posted by IanD:
If it makes you a better shot, then leave it on. I have owned both braked and non-braked and never had anyone complain about the noise. It's a gun for crying out loud. Of course it is loud when fired;-)

Too funny, and so true!

I feel like I'm listening to an Obama speech when I hear this crap about muzzle brakes posted. Even with a .375 you WILL shoot better, faster and recover more quickly with a brake than without. I don't give a damn if someone with "delicate sensibilities" complains about how loud my brake is. Go hunt or play range Nazi with someone else! If stupidity is hereditary just unscrew the brake and pound your chest with manly vigor!
I avoid pain whenever possible.-Rob

Pound your chest with manly vigor?? Same could be said for someone that needs to shoot a 600OK...

I saw a muzzle break once. The guy shot it with mud in the barrel.

If muzzle brakes made rifles, or shooters for that matter, shoot better I guarantee you would see them on every target and bench rest rifle.
And although it may classify me as having "delicate sensibilities", I find individuals who are so sensitive to pain, but more than willing to inflict it upon everyone around, not a person I would choose to guide.
Fortunatley I don't think I know any real hunters that fit that catagory.

If one learns to correctly hold and shoot big rifles the recoil in the field should not bother them. And lightly bruised shoulders quickly heal while the hearing damage done to everyone standing close is cumulative and lasts forever.

quote:

Originally posted by Robgunbuilder:
I'll bet good money that none of you guys would shoot my .600ok at full tilt 2400fps, 900gr bullet without the break more than once!

Why would anyone want or need to with or without a brake? I think some of these large bore wildcats are simply freak show material . . . they serve no legitimate hunting or shooting purpose and exist solely for the sake of the ego of the owner as best I can tell. If it stokes your fire, go for it but candidly I just do not see the purpose. And the breaks that typically come on them are flat ugly. No redeeming value . . . just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
If muzzle brakes made rifles, or shooters for that matter, shoot better I guarantee you would see them on every target and bench rest rifle.
And although it may classify me as having "delicate sensibilities", I find individuals who are so sensitive to pain, but more than willing to inflict it upon everyone around, not a person I would choose to guide.
Fortunatley I don't think I know any real hunters that fit that catagory.

If one learns to correctly hold and shoot big rifles the recoil in the field should not bother them. And lightly bruised shoulders quickly heal while the hearing damage done to everyone standing close is cumulative and lasts forever.

The sniper rifle competition crowd uses a lot of muzzle brakes. So do quite a few varminters.

Anything over 84 decibels damages hearing, rifle shots are greater than 84 decibels. Every time you shoot a rifle without hearing protection you are damaging your hearing.

The difference between a brake and no brake is somewhere between 15-40 decibels, and a rifle shot is over 100.

Maybe the "sniper rifle competition crowd" uses some muzzle brakes but how about real snipers ?

And the difference in the sound level of 15-40 decibels is a significant difference since most hearing protection only reduces the sound by 25 decibels.

I served in the military for 20 years, I have seen a couple thousand military sniper rifles from all over the world in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Somalia campaign. Anything bigger than a 308 had a brake.

Every brake design is different. I owned one of the old KDF's on a 338 Winchester that weighed 5.5 pounds. The blast was so frightening that, people would pack up and leave the range as soon as I fired one round.

I am not arguing that they aren't loud, they are. But if they help you shoot better why not use one if you are going to use a caliber you can't manage.

I don't know what your bear hunts cost, I am guessing somewhere between $20,000-30,000. What would you rather have a client that is confident in his shot and puts the bullet in the boiler room, or a client that is afraid of his rifle and grits his teeth over every shot? That is a lot of money for what is basically a 1-4 shot hunt.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Maybe the "sniper rifle competition crowd" uses some muzzle brakes but how about real snipers ?

And the difference in the sound level of 15-40 decibels is a significant difference since most hearing protection only reduces the sound by 25 decibels.

Most "real snipers" use a suppressor which basically does the same as a muzzle brake, along with reducing the muzzle flash...

Ed

Wyoming, I guess my vintage is showing. I was intimately familiar with suppressors and flash suppressors
on sniping rifles when I served in Vietnam, but was not aware that all our new M24 300WM sniper rifles had designated muzzle brakes.
And we were talking about hunting rifles, not heavies like the Barrett or ego boosting 600 OK's, that actually need brakes when fired from the shoulder.
I even have a brake on my Lapua but find it a lot more pleasant to fire without it.




And while suppressors may "basically" do the same as a simple muzzle brake, they also dramatically reduce the sound. Which is the the objection most of us guides and PH's have to hunters carrying rifles with sissy slots that they are afraid of.
I always prefer to have a client show up with a 30-06 or 300 that they are not afraid of and shoot well than with some new braked magnum.

My wildcat .505 SRE shoots a 570 grain bullet at 2150 fps. and weighs 8 3/4 pounds. It generates 80 ft/lbs of free recoil and 24 fps. recoil velocity. I only shot it with full loads to develop the load and to sight it in. All my practice with it was conducted with reduced loads and cast bullets, great numbers of which I fired before my first trip to Africa.

Shooting at game, I never noticed any recoil, and my recovery time was such that I was able to put four shots in a running buffalo at about 30 yards and three shots in a running rhino at much closer range. I saw and still see no reason to punish myself, use up expensive bullets, and run the risk of developing a flinch, simply to show how macho I am. My rifle is a dream to carry and handles like a well built shotgun. I could ask for nothing better.

