Muzzle Brakes

Dan Newcombe

Well-Known Member
Never used one so im just after opinions.

Do they actually make the rifle louder than with nothing on the end of it or does it just seem louder because the sound comes out sideways rather than straight forward (ie would someone standing half a mile away notice the difference?)

I used an un moderated rifle the other day and it was much nicer to carry etc but i do like the reduced recoil from a moderator.

If i was using without a moderator then i would wear ear protection anyway but would like to know if it is actually louder

Dan
 
They make the rifle loader at the fireing point any anybody next/behind you get's a piece of the blast and by that I mean feel it and hear it whilst at the same time reduce recoil a fraction however it confuses the hell out of deer. When I had one on my Browning the deer just stood around I can only presume they couldn't work out were the sound/round had come from. If you use a rifle with a muzzle break in an enclose space ie:- covered range then best wear some good ear defence and be ready for folks to complain. As for the stalker who offer's you thier shoulder to rest on, we'll he'll be deaf for quite sometime when you let the shot off.

BUT they are good just don't recoil to be on the par with a sound moderated rifle.

Jase.
 
The noise is not increased with the use of a brake, it is just directed to the side increasing percieved volume.


At target sound ?

Well I think the noise would be more difficult to detect the direction it came from -ive shot multiples of deer using braked rifles and they did not react by running in the direction away from the shot.


I have brakes on two stalking rifles - but I also use moderators on the same guns - dependant on the season.


If I am after stags / bucks and I am only likely to fire one or two shots, I will use the brake.


If I am after hinds and the likelyhood is of 3, 4 , 5 etc shots, I use a mod, which is far more effective at stopping the animals from detecting where the shot has come from giving me extra time on "target" or to avoid critique the intended cull animals.



Regarding brakes and range use - well yes they may be unpleasant to the chap alongside, so maybe you can move further away or put up a case bettween you and he.


But as all guns make a noise when they go off, why should there be an issue............
 
The noise is not increased with the use of a brake, it is just directed to the side increasing percieved volume.

This is a little confusing I suspect. The energy used to make the noise is as you suggest "redirected" but this means that at the ears of the person firing the rifle, or even at the ears of those nearby, the sound pressure level of a rifle with a brake is significantly higher than the SPL of a rifle without a brake. It is this energy that causes damage so this isn't just a "perceived" increase in volume with no consequences but rather a significant increase in the potential to damage hearing.

But as all guns make a noise when they go off, why should there be an issue............

The issue is that the louder the noise the more the damage and even with hearing protection a rifle with a brake may well be producing the sort of SPLs that cause hearing damage. Most hearing protection offers a reduction in SPL of around 25 - 30dB and that only just about takes an unmoderated 308W below the EU maximum for impulse type noises, clearly you don't want exposed to anything louder.

Now, despite this I have never seen any reliable figures for the actual increase in SPL produced by a brake, most of the research I've seen appears to examine the reduction due to a moderator. So, while I can produce hard figures to support you using a moderator I can't produce any hard figures to quantify the increased energy that will be acting to cause damage when using a brake and, as ever, the decision has to be your own. My personal advice is - don't do it without a lot of serious protection.
 
Not all muzzle brakes are equal :eek: soem give better recoil reduction that others and some seem to be made to just look good. Obviously aimed at the "Tacticool" market.

At the club range there is a little crowd with their "Tacticool" rifles and most have brakes of one type/design of another and to be honest they're a damned nusience. heaven forbid you should ask them to move to one side. Nope they have to take centre of the range to effect as many as possible.

Well I sort of got my own back as I acquired for the collection a BSA Majestic in .243 win which has the BESA recoil reducer machined in the muzzle and the day I took it to try it out several of this group were there but with their stalking rifles. They didn't appreciate the side blast and complained loudly as it was was putting off their their zeroing :evil:

They also didn't like the answer of like it or lump just as WE have too when your playing with your "tacticool" toys. However I have noticed that the brakes seem to be in less use now :) Unlike their "tacticool" jobbies the BESA cannot be removed although i do have the range adaptor to close it off. It's a sleeve which clamps over it secured behind the fore sight ramp.

The reason quarry are unsure about the direction is the "Cone of Confusion" caused by Brakes and moderators. By re-directing or moderating the muzzle report the quarry only gets the supersonic crack of the bullet and cannot pin point it's origin so they don't know which way is SAFE to run in so they tend to mill about. I am trying to remember the wording of a lecture that I attended at the Imperial War Museum on this subject of Moderators and brakes and they effect and use. it was given by the late Andrew Hamlet who used to have articles on the Russian small arms published in Guns review and later worked for a company specialising is recoil reduction and sound moderation for the security and military. the biggest Sound Mode they built was for 120mm SP guns for the German army :eek:.
 
Just wondered, are they brakes one sees on the end of tank barrels? Would I be correct in assuming they are there to allow quicker target acquisition for a second shot?
 
Dan, catagorically there is no more noise produced by fitting a muzzle brake, there is a finite amount of noise and it is distributed differently through a muzzle brake. Not all brakes are created equally. I had the pleasure of using one on my 6.5 the other week and it tempted me to buy one. I will look for the link and edit it in.

