Mosin muzzle breaks

[Fly]

I read some very bad reviews on Aim Sports Inc Mosin Nagant M44 Muzzle Brake (Bolt-On).Most was the screws backing out & the thing coming off.

Maybe some of you have one of these.My question is why not add more
screws to the sides & lock tight them.I'm a retired tool & die maker.
For $10 there is no way I can make one for that price.

But I would think you could modify it for such a low cost if it doe's
indeed work.Your comments wanted.

Fly:razz:

[I'll Make Mine]

The underlying problem is that if the muzzle isn't machined in some fashion, the taper of the barrel works against anything that might try to hold by friction. If you use hard (grade 8 or better) screws with pointed tips (and especially if you use more of them), they might hold, but will permanently mar the barrel (which is fairly soft, by comparison) -- and they might still come off under recoil and pressure inside the brake. I'd rather see the muzzle turned and threaded for a conventional muzzle brake, with threads locked by a setscrew (which only has to hold against rotation, not high tensile loads during a shot; those are taken by the threads).

(Edit to add: you could, in addition to adding more screws, mount the brake with one or two screws and then drill spot the barrel through the other holes to give more purchase to pointed screws; this is a permanent modification of the rifle, which many don't consider kosher, but it's your rifle...)

For whatever it's worth, I don't really like the look of a Mosin with a muzzle brake mounted anyway -- if you don't like the recoil (and it can be a bit, um, sharp in the lighter M44 compared to my 91/30), I'd recommend a recoil pad ($15 will get you one that's a screw-on replacement for the original steel butt plate, and also adds a rough inch to length of pull, which we need if we're not wearing heavy Russian winter clothing), and loading your rounds down 10% to 20% from surplus levels (which also makes them friendlier to cast boolits).

[Fly]

Well I did not measure the barrel, so I did not realize it had a taper to it.My mistake.
I do have a recoil pad on this bad boy, but it does not keep the muzzle from rising.

I may just make a thread on one myself.Thanks you have brought up some GREAT
points my friend.
Fly

[Shiloh]

You could do roll pin and groove to hold it on, or just leave it original.

Shiloh

[Beekeeper]

Fly,
Before you start threading the muzzle of your M44 you need to look at it very carefully.
All,All M44's have a section added to the barrel at the muzzle.
It is a sleeve afair that holds the front sight and bayonet lugs.
It is held on by a pin and soft solder, and is about 4 inches long.
If you remove it there is a much smaller barrel tip than what you see.
There was a web page somewhere that showed how to remove it and make a brake to solder on in its place.
The barrel underneath is tapered so whatever you do must match the taper.

Don't ask me how I know all of this.

beekeeper

[JeffinNZ]

I understood the best muzzle break for a M44 was a cinder block.

[I'll Make Mine]

If it's primarily muzzle rise you're concerned about, another option might be to find an EDM shop to cut some ports into the barrel, right through the sight mounting collar. EDM cuts will be smooth enough inside that they won't cause trouble (they've been putting EDM porting in handguns for decades), won't add a pound or more to the weight, and can be oriented to specifically address muzzle rise (say, 30º either side of the top centerline, and dug straight in, no angle forward or backward). If you have a concern with jackets hanging on the ports (never been a problem, as far as I've read, but...), you could counterbore a few thousandths larger than goove past the ports -- essentially turning the muzzle of the original barrel into an invisible muzzle brake.

[303Guy]

I have been using Loc-Tite for retaining muzzle devices with complete success. Do use the strongest one available. Even with an oversized device bore (but with matching taper), the Loc-Tite held but I did fill the clearance with paper which was soaked in the stuff. I had to burn it to get it off!

My style of 'muzzle brake' is a semi-suppressor. It would be interesting to compare the two. Easy to make as well - sort of.

[Ola]

Fly, is a suppressor ( or "moderator") on option for you?

Here almost no one uses muzzle brakes in bolt guns: www.aseutra.fi/s-series-sl5-suppressor

It is little bit bigger than muzzle brake, but the reduction in recoil is amazing, and it also works as a suppressor (by law the device must be effective enough to be called "suppressor". This one is effective enough. Which is a GOOD thing here).

[303Guy]

Here one can see the size of mine. It may not be the best thing for recoil reduction but it did work and reduced muzzle blast considerably.

http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo327/303Guy/MVC-303F_edited.jpg

[I'll Make Mine]

Most Americans can't use a suppressor -- even with the correct license, the $500 tax stamp makes it a little silly for a $120 rifle...

[Ola]

Most Americans can't use a suppressor -- even with the correct license, the $500 tax stamp... I have been wondering why it is so? Why US hunters and shooters are punished for trying to cause less noise? It got to have something to do with Hollywood...

[EMC45]

Tax stamp is actually $200 for the ATFE for a suppressor.

[halbautomatisch]

I have been wondering why it is so? Why US hunters and shooters are punished for trying to cause less noise? It got to have something to do with Hollywood...

Most of the state laws banning or licensing sound suppressors were enacted many years ago to control animal poaching. As others have said, even where it is legal, you will still need a $200 federal tax stamp that takes 4 or so months to get (or so I'm told, suppressors are not legal where I'm at, so I don't know first hand).