I also developed a cartridge I called the .577 VSRE, which fired a 750 grain bullet at 2050 fps., which weighed 12 pounds and developed 108 ft/lbs of free recoil and again 24 fps. of recoil velocity. The recoil was bearable, but it shoved me backwards two paces every time I fired it. I never took it to Africa, because I felt that there were many situations where having to retreat two paces would be disastrous.
Also, 12 pounds was too much to carry in many situations.

I have never owned a rifle with a muzzle brake, except for a short time I had one with a barrel by John Buhmiller which came with one already attached. I shot it very little and sold it at the first opportunity. John was a fan of muzzle brakes, but he shot extremely heavy recoiling rifles off the bench and probably weighed no more than 120 pounds sopping wet.

Most of my guideing except for sheep has been in a timbered and thick brushy enviroment. Muzzle breaks are horrible to be near when you are boxed in shooting down alleys and creek bottoms.

Usually when a person show's up with a braked rifle you wonder just what in the heck he is afraid of and will he be able to hit what's pointed out!

Here's a pic of a fellow with a Lapua that claimed his "sweet spot" was 275 to 850 yards,,he was shooting scenars @ 2850fps. At the lodge I looked through the scope and was immediatly confused as how it would work in a field situation. He then shot a 2" group near the center at 100yds.

After a long 10days in the wind we get the drop on about a 9' boar and he miss's by about 2 feet!! Who knows why as I wasn't bugging him to shoot?

My Lapua belongs to a client who left it with me years ago. He thought it a good idea as it was getting difficult for him to travel across the tundra and he decided it would be perfect to shoot bears way out across the tundra.
I asked him what he thought I should use to back him up in case he misplaced a shot at those distances and the bear was in danger of getting away ? And was he willing to go in after a wounded bear while toting it ?
Shooting bears at long range with rifles like that is purely an ego boosting stunt. Yes, I know there are guys who can do it, but it is a stunt none the less and the chance for wounding an animal is pretty high fir anyone.

Phil I forgot to add the the missed shot was about 75yards,,lots of time to think it out too.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
If muzzle brakes made rifles, or shooters for that matter, shoot better I guarantee you would see them on every target and bench rest rifle...

Actually, on just about every rifle and pistol competition show that I see on the outdoor channels most of the competitors are shooting braked rifles or ported pistols. Even the tricked out Ruger 10-22s that they are shooting have muzzle brakes.

When I shot ATA registered Trap and later NSSA registered Skeet, most of the shotguns were ported.

Muzzle brakes (and porting) work to reduce felt recoil because they re-direct some of the expanding gasses out the sides of the barrel instead of all of the gasses exiting out the end of the barrel.

Muzzle brakes (and porting) are also louder because as they re-direct the gasses out the sides of the barrel they are also re-directing the sound waves out the sides of the barrel. Picture the sound waves as expanding concentric circles emitting from each hole in the barrel. Also, think of each hole in the barrel as a speaker.

The only hole in a solid barrel is the muzzle, so the sound waves are projected away from the shooter. With a muzzle brake or porting, each hole acts like a speaker, and a good percentage of the sound waves are projected to the sides of the barrel. The shape and size of the holes determine the tone, and amount of powder burned affect the volume of the sound.

quote:

Originally posted by Big Wonderful Wyoming:
I served in the military for 20 years, I have seen a couple thousand military sniper rifles from all over the world in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Somalia campaign. Anything bigger than a 308 had a brake...

I only served in the military for 3 years. We trained with M-14s, and when we got to Vietnam, most of us carried M-16s. All of these rifles had flash suppressors attached to their muzzles. The US military has been using rifles with flash suppressors for over 50 years.

A muzzle brake is a tube with holes in it that is attached to the muzzle of a firearm. Depending on the manufacturer, the size, shape, number, and placement of these holes will vary. All of these holes re-direct expanding gasses and sound to the sides of the barrel.

A flash suppressor is a tube with holes in it that is attached to the muzzle of a firearm. Depending on the manufacturer, the size, shape, number, and placement of these holes will vary. All of these holes re-direct expanding gasses and sound to the sides of the barrel.

My .300 Weatherby burns about twice as much powder as my .308 Winchester. With or without a muzzle brake, the report from either rifle will cause permanent hearing loss if I don't wear adequate ear protection. With it's muzzle brake, I don't notice any difference in recoil between these rifles, even when shooting prone or off a bench.

If a hunter shoots bad without a brake, then use one is my opine. Rather him make a good shot or kill than flinch and wound..I dislike chasing down wounded game. I handle adversity better than most and will simply stuff my God given fingers in my ears when he shoots..Besides I have a few guns go off in my ears by other shooters over the years and have lost enough hearing to the point it no longer bothers me!

I have one braked rifle and its the new Ruger African in .338 Win, a mild recoiling rifle IMO and I dearly love in this particular model with its iron sights and swivel on the barrel. I had no intention of using the brake, just planned on leaving the thread protector on for awhile and then at some point cutting the barrel back and remounting the barrel band front sight. However as time went by, I tried the brake on my bench and it did certainly make recoil a mere maidens caress as O'Connor used to say, and it did not change the POI, and the cost of cutting the barrel etc. seemed less desirable all the time. Need it or not I do enjoy it on the range, but I won't use the brake to hunt with..