Muzzle Brake on a Slug Gun?

I think Drvrage has confused porting with a muzzle break.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSC5LZh6bLE

From Anzio Iron Works Safety Warnings Page: http://www.anzioironworks.com/safety_warnings.htm

DO NOT EVER shoot our rifles without the muzzle brake. Shooting this rifle without the muzzle brake will cause serious damage to your shoulder area and any other body parts that it may come in contact with.

I believe military snipers use a suppressor to reduce the sound signature and recoil or a muzzle break to reduce recoil only (shoot and scoot).
 
Dear Mr Drvrage
Using this kind of language only serves to lessen your credibility. You should learn to write so that you can make an effect point without the personal and subjective attacks if indeed, your point is to inform.

That's my last 2 cents worth....


Agreed. I am an a**hole. I will try to write a little better, but I found his post to be a flat out lie. You should see the PM he sent me, but I won't report it to save him the humiliation. My point is he should not have lied.

As for credibility, look at the content rather than the delivery. Everyone here is trying to sell or drum up interest in another doodad to make a quick buck. It is no different than those guys who sell resistors for the air temp gauge for your car promising better fuel mileage and comming up with lots of reasons why it works. The problem is again, a simple understanding of basic physics and the idiocy of the martket place tells us that this is not only unlikely, but impossible. So despite the obvious snake oil principle being bandied about, you find I'm the one with the credibility problem? So be it. Buy a muzzle break and enjoy shooting slugs like birdshot.


Actually no, physics would prove otherwise, as the air in front of the bullet/slug/shot has mass as does the expanding gases created from the burning powder.

I find it difficult not to be rude, because your statement is preposterous and I am in fact an a**hole. However I'll try my best. The weight of the air in front of the bullet? Really. Ever fired a blank? Where is your recoil. Turns out that proportionately air doesn't weigh enough to really be a factor. But even the ever so minute amounts it can contribute, a muzzle breakonly redirects the air at the end, it does not stop it from moving out of the barrel in the first place. You can add up all the vectors of the escaping gas both along the barrel and out the sides and you'll find taht in the increadibly pathetic amount of force generated, vectors moving perpendicular to the barrel (redirected by muzzle break) do not offset vectors moving parallel to the barrel. (The air moving out of the barrel.)

There is a law however that states: Matter cannot be created or destroyed. This is the "Law of conservation of mass and matter"

And the capital city of Albania is... Choclate Chip Cookies! If you are going to try and drop science make sure you understand it first. What exactly are you trying to state here.

The only application of this principle is that expanding gasses do retain their mass in the gun, but as it is the chemical expansion of the smokeless power that is the expansion point, therefore the source of the force in the system, the force is equally generated equally from from the central point of the powder. Namely the bullet forward and the gun back.

So, the recoil is created by the weight of the bullet being pushed away from you, as well as the weight of the air in front of the bullet being pushed away from you, as well as the weight of the expanding gases being pushed away from you.

Nooooo.... The recoil is created by the gas pushing equally on moving the bullet forward and the rifle back. Recoil is related to the mass and the mass of air in a barrel is beyond negligable.

If you vent some of that air, as well as some of those expanding gases, rearwards, you will have less recoil.

You fail science class. But wer going to give you a social promotion cause we don't want to hurt your self esteem.

Just take a look at videos of how people can fire .50 BMG's with a muzzle break standing with ease, and then look at the video of people shooting the .577 t-rex with no muzzle break.

Theres a large difference in recoil.

You fail science class too. You can't compare unadjusted data between two different cartridges, in two different rifles. Social promotion for you too.

And your attack on beach is a little harsh.

Agreed. Sorry about that. But I have to ask, how do you feel about what I would describe as making false claims for commercial purposes. If beach likes, he can PM me again, and he can send me his muzzle break. I will create our own version of the box 'o' truth and measure the same gun and the same load with and without the muzzle break with an appropriate DIY device to measure recoil. I'm willing to put money on this too.

Redirecting a little air from a cone leaving straign from the muzzle, to a series of smaller cone leaving at odd angles does not magically make the forces of nature dissipate. All it does is blow your ears out.

I may be an ass about it, but would you prefer the truth, or lies dressed up in politeness.
 
I never was much into science to figure out this sort of thing, but I will tell you when you slap a big brake (like the one in the picture) on a .338 Lapua, the felt recoil is reduced to about a .223 or less...;)
 
I think Drvrage has confused porting with a muzzle break.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSC5LZh6bLE

From Anzio Iron Works Safety Warnings Page: http://www.anzioironworks.com/safety_warnings.htm



I believe military snipers use a suppressor to reduce the sound signature and recoil or a muzzle break to reduce recoil only (shoot and scoot).