Just another example of outdated laws that our politicians seem to think need to kept for crime prevention reasons.

[I'll Make Mine]

The underlying law on suppressors in the United States is the 1934 legislation that also banned/regulated civilian possession of fully automatic weapons (aimed mainly at the Thompson that was so popular with gangsters, but Clyde Barrow loved his cut-down BAR), grenade launchers, and so forth. States can further restrict, banning completely items that are legal with license and tax stamp at the Federal level -- but suppressor restrictions aren't about poaching, at their core; they're about assassination, gang violence, and organized crime.

And yes, I know that's silly, since criminals don't worry about breaking a few gun laws along the way to killing folks, robbing banks, and importing drugs -- but it's the government, it's not supposed to make sense.

[dragon813gt]

Last time I looked you were able to purchase one in 38 states provided you go through all the legal hoops. That makes them available to more people than not.


Brought to you by TapaTalk.

[I'll Make Mine]

Last time I looked you were able to purchase one in 38 states provided you go through all the legal hoops. That makes them available to more people than not.

Okay, but look at the states where you can't -- I'd bet that of that dozen, five or more are in the top ten for population, certainly including California and New York (between those two states, you've accounted for almost a third of the population of the USA). Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Alaska don't account for much in "most people"...

[Artful]

Most Americans can't use a suppressor -- even with the correct license, the $500 tax stamp makes it a little silly for a $120 rifle...

Dude, get informed
http://www.silencertalk.com
http://nfatalk.org/
http://www.silencersarelegal.com/
http://www.silencerforum.com/

- 38 states allow suppressors
http://www.silencersarelegal.com/img/map.png

- tax as stated is $200 for the can, most states don't require other than what the fed's do and at worst registration with local LEO
- your suppressor will cost more than your mosin, so what you can use on multiple rifles.

Same AAC cyclone threaded on multiple rifles.
http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7485/dsc05617nk5.jpg
http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/4231/p1010427.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/rowdyfisk/Misc/0612112302.jpg

Why the anger - and false information - ONLY in liberal minds is it about
"States can further restrict, banning completely items that are legal with license and tax stamp at the Federal level -- but suppressor restrictions aren't about poaching, at their core; they're about assassination, gang violence, and organized crime." Criminal can make a suppressor just like they can make drugs - it ain't that hard.
- And Machine Guns are restricted not banned by federal law. It was still legal to make your own as a citizen until 1986. Now they won't take your money and issue a stamp which is unconstitutional "infringement" of 2nd amendment rights but has not made it to SCOTUS yet. But we still make them for the .gov and LEO community.

[Artful]

Okay, but look at the states where you can't -- I'd bet that of that dozen, five or more are in the top ten for population, certainly including California and New York (between those two states, you've accounted for almost a third of the population of the USA). Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Alaska don't account for much in "most people"...

True that large numbers of fruits and nuts on left and east coast have laws that restrict stuff the rest of the population has ready access to (44 oz drinks, 4 cell mag lights, baseball bats, etc) but that is by their choice of who they elect to State / local office.

They could change it if they wanted too. Heck Washington state had laws up until recently that you could own a suppressor but couldn't use it. :roll:

And us little states like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Arizona, Oregon, Nevada etc have plenty of people in them - we prefer the fruits and nuts stay on the beach in L.A., San Fran or Coney Island. [smilie=1:

By the way North Carolina is a state that does allow Suppressor ownership - see your local NFA dealer for more information. :drinks:

[Ed in North Texas]

Okay, but look at the states where you can't -- I'd bet that of that dozen, five or more are in the top ten for population, certainly including California and New York (between those two states, you've accounted for almost a third of the population of the USA). Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and Alaska don't account for much in "most people"...

Actually you are correct that about 1/3d of the US population is denied owning suppressors, but it takes all the prohibiting states to get to that almost 1/3d. NY and CA are #3 and #1 respectively and losing population. The only other banning state in the 10 most populous states is IL @ #5 (NJ is #11). RI and DE don't count for much either - in anything. Well, let me take that back, DE gave us Joe Biteme. :bigsmyl2: (that smilie seemed most appropriate now).

So about 2/3ds of the populace are not prohibited by their state from owning a suppressor.

Ed

[Got-R-Did]

If recoil reduction is the primary goal of this thread, go to your local Wally World and get a Winchester/Simms Laboratorys slip on silicone recoil pad for $22 and call it good. Increases the length of pull like the hard rubber pad available through many surplus outlets, but actually reduces the felt recoil to that of a .243 Win.
Got-R-Did.

[I'll Make Mine]

Why the anger - and false information - ONLY in liberal minds is it about
"States can further restrict, banning completely items that are legal with license and tax stamp at the Federal level -- but suppressor restrictions aren't about poaching, at their core; they're about assassination, gang violence, and organized crime."

I'm not the one who made the regulations, and I'm not the one who's angry.

[303Guy]

Wasn't it Ronald Reagan who said "Liberals aren't ignorant, it's just that they know so much that ain't so". Somehow that seems to be appropriate now.