Muzzle brake

[augercreek]

What is the benefit of a muzzle brake?

[pietro]

.

A brake will reduce felt recoil & muzzle rise - but will also deliver a much louder report when fired.


.

[Lead Fred]

Good for bench rest shooting, bad for just about everything else.
There are better ways to reduce felt recoil than a brake

[Mk42gunner]

They are an excellent way to jump start tinnitus. The more effective one is at reducing recoil, the easier it will harm your hearing.

Can you tell I don't like them?

Robert

[M-Tecs]

As others have stated recoil reductions and decreased muzzle rise. I don't use them on hunting rifles that I don't use hearing protection with. I love them on my prairie dog rifles but I am allows wearing hearing protection when shooting PD's.

[John Taylor]

I have quite a few customers that like them. When I was testing them I found out not all brakes work. The whole idea is to redirect the high pressure gas in a different direction. On my test setup I used a 308 with a 22" barrel and was getting 50% reduction in recoil with the holes at 90 degrees from the bore. Slanting the holes back did not change the reduction but slanting them forward only gave 25% reduction with less noise. When the holes were slanted back it was a lot harder on the ears. The idea of slanting the holes back to use the gas to push forward on the barrel does not work.

[JWT]

I agree with MK42Gunner. My 30-378 recoil is reduced but the blast is awful.

[zubrato]

Love/hate.
Love it on my AR, shooting is just a dream with zero recoil.
hate it on my AR. it's crazy loud, even when I'm wearing ear plugs, and muffs. You still feel the pressure wave on your face, and you can develop a flinch standing next to the guy shooting a brake. When its OK, it feels like someone popped a balloon in your face. When it's bad, it feels like a truck tire exploded in your face, over and over.
Painfully loud. I went through a phase where I tried a brake for cheap, went to forward directing blast cones, minimal gains huge weight gains right at the muzzle, went full circle back to an A2 birdcage and I love it lol

Again, love hate relationship. Shootability is EXCELLENT, new shooters love them. But holy hell does everyone else hate you at the range, and I feel their pain.

223 with a brake has a seriously sharp and fast "pop" factor which is really unpleasant, but a brake on bigger calibers like 308 at an indoor range...
The flash and rumble made me feel like the fat guy on the crapper in jurassic park. I usually dont bother others and mind my own business, but I had to step back and watch the guy at work to give him a thumbs up. The walls and windows were shaking and the flash made me think someone was screwing around with a searchlight.

[Mk42gunner]

I agree with MK42Gunner. My 30-378 recoil is reduced but the blast is awful.

A .30-378 isn't bad, you should experience a 25MM chain gun's muzzle blast some time. Guaranteed that every single time we shot them flakes of rust vibrated from between brackets bolted to the skin of the ship.

They were nasty enough if you were the gunner, and thus directly in line with the bore. Any other position on the gun crew and it just flat hurt, even with plugs and muffs.

The bulkhead twenty or so feet behind us really helped to reflect the sound of the blast back to us.

Robert

[Frank46]

5"54's will definitely scramble your insides especially standing next to it. Buddy of mine found out about that the hard way with no ear protection. Used to go up on the flight deck and stand behind one of the slow firing 5"54's during a dependent's day cruise. Was really neat to watch one of the rounds fly out of the barrel. And even after warnings someone usually one of the dependents would get knocked off the feet. No muzzle brake on those old mounts.Frank

[augercreek]

Thanks for the info guys! I'm glad I asked!!!

[Mk42gunner]

What do you expect when you burn twenty pounds of powder for one shot with a seventy pound projectile?

I used to hang out of the gun house to watch the fall of shot when I was gun captain. About the only time I didn't was if I was in Mt 51 and we were shooting off the Starboard side, then the people on the bridge could see me. They seemed to think it was unsafe for some reason.

If you didn't get more than two feet outside the muzzle blast wasn't bad. If you went to full arms length, let's just say you only did that once.

It is neat to a BL&P go skipping across a glass smooth ocean surface; but more fun to see an HE-CVT blow up and scatter shrapnel fifty feet from the surface.

Robert

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I have quite a few customers that like them. When I was testing them I found out not all brakes work. The whole idea is to redirect the high pressure gas in a different direction. On my test setup I used a 308 with a 22" barrel and was getting 50% reduction in recoil with the holes at 90 degrees from the bore. Slanting the holes back did not change the reduction but slanting them forward only gave 25% reduction with less noise. When the holes were slanted back it was a lot harder on the ears. The idea of slanting the holes back to use the gas to push forward on the barrel does not work.

The effect is produce by the gas pressing much more on the forward side of the holes. If you try to power a bullet out of a revolver with a high pressure air pump, the air would simply escape from the cylinder gap with a plaintive whine. The reason powder gases keep on moving forward, too much even to cause much erosion at the cylinder gap, is that high velocity gases have much more objection to changing direction.

