I was just wondering if you guys could tell me a few brands of brakes that are more on the quiet side. I know that there are some that push the noise away from the shooter. Just want to research them, might buy one. Thanks

Quiet muzzle brake is an oxymoron.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Quiet muzzle brake is an oxymoron.

The laws of physics still stand. Some may be quieter than others but that means that they are less efficient.

quote:

Originally posted by 458Win:
Quiet muzzle brake is an oxymoron.

Ditto, Ditto AND double Ditto what he said. If you need a decibal meter to tell the difference then there's not ENOUGH difference to make any difference.

Sound is a strange thing
It requires apx 3dB of difference for the human ear to registre difference for sure.
A rifleshot mesured at the left and right ear when right hand shooting only differs 4dB, but most older hunters suffers from mutch more hearingloos at the ear closest to the muzzle. So a difference at only 4dB makes a world of difference when it comes to harming your hearing.
A muzzlebrake of the type directing the gass 90deg, often increase the sound at the shooters ear by up to 10dB

quote:

Originally posted by jørgen:
Sound is a strange thing
It requires apx 3dB of difference for the human ear to registre difference for sure.
A rifleshot mesured at the left and right ear when right hand shooting only differs 4dB, but most older hunters suffers from mutch more hearingloos at the ear closest to the muzzle. So a difference at only 4dB makes a world of difference when it comes to harming your hearing.
A muzzlebrake of the type directing the gass 90deg, often increase the sound at the shooters ear by up to 10dB

True.

There may also be another reason contributing to that "deafer" ear. The side closest to the muzzle is also the side which does not have a stock up against it. I suspect the stock to some degree adds a layer of protection for the ear held against it, even if both ears are covered with muffs.

Additionally, the primary sound pressure wave travels back from the muzzle as a "cone", the center of which is less "violent" . The closer to the center of the cone, the less whack the sound strikes the ear with.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by jørgen:
Sound is a strange thing
It requires apx 3dB of difference for the human ear to registre difference for sure.
A rifleshot mesured at the left and right ear when right hand shooting only differs 4dB, but most older hunters suffers from mutch more hearingloos at the ear closest to the muzzle. So a difference at only 4dB makes a world of difference when it comes to harming your hearing.
A muzzlebrake of the type directing the gass 90deg, often increase the sound at the shooters ear by up to 10dB


True.

There may also be another reason contributing to that "deafer" ear. The side closest to the muzzle is also the side which does not have a stock up against it. I suspect the stock to some degree adds a layer of protection for the ear held against it, even if both ears are covered with muffs.

Additionally, the primary sound pressure wave travels back from the muzzle as a "cone", the center of which is less "violent" . The closer to the center of the cone, the less whack the sound strikes the ear with.

All I can say is I'm right handed. I've lost 60% in the left ear and only 40% in the right. If only I had been smart enought to use protection when I hunted.

I don't believe decibels are linear. I think a noise ten times louder would be an increase of 10 decibels.

Magna-port. My experiece is they work great and the report is only slightly sharper than a non-magna ported rifle.

quote:

I don't believe decibels are linear. I think a noise ten times louder would be an increase of 10 decibels

Here let me provide TOO MUCH info.

The decibel (abbreviated dB) is the unit used to measure the intensity of a sound. The decibel scale is a little odd because the human ear is incredibly sensitive. Your ears can hear everything from your fingertip brushing lightly over your skin to a loud jet engine. In terms of power, the sound of the jet engine is about 1,000,000,000,000 times more powerful than the smallest audible sound. That's a big difference!

On the decibel scale, the smallest audible sound (near total silence) is 0 dB. A sound 10 times more powerful is 10 dB. A sound 100 times more powerful than near total silence is 20 dB. A sound 1,000 times more powerful than near total silence is 30 dB. Here are some common sounds and their decibel ratings:

silence - 0 dB
A whisper - 15 dB
Normal conversation - 60 dB
A lawnmower - 90 dB
A car horn - 110 dB
A rock concert or a jet engine - 120 dB
A gunshot or firecracker - 140 dB
You know from your own experience that distance affects the intensity of sound -- if you are far away, the power is greatly diminished. All of the ratings above are taken while standing near the sound.
Any sound above 85 dB can cause hearing loss, and the loss is related both to the power of the sound as well as the length of exposure. You know that you are listening to an 85-dB sound if you have to raise your voice to be heard by somebody else. Eight hours of 90-dB sound can cause damage to your ears; any exposure to 140-dB sound causes immediate damage (and causes actual pain).

quote:

Originally posted by ramrod340:

All I can say is I'm right handed. I've lost 60% in the left ear and only 40% in the right. If only I had been smart enought to use protection when I hunted.

I'd say "join the club", but you already have.
Me too.

But if it is any consolation, it wasn't just us. It was pretty much everybody back in the day.

When I was a soldier, the Army wouldn't let us wear ear protection (mainly, I think, they didn't want to pay for it). Besides, they told us, only sissies use ear protection. (At least that was the general import of the DI's remarks. the actual phraseology was somewhat more picturesque.)

