I'm re-barreling a .300 Win Mag and I'm trying to decide whether of not to add a muzzle brake. They sure make the rifle more fun to shoot, but I've heard that the brake can affect the rifle's accuracy. I'm sure this question has been asked and answered a thousand times, but I thought I'd run it by you guys anyway. Also, which brake should I consider if I do decide to go with one? There are a lot of them out there.

In my humble no name, nowhere little shop I have installed quite a few brakes and have never had a situation in which accuracy decreased. This may be in part due to the fact that I carefully indicate the bore before threading and usually touch up the crown too. With a poorly done off center job where the bullet perhaps touches the brake, of course I would expect accuracy problems.
If you DIY, measure twice, cut once. If you hire it done, discuss it with the gunsmith.
I've used a lot of Vais brakes. They're a bit loud but do a good job. I also like the Gentry brakes. Those are the two I have the most experience with.

I have installed a hundred or so MB's and have never decreased accuracy, usually improve it. I like muzzle breaks for shooting when you can use ear protection. For hunting remove the break and screw on a thread protector. This is for your hunting companions and your ears. When you shoot while hunting you don't feel recoil. All muzzle brakes are about the same. I use Harrell's Precision brakes almost exclusively now. You can't buy a Jarrett rifle in .300 WM without one. It's one way Kenny can guarantee 1/2 MOA ....Tom

I'm with Duane on this; muzzle brakes are an abomination on a hunting rifle. I talk 9 out of 10 customers out of them, recommending instead they use the funds to purchase a Caldwell Lead Sled for sighting in. I've been hunting over 40 years, mostly carrying a .300 WM or .375 H&H, and have never noticed recoil after pulling the trigger on a game animal. If you have a MB on your rifle you can't fire it one time without hearing protection without risking permanent hearing damage. I also think we're raising an entire generation of pussies, who think a .243 should have a MB on it.

That being said, I still install a couple a month--easy money--but I always explain the disadvantages first.

quote:

I truly have no use for muzzle brakes,

I agree. If you add one make sure you can remove it for hunting.

I own one rifle with a brake... it is a 300 RUM, and the dirt blast into the face with every shot makes me really wish the rifle had never been braked. Matter of fact, I removed the brake and put the cover on the rifle. Yes, it barks some on the bench, but it isn't the end of the world. If it gets that bad I will learn to shoot it standing up!

I agree with you guys above. I don’t like them personally and wouldn't own one. I try to talk customers out of them and particularly warn against danger to hearing. Despite this many folks do want them so I just try to do the best job I can of installation. Mine is not to reason why. It is a business after all.

No brakes on any of mine either, but I do have a recoil reducer in the stock of my 375.

And as others have said, you never notice the recoil in the field, it is only at the bench.

The one time a brake can make a rifle "scatter" is when the holes arent symmetric.
Sides = OK
Sides and up/down = OK
Sides and up = No No

But man oh man does they make a rifle loud!!!!!!!!!!

I have a 270WSM with a homemade breake and it works a treat, BUT even with plugs and muffs it still beats the snots out of me after less than 20 rounds.

I'm just curious as to how you arrive at that conclusion. I've never heard of this before. Would you have any examples?
In theory at least, by the time any gas is moving through the brake the bullet has already exited the barrel and should be unaffected.

I've installed quite a few muzzle brakes over the years. I used a lot of Shrewd brakes marketed through Brownells and a few Vais. I always indicated the bore to less than .0005 inch and reamed for .020 bullet clearance. Accuracy was either the same or very often improved. Point of impact remained the same according to customers.

I don't want them on my guns, too noisy and they're ugly.

It drives me nuts for you guys to spell it break...............it is brake.

I'll throw in my two cents regarding brake design.

If you shoot in dusty areas, choose a brake with discharge ports on the sides and top, but not on the bottom. You will be in a dust cloud with each shot, and it makes it hard to spot your hits for your spotter. If you shoot with a spotter.

Otherwise, the Gentry is a good brake as is the Holland QD. I have a Badger Micro brake on one rifle and like it. I have not used a Vais.

I don't have them on many rifles, but like them for rifles that I shoot a lot from the prone position.

Jeremy

Personally, I think muzzle brakes are an invention of the devil. They are unnecessary when shooting at any big game that means anything to you, and will deafen you unless you wear ear plugs all day while hunting, which is uncomfortable and shuts you off from audible signs.

At the range they will earn you the contempt of the guy at the next bench, despite his wearing ear muffs.

I can't see any point in ports under the barrel, either. Surely they would add to barrel lift, fighting against the whole point of a muzzle brake.

quote:

Originally posted by Toomany Tools:
I'm with Duane on this; muzzle brakes are an abomination on a hunting rifle. ... I also think we're raising an entire generation of pussies, who think a .243 should have a MB on it.

Having read this thread and likely being younger than the average user here, that comment followed by everyone whining how loud a braked gun is just too rich not to comment.

Scope bite? Bruised shoulder? Fine and good. But when it's loud, hold the phone!

Boo hoo, loud noises! haha.

Yes, I'm that guy that put a brake on his .220 Swift. Why? Because I want to watch prairie dogs vaporise through my high power scope. When I'm at the range I'm there to shoot guns. I don't expect it to be quiet there, why should you?

That said, I've taken the steps necessary to run my rifles suppressed. This pussy likes less recoil from his 7mag and 338RUM and wants to keep his hearing when he's as crotchety as some of the users here.

Bruises heal, as do cuts, but hearing damage is permanent. Happy to explain the difference to the inexperienced.

quote:

Originally posted by Toomany Tools:
Bruises heal, as do cuts, but hearing damage is permanent. Happy to explain the difference to the inexperienced.