You have found that you don't get extra recoil reduction by angling the holes backwards. But you might do it by increasing their length, or having a flange connected to the rear of the brake by as few and thin pillars as will be adequately strong. I would beware of using one for any kind of shooting where debris is likely to lodge in the brake. Targets and prairie dogs are likely to be shot in the open, and it is no disaster if one more prairie dog gets left on the prairie, but if a twig is going to get into the brake in the deer woods, it is going to happen at the worst possible time. Anyway, you don't fire enough shots at deer, or even elephant, for recoil to spoil your day.

[Hickok]

One thing I see you all missed about a muzzle brake. You can clear off your shooting bench with one shot, all loose targets, and small items will be immediately relocated to the ground, and the top of your shooting bench will be nice and neat!

When laying prone in the heat of summer, you can start a dust storm with one pull of trigger, then you get to clean the dust and debris from that very expensive scope and lens you saved so long for.

I have one barrel that is ported, not technically a muzzle break, and I can truthfully say I don't want any more.

I hate muzzle breaks!

[leftiye]

The brake on my 300 Win Mag makes it a joy (fun) to shoot. I don't use it on the bench. Otherwise I have no problems with it.

[leftiye]

The effect is produce by the gas pressing much more on the forward side of the holes. If you try to power a bullet out of a revolver with a high pressure air pump, the air would simply escape from the cylinder gap with a plaintive whine. The reason powder gases keep on moving forward, too much even to cause much erosion at the cylinder gap, is that high velocity gases have much more objection to changing direction. You have found that you don't get extra recoil reduction by angling the holes backwards. But you might do it by increasing their length, or having a flange connected to the rear of the brake by as few and thin pillars as will be adequately strong. I would beware of using one for any kind of shooting where debris is likely to lodge in the brake. Targets and prairie dogs are likely to be shot in the open, and it is no disaster if one more prairie dog gets left on the prairie, but if a twig is going to get into the brake in the deer woods, it is going to happen at the worst possible time. Anyway, you don't fire enough shots at deer, or even elephant, for recoil to spoil your day.

How far the gasses are allowed to expand (wide gap/slot) and how much area they have to impact are two of the variables. Having about one inch of freebore in front of the expansion chamber helps the gasses to spread out (maintains pressure causing more gasses out to the sides). One of the best brakes I've seen screws on over the end of the barrel, has about an inch long chamber (barrel diameter inside and tapering bigger) with a front wall with gaps on the sides and top for gasses to escape from after they hit the wall.

[Nobade]

Something not mentioned yet is they work very poorly with cast bullets. I make and sell at least a thousand of them per year, and never have any accuracy issues using jacketed bullets. But the very few people who have tried cast bullets in them reported very bad accuracy. So I tried it myself, and sure enough it doesn't work. My theory is the gas is passing the bullet, hitting the baffles, and reflecting back to tear up the bullet. Otherwise I wouldn't see so much leading inside the brake. They seem to work OK for IPSC type shooting with much lower muzzle pressures than rifles, or maybe the accuracy needs aren't as tight, but I now recommend shooters not use them with cast.

-Nobade

[Ballistics in Scotland]

How far the gasses are allowed to expand (wide gap/slot) and how much area they have to impact are two of the variables. Having about one inch of freebore in front of the expansion chamber helps the gasses to spread out (maintains pressure causing more gasses out to the sides). One of the best brakes I've seen screws on over the end of the barrel, has about an inch long chamber (barrel diameter inside and tapering bigger) with a front wall with gaps on the sides and top for gasses to escape from after they thhit the wall.

The thing that has always surprised me is why a brake like a smallish suppressor, but with the baffles further apart, shouldn't work like an extremely effective brake without creating any extra blast or noise. I could see why an ordinary suppressor, with the baffles close enough together for the gases to bounce back against the front of the previous one, wouldn't do so.

[M-Tecs]

Something not mentioned yet is they work very poorly with cast bullets. I make and sell at least a thousand of them per year, and never have any accuracy issues using jacketed bullets. But the very few people who have tried cast bullets in them reported very bad accuracy. So I tried it myself, and sure enough it doesn't work. My theory is the gas is passing the bullet, hitting the baffles, and reflecting back to tear up the bullet. Otherwise I wouldn't see so much leading inside the brake. They seem to work OK for IPSC type shooting with much lower muzzle pressures than rifles, or maybe the accuracy needs aren't as tight, but I now recommend shooters not use them with cast.

-Nobade

That's good to know.

[Old Scribe]

Something not mentioned yet is they work very poorly with cast bullets. I make and sell at least a thousand of them per year, and never have any accuracy issues using jacketed bullets. But the very few people who have tried cast bullets in them reported very bad accuracy. So I tried it myself, and sure enough it doesn't work. My theory is the gas is passing the bullet, hitting the baffles, and reflecting back to tear up the bullet. Otherwise I wouldn't see so much leading inside the brake. They seem to work OK for IPSC type shooting with much lower muzzle pressures than rifles, or maybe the accuracy needs aren't as tight, but I now recommend shooters not use them with cast.


-Nobade

Hmm. Perhaps I need to take a closer look at the brake on my Mini 14. I haven't noticed poorer accuracy cast vs. jacketed.