Compensator vs Muzzle brake

[Muir]

Home Page

This is where I buy my brakes for my target rifles. When shooting at extreme ranges they really do keep the target in the sight picture at all times, allowing you often to follow the bullets distortion signature to the target, as well as see the hit. Or as often is found in my case, the miss. In any event, they direct gasses both upward and rearward. the effect is that the rifle -even my RPR with stout 190 grain loads- just shudders when I squeeze one off. I have gone through the paperwork for my first suppressor and when it arrives, the brakes my become history. I don't know. If the laws change here, as I think they will, the need for the nearly year-long wait for FBI background checks will go away and eventually, the price of the suppressors will fall. At that time, all the brakes will probably be retired. All that said, I am really a fan of the linear compensators. I have them on a couple of rifles and they control muzzle flip and also direct much of the sound directly forward towards the target and away from the firing line. I have them on 300AAC and 5.56 at the moment.~Muir

 

[Sinistral]

Dont get me wrong I don't view that as a bad thing but going off calculated recoil it should be around 25 ft-lbs. which isn't much and also is around what 300 Win Mag gets.

Not intending to be combative, but where did this come from?

I know what is in the Norma ammunition, so ignoring the hype/talking real world the 9.3x57 285gr load is 43grs & does 2100 fps at best. The .300 WM 180gr load is 75grs @ 3000 fps. The 9.3x57 operates at 38K PSI, but the .300 WM operates at 57K PSI. A big gap there.

Your 9.3 is just the same as the 9x56 M-S or the 9.3x53 Swiss. They are all the same lovely low pressure cartridges which don’t need taming & less of a thumper than a .308.

There is a painful difference between them when fired in a similar sporting rifle, so something doesn’t add up. Eyeballing the figures & all the bits involved tells me that the recoil formulae on web-sites is just so much happy horse-sh*t.

 

[Greener Jim]

I don't view your comments as combative so no qualms there.

I agree that the calculators online maybe aren't the best and that felt recoil changes massively even for apparently the same level. 300WM doesn't need taming so I don't see that the 9.3x57 would, it's more just something I might fancy regards the comp or brake.
Also the data I used was anecdotal since there is very little published data.

I based my calculations on the following:
9.3x57: 270gr@2200 with 53gr powder (2300 was achieved but in a 24", mine is 21.5" so I knocked off 100fps as I shouldn't lose more than that reall, 2100 fps was achieved with the starting load)
300WM: 180gr@2900 with 67gr powder as per Hodgdon. I do see that loads like you listed are the high end but I have no experience with those powders or their availability so went for something I knew was available.

Both in 7.5lb rifles.

Anyway this is what comes out:
9.3x57 (2100fps) 25.64 ft-lbs
9.3x57 (2200fps) 27.45 ft-lbs
9.3x57 (2300fps) 29.32 ft-lbs
9.3x57 (your 285gr load) 25.08 ft-lbs

300 Win Mag (my load) 26.37 ft-lbs
300 Win Mag (your load) 29.81 ft-lbs

So pretty close, as I said though, I don't think either need brakes or moderators. That been said, since a brakes only really downside is the perceived increase in noise to the shooter and bystanders I can see the appeal.

 

[tarponhead]

In my experience and with normal target/game loads, the Cutts compensator made very little difference to the 1100 and any there was, is due to the added weight and not much else. Like ported barrels - seemed to be more of a marketing gimmick than anything else, negated by longer forcing cones and back=boring barre;s plus a slightly wider dimension in the more modern clay gun barrels. Maybe turkey and fox loads would be different, but I'm not recoil sensitive and don't shoot 3.5", because they give me no benefit over 3".

 

[Greener Jim]

My understanding (which could easily be wrong) is that gas volume and pressure is directly proportional to muzzle brake/compensator effectiveness. More gases are redirected thus giving a greater effect. 12 bore is low pressure and low gas volume so that may be why it wasn't very effectivez

 

[kuksmith]

In respect of the question about a "mini-sound moderastor.... Husher made a short body sound moderator which accommodated a reduced volume of gas (it worked by re cyling the gases around in the s/mod before exiting the muzzle) - reportedly less effective sound reduction than the larger versions but some sound reduction and less weight.

If I can get my hands on a full bore threaded rifle, I'll try both versions.

 

[trichinosis]

Brakes don't increase noise
that would be impossible
they don't increase the need for hearing protection, that is still necessary

I guess that would depend on your ears. A rifle with a brake is unshootable for me. Even with earplugs + muffs. Rifles without a brake are cool with just muffs.

Just being on the range and someone near me is shooting a rifle with a brake my eyes close involuntarily and I shrug my shoulders involuntarily every time they fire. After hearing a few shots from a rifle with a brake I become a nervous wreck and can't shoot for a time without flinching like a mofo.

No way am I going to ruin my hearing with a muzzle brake.

 

[NigelM]

In respect of the question about a "mini-sound moderastor.... Husher made a short body sound moderator which accommodated a reduced volume of gas (it worked by re cyling the gases around in the s/mod before exiting the muzzle) - reportedly less effective sound reduction than the larger versions but some sound reduction and less weight.

If I can get my hands on a full bore threaded rifle, I'll try both versions.

Have been googling for this but can't find anything. Do they have a website?