+1

MB are certainly not for everyone. As you can see on this sight there is polarization between a) those who think that they are the devil incarnate and b) people who think they are the bee's knees. I think you should assess why you need the brake. Is this a rifle that you are going to shoot at the range a bunch and want recoil reduction? Are you not shooting it accurately because of recoil issues (flinching)? Are you being influenced by other shooters who claim accuracy advantage? IMHO All but the last one mentioned is a valid reason to get a brake. for For me, increased noise is a non issue. I dont know if its just me but large bore handguns are just as loud as any braked rifle. Use hearing protection and you will be fine.
I you do decide to go with one, they are not all created equal. The baffle style brakes offer the most recoil reduction. Be warned! they also tend to be the 'ugliest'. I would suggest one from Strait Shot Gunsmiths or of similar design (APS makes a very effective one as well). They dont have holes or cuts on the bottom so they wont knock up as much dust and debris.
Again, if you do choose to get one dont be a dick about it, be responsible. I put a MB on my 338 edge. Every-time I take it to the range, I ask permission of those around me before I shoot and usually after the first round. Sometimes they don't care, other times I have people ask that I don't shoot it.

quote:

Originally posted by H47:
I'm just curious as to how you arrive at that conclusion. I've never heard of this before. Would you have any examples?
In theory at least, by the time any gas is moving through the brake the bullet has already exited the barrel and should be unaffected.

Actually if you look at ultra high speed photos of bullets leaving the bore of rifles, you always see gases leaving the muzzle before the bullet.

Wussifiction even in the shooting world. Ugly and obnoxious--to put it nicely. Do not and will not own one. I am not a large man, but have no problem shooting the mediums and though I have a lot of scars---none have been from a scope. My Dad has hearing loss from years of shooting non braked rifles and shotguns. I'm rather partial of/to my hearing.

I am not a big fan, but starting load work from scratch off the bench with something along the lines of a 458 Lott...

Most guys will develop a bad flinch before finding that accurate DG load.

So, perhaps, we compromise and say it may be a necessary evil.

For those that are partial to their hearing then muffs/plugs are not anything new. Stop being pussies/wusses and get a set of electronic earmuffs. $50 shouldn't be unaffordable given some of the custom rifles I see floating around here...

For those that imply not sustaining hearing damage from unbraked rifles shot without hearing protection in the field, you have already been injured and are just too ignorant to admit it.

That's it.

Alls I can say is that they are an abomination! A blasted deafening moment without ear protectors. I got rid of a few that I did own......cruel invention. You don't need em on.

Then get a silencer and be done with both recoil and muzzle blast. They are very effective on both.

BUT, they are ugly and add a lot of length.

Brakes have their place IMO. I don't have them on any all around rifles, only on purpose built long range rifles that get shot in the prone position a lot. Scope cuts do heal, but I'd rather not have to heal after every shooting session.

They are just another tool to be used when appropriate.

Jeremy

I have a 30/378 WM with a muzzel brake. Shooting from the bench with ear protection is very pleasant. One day I was checking my zero before hunting at a secluded spot. I fired 2 rounds then walked to the target to check. Came back made an adjustment and fired another round only this time, for some stupid reason, I forgot to wear the ear protectors. I thought my head was going to explode. I held my head in my hands and fully expected to have blood coming from my ears. Lucky there was none. That hunting season I hunted with a fear I was going to have to shoot at a moose. Since then the muzzel brake has been removed and i've taken the stance that if I can't handle the recoil of a cartridge then mabey I should get one that I can. There is also an advantage of 2" less length of barrel.

I am actually waiting for a warmer day to test the difference of accuracy with/without muzzle break on a Model 70 in 300 Win Mag. I will post pics, but it may take till April at this rate.

The "brake blast" is associated with a story, that resulted in my friend willing this rifle to me after he passed on. I gave him hell about it, in a friendly way, after he took a shot at a ground hog while walking into our hunting spot.

I make and install custom muzzle brakes for the occasional customer that feels they need one for whatever reason. However, I only have one rifle of my own on which I felt was appropriate to install one and it is not a hunting rifle. As with the others, I have noted very few instances where accuracy was affected and that was corrected by changing the characteristics of the brake to alter harmonics. I would not make this choice lightly.

For a time (late seventies to late eighties) brakes were quite in demand and I must have put on three hundred or so. The first hundred sold fast, the second hundred, not so much, and the third hundred was good for two years. Today, I make them as I need them. Some are of the KDF-style, some are slotted, some thread on, some are integral. All in all, I think they have their place. They don't work particularily well on rifles which fire heavy bullets using faster powders (like a 458). They work exceptionally well on rifles which use large charges of slower powders to drive light to medium weight bullets (like a 7mm Mag). I have some customers who hunt with 300 Magnums and who like the brakes for the hunting they do. They have time to put in some earplugs during the stalk. Guys who hunt in brushy conditions don't like to use the brakes since shots are taken quickly. In addition, the brakes can collect debris unless they are taped.
To the original question; I have never had a case where accuracy was hurt by the installation of a brake. I did have a few instances where rifles which I had sent away for Mag-na-porting did suffer a loss of accuracy.
I have built a few brakes which were made so that no gases were directed downward; to minimize the disturbance when shooting prone. They seem to work very well but are a bit of a pain to make and install. Regards, Bill.

As a "foul weather" gun for drive hunting and in replacement of my 9,3x74R double rifle, I use a 9,3x62 Blaser R93 whose barrel is Mag-Na-Ported. I can't say I feel a recoil reduction and the noise isn't objectionable, but the big asset is that the rifle recoils in a straight line and that is a big help for fast repeating shots on running game. Also, accuracy is not impaired in the least as the rifle averages < MOA (NB : with a small 1,25-4x24 scope).