Later when I underwent FBI training with the sub-guns (Thompsons), they didn't want us using ear protection on the range because we might "miss" some range command.

When I was on a Calif. police dept and I was armed with a VERY short-barreled 9 m/m sub-gun for "special occasions", they had us do our team practice firing in an indoor, solid concrete (walls, floor and ceiling) basement range!! (Wouldn't be heard outside, wouldn't exite any civilians....)

Those were the days.....yeh....you bet...

So, are the Vais claims of a "quiet" brake just marketing hype?

I don't have a Vais, but have wondered about it.

I do use other brakes on some rifles, and they are all louder than the same rifles unbraked.

Hence my question.

quote:

Originally posted by Rub Line:
Magna-port. My experiece is they work great and the report is only slightly sharper than a non-magna ported rifle.

I have shot a lot of different muzzlebreaks.

I agree with Rub Line Magna-Port does not seem any louder in the field to me.
Also it does not kick up dirt, grass, or snow, if you shoot prone, off a rock, etc.

At 77 years of age and many many years of shooting before I used hearing protection I was told the other day that my 3 year old hearing aid in my left ear (I'm right handed)has about reached its useful life and will have to be replaced soon. That's a $1200 investment for 3 years use (average life of an aid). A good pair of ear muffs or better yet custom molds is a wise investment if done early enough and any time is better than not ever using protection. I was a radio operator in the service and you can't believe the number of times I have to use the old operator term 'say again' in course of a normal converstaion even with the aid. Had to buy a super loud alarm clock because if I sleep on my right side I can't hear it when it rings. If the recoil is too brutal use a smaller round. I am sensitive to recoil but have managed to kill 3 elephant using a 470 Nitro Merkel as the largest gun. With the factory weight in the buttstock it was not too unpleasant to shoot hunting. I did very little practicing with it however. In fact the first 2 rounds fired thru it were in a 3" circle at 50 yds and I figured that was good enough for elephant,and it was. Loss of hearing is 24 hours a day 365 days a year and it sucks.

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
So, are the Vais claims of a "quiet" brake just marketing hype?

I don't have a Vais, but have wondered about it.

I do use other brakes on some rifles, and they are all louder than the same rifles unbraked.

Hence my question.

I believe it was DB Bill(Maybe RIP??) who had Vais braked rifles. He was of the opinion that they were much quieter than a standard brake.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
I don't believe decibels are linear. I think a noise ten times louder would be an increase of 10 decibels.

An increase of 3dB is dubling the energy in that sound
an increase of 3dB is the smallest difference in soundpresure you can register by the human ear.
Lowfrequent noise contains more energy pr dB than highfrequence.
Lowfrequence noise is werry hard to stop.
Highfrequence noise is easily stopped.
Gunshot is mainly lowfrequence noise, but a noise that to some extent is directed forward and away from the shooter.
By instaling an eficient brake you direct the boom to the sides, To benefit from the rocketefect, or to reduce the forward directed rocket. This will increase the soundenergy reaching the shooters ear. Often by increasing the energy, that reaches the shooters ear, by 9 times.
You can reduce the backwards noice, as Vaise, but that also reduces the efect of the brake.

Eficient brakes actualy is "Rocketsience"

quote:

Originally posted by Howard:
I don't believe decibels are linear. I think a noise ten times louder would be an increase of 10 decibels.

Not exactly.

A doubling in sound energy IIRC is 3 dB gain.
so every 3 Db the sound energy is doubling. And yes you are correct that a change in sound energy by a factor of 10 is a 10dB change
so 10 dB is 10 but 20 dB is 100 and 30dB is 1000 and so on

muzzle brakes work by redirecting gas pressure ..gas being bent makes noise.. frankly, the louder it is, the more its working

Surely it's another example of Newton's laws?

Energy doesn't disappear, it just takes on another form and therefore the quieter the brake, the less effective it is.

If you want to reduce felt recoil without adding noise, fit a mercury tube or tungsten bead recoil arrestor.

Oh and here's another onne who's lost 60/40% of hearing. I now wear Walker's Game Ears when shooting and sometimes also as hearing aids and they work a treat for both applications. I just wish I had them 40 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by JBrown:

quote:

Originally posted by Michael Robinson:
So, are the Vais claims of a "quiet" brake just marketing hype?

I don't have a Vais, but have wondered about it.

I do use other brakes on some rifles, and they are all louder than the same rifles unbraked.

Hence my question.

I believe it was DB Bill(Maybe RIP??) who had Vais braked rifles. He was of the opinion that they were much quieter than a standard brake.

I have heard that they incorporate some of the internal venting features of a sound suppressor. Not sure if that's the case, but it would explain an ability to reduce noise as compared to a brake without such features.

I have both models of VAIS brakes on rifles. For several years he lived about twenty miles from my house. The original, now being made by Bartlett, is difficult to tell from the same load with it off. His new one, is a bit louder, but cuts felt recoil by a tremendous amount. Depends on which is more important to you. I prefer the original design to the new one.

I built a 22-378 Wbee/AI several years ago. The original made it possible to shoot off the bench accurately.

Rich