I am thinking about putting a muzzle Brake on my Tikka T3 .243 to help the muzzle jump for long range dog hunting, will this help much on this caliber.

Not as much as adding some extra weight will, and then your rifle will still be pleasant to shoot.

I put one on my 25-06 just so I could watch the bullets hit. Makes it that much more fun.

So you were able to see the hit, thats good to here, I have been told it won't help much on a .243 and I'm sure adding weight would help but not sure how I would go about that.

How about making a hunk of wood or metal that you can attach to the front sling stud? That way you can remove it when you want a prettier or lighter gun.

I here ya, I can try a 5 pound piece of lead!! This is a Tikka rifle with a synthetic stock so I am not to worried about a pretty gun!!! Even my expensive guns are not pretty.

A Properly designed recoil reducing compensater can cut the recoil of a .243 by MORE than 55%. The two main contributing factors are the mass of the bullet times its velocity and the mass of the powder times the velocity of its generated gas.

Just to throw in some ball park numbers. 80 gr. bullet at 3500'/sec. and 53gr of MAG. PRO at 9500'/sec. Comparative numbers than in ft.grains/sec
280000(bullet) vs 503500(powder)

Now let the gas be driven against a large portion of the recoil reducer. Voila, the gas forces the rifle in the opposite direction of the recoil.

There than are two factors working toward the recoil reduction; The decrease of gas moving in the forward direction and the force of the gas being made to work in the opposite direction. Roger

I put one on my 22-250 IMP for the same reason. Works fantastic when you want to see terminal ballistics, but it really sandblasts the paint off the hood of my truck. It will also make you think your ears are bleeding if you are near it without earplugs & muffs when it's fired. No matter what you read in advertisements about being a quite brake, they are lying to you. If they angle the holes forward to blow the noise forward then they are reducing the effectiveness of the brake, and it's still painfully loud.
gunmaker

Thanks for the info, I probably will get one put on. About what should I expect to haave one installed? I have been quoted around $150 total.

You might want to reconsider your powder velocity number. In reality it's more like 1.5 times the MV or 5200f/s MAX, which drops your effectivness number quite a bit (and than it's only valid IF 100% of the gas is turned 180deg, both of which are impossable to obtain).

The larger the total reaction area, the greater the reversal angle, and the higher the persentage of gas that's utalizied the higher the efficency of the brake (basic physics). A hole at 90deg only has the thickness of the metal for reaction, and only redirects that % of the gas that hit's the side of the hole (gas exiting at a forward angle does nothing to reduce the recoil).

'(and than it's only valid IF 100% of the gas is turned 180deg, both of which are impossable to obtain). "90 deg. would eliminate the momentum of the gas causing part of the recoil. 180 deg. not only negates the gas recoil impulse but reverses it."*****



"A hole at 90deg only has the thickness of the metal for reaction, and only redirects that % of the gas that hit's the side of the hole (gas exiting at a forward angle does nothing to reduce the recoil).

---

"

*****This is why I said a ((well designed brake)) of which I have designed and built a number.

Where did you get your gas velocity figure? I will gladly stand corrected if I wasn't in the ball park. The figure I gave has been bouncing around in my head for some years. If you can point me in the direction of some legitimate recognized source it would make me happy. Many of the photos I've seen of bullets that have just left the barrel have gas clouds that have gone more than three times as far as the bullet. I would welcome your help. roger

Roger The velocity figgure I gave is the one that kicks around in my head, although even my sources state that there is some debate about the exact # (some use 1.5 X bullet velocity, some state 4500fps and others state 5200fps. Perhaps different powder burn rates have a effect, and the actual # isn't a constant?). I also seem to remember that the Center of (gas) mass is traveling at 1/2 of bullet internal velocity until the bullet exits the barrel, at which time it (the gass) begins to accelerate to it's exit velocity.

I'm used to using a 2 stage can style with reverse internal cones (makes a pocket that traps the expanding gas), rearward directed ports, and approx a 1" internal diameter/re-acation surfaces.

FWIW, my only comment directed at you was the one about gas velocity, the rest was ment to be a basic lesson in brake design for the origional poster. So he could compare the basic types of brakes IE: holes in barrel (magnaport) vs slimline (barrel diameter) vs large ugly lump (can) vs fishgill styles of brakes

<precondition to following statements> I hate muzzle brakes

1: brakes are more effective on high velocity guns, of the same caliber
2: the 243 is a VERY light recoiling round
3: brakes on 243's (depending on design) can reduce recoil to nil
4: the IDJIT that told you it would not be effective has zero experience with them... brakes work on pistols, for crimminey's sake... and heavy barreled 22 rim fire.... and 223... and ALL of these have less gas volume/velocity to work with.

in short, if you want to HAVE to wear inserts and muffs for hearing protection, go for the brake

jeffe