Having said that, they are a pain in the ear for anyone with you. They have to be the most anti-social piece of shooting equipment when shooting in company. Ear defenders out in the open, ear defenders with ear plugs in the range are a must. But they do cut down on weight carried and reduce muzzle flip significantly.

ft

http://www.thirdeyetactical.com/thirdeye_website_011.htm
 
Last edited:
Just wondered, are they brakes one sees on the end of tank barrels? Would I be correct in assuming they are there to allow quicker target acquisition for a second shot?

I believe that those used on artillery and tanks guns and flash hiders. Stop the enemy spotting your position so easily.
 
When stalking in the north of scotland with my browning 30-06 with boss (ther version of a break) I was asked to shot at a target to check zero. Was a nice cold November morning with about 1/2 foot of powder snow on the deck. The young gillie decided to stand over me, did point out that I had a muzzle break on and did tell him not to standover me becuase he'd suffer the blast and noise, all he said was no problem I've done this plenty of times...... There's me thinking but not with a 30-06 with a muzzle break on.

Anyway pulled the trigger and BOOM snow everywhere, next thing I hear was F*cking hell what was that, All I could say to him was "told you" suffice to say he didn't see the shot and next time he decided to stay well away from me when I pulled the trigger.

Jase.
 
In many countries in Africa and other places where you may have a guide or a PH with you, the use of Muzzle brakes is banned. The sound pressures involved make the use of earplugs AND earmuffs mandatory to bring the levels down to a reasonably safe level.
Even then sound travels through the small bones in your head and can still do damage.
 
I used to use one quite a bit and now have two hearing aids! Seriously, the noise and pressure/shock wave are very harmful.

Having said that, the reduction in recoil and, especially, muzzle flip is enormous.

If anyone wants to try one they can have mine for £25, it is the old style, 'Duck foot' type and is threaded 1/2'' UNF (I think, I just tried it on my .22 and it fits). I am fairly certain that I can simply sell and post it? It isn't on my FAC. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong. I can email a photo if anyone is genuinely interested. JC
 
My boss has a BSA Majestic with porting cut into the end of the barrel.

I cringe when it goes off.

Ahhh may I ask what calibre and chambering it's in please?

Despite my being told they are often found I brought the only one I had ever seen in person this is the one I have:-

PICT0082.jpg


PICT0083.jpg


PICT0095.jpg


Hmmm must take some better photos. Just noticed how poor they are. now I have athe card reader there is really no excuse for not replacing these :oops:.

Interestingly I will measure the depth of counterbore and actual barrel length as I believe it to be under 20" and this is one a .243 win.
 
I believe that those used on artillery and tanks guns and flash hiders. Stop the enemy spotting your position so easily.

Come on Kev, it's going to take more than a muzzle brake to hide the flash from about 15lb of cordite going off, it lights up the sky like day anyway.;)
The main reason for artillery muzzle brakes is to reduce the dust and debris cloud on discharge by directing the bulk of the blast away from the ground. On a tank barrel not fitted with a fume extractor, air circulating through the muzzle brake also reduces the amount of fumes getting back into the turret by pulling them out through the muzzle. On tank guns this is very old technology though, and muzzle brakes have been replaced by fume extractors.
 
Ahhh may I ask what calibre and chambering it's in please?

Despite my being told they are often found I brought the only one I had ever seen in person this is the one I have:-

PICT0082.jpg


PICT0083.jpg


PICT0095.jpg


Hmmm must take some better photos. Just noticed how poor they are. now I have athe card reader there is really no excuse for not replacing these :oops:.

Interestingly I will measure the depth of counterbore and actual barrel length as I believe it to be under 20" and this is one a .243 win.
Thats the one, its 270win, I notice that it has 150grn stamped on the barrel, is this a recommendation or stipulation on bullet weight?
 
Thats the one, its 270win, I notice that it has 150grn stamped on the barrel, is this a recommendation or stipulation on bullet weight?


Dan,

That's just the standard proof marks for the period. I think they changed them as too many people assumed it was a load recommendation or data :rolleyes: but this is what you mean :-

Majestic_proof_marks.jpg


or I assume that's what you mean.

Ahhh Harry yes it's old as the 25 pounders dad was on had the flash hiders on them as did the 17 Pounders he also trained on. He didn't like the high pitched sharp crack of the 17's. Now I didn't say it worked just that part of the idea was to hide your position from the enemy ;).


Hmmm muzzle brakes :p

I am going to make a brake to fit onto the new 7mm/.280 barrel as I threaded it 1/2" UNF this evening. Although I had not real intention of using a mod with it whilst it was in the lathe it seemed prudent to thread the muzzle just in case. Saves the bother of doing it later if it's needed or wanted. Will also have to make a nice thread cover for it when the fitments are not in use. If a mod is used on this re-built Monarch then it will have to be a muzzle can as I shall solder on the foresight ramp so the Lyman 57SME receiver sight can be used :D.
 
Back
Top