Not exactly. I am not confused between the difference between the two. I do however believe that they are, depending on design, variations of the same fundamental thing. I do not see a difference other than the name, and the fact that one is intergral to the barrel (just holes drilled in it) and one is a doodad that attached to the end. You can point the vents or drilled ports any direction you want, and the recoil doesn't change. The recoil was generated the moment the bullet moved forward. By the time the bullet reaches a muzzle break 99.999% percent of all the recoil has already been transmitted to the rifle. Doodads and holes don't suck kinetic energy our of closed systems.

If your goal were to reduce muzzle flip, porting your barrel so all gas escapes upward may help some small amount. However the recoil force would be the same.

However to sum up, porting and muzzlebreaks are just more snakeoil to have suckers part from their money. If you disagree, that is your perogative. I would like to sell you some speed holes for the hood of your car. They make the car go faster. :D

Gatehouse: I call BS.
 
ok ok lest all just slow down hear.
The main thing is that with a break on just about any gun, it make the gun easyer to control.
we can sit hear all way about how or why it does, but it works, so who cares why.
Try one and you will see.
bbb
 
ok ok lest all just slow down hear.
The main thing is that with a break on just about any gun, it make the gun easyer to control.
we can sit hear all way about how or why it does, but it works, so who cares why.
Try one and you will see.
bbb

Says the peddler of doodads..... :eek:
 
I would imagine the physics has something to do with acceleration, time, distance and the weight of the rifle versus the acceleration, time, distance and weight of the bullet. Before the rifle accelerates backwards and gains any significant momentum and energy, there is a forward pull from the gas pressure exiting the brake reducing the reward acceleration and momentum. Afterall, the barrel is only 18" to 36" long......the time it takes for the bullet to exit the muzzle brake is extremely negligible. So mass and acceleration would be key factors in the mechanics and effectiveness of a muzzle brake.
 
Gatehouse: I call BS.

Call BS on what? Muzzle brakes working? I hate the damn things, but they DO work.

I don't own an .338 Lapua myself, but a friend of mine did, and it had a giant brake on it...He said "give it a shot at that golf ball 200 yards away."

So I did, and I had the pleasure of watching the golf ball through the scope, as it bounced away..The rifle moved no more than a .223 or even .22LR woudl have.

I've shot a number of braked rifles, and they all tame felt recoil (and increase volume)

Before "calling BS" I think you should let us know what your actual experiences with braked rifles is. Because you seem to be 100% sure in your beliefs, yet that is contrary to virtually every shooters experience with muzzle brakes.
 
Sadly I have limited experience with breaks. I have yet been able to try a with break and without break test on the same gun with the same load as the only brakes I have used were installed permanently. No unscrewing for me.

What I have done was shot a breaked 12 guage pump (Mossberg 590A1) and then fire the same round in a Remington 870 pump without a break. They felt exactly the same only the break was louder and my friend who owned the Mossberg heard ringing in his ears for a few minutes as he stood beside me with s**tty earplugs. This was with both buck and slug. If the placebo effect, or drug abuse make you love the effects of your muzzle break more power to you.

I have also shot at rental ranges ported and unported versions of the same gun, but each had vastly different barrel lengths. 9 1/2 versus 4" S&W. The recoil was different, but it is not really comparable because of the weight of the barrel length difference. Again, the ported model was louder and much more obvious at station 1 beside a wall in an indoor range.

As for rifles, I have shot some cool s**t with muzzle breaks, but have never fired the same thing without one. 50 BMG, 300 win mag, 338 Lapua. I cannot compare, cause no one would let me chop off their muzzle break. :D


If muzzle breaks were so great, and had real world benefits, why isn't every gun outfitted with them? Recoil being the single biggest complaint of shooters, especially as we age, why aren't every gun comming with these fantastic magical devices. Why is every clays gun outfitted with one (or two) Why hasn't my experience shown any reduction in recoil?

I am not philosophically opposed to recoil reduction. In fact I would champion them if they did a damn thing. But they don't. They look cool, they sounds cool, people will pay more for them (like most doodads) so the market props them up. The market also pimps out the sham-wow, the slap-chop, the salad spinner, and the techniques to make millions by placing little tiny classified ads in newspapers. Now we can add to this the muzzle break.

Anyone in the GTA with a detachable Muzzle break and a penchant for lending guns?
 
There is one thing people should keep in mind is that according to the laws of physics and NASA scientists, a bumblebee cannot fly. It appears that no one has told the bumblebee...

I'm into aviation, and the theory of flight is still a theory... any ideas as to why that is? Because we cannot prove it correct, or disprove it enough to dump it and start again.

There appears to be a large gap in our understanding of aerodynamics (physics). Perhaps that would explain why muzzle brakes work yet perhaps should not?

Also, if you would like a demonstration, see Gord at EESA in Ontario. He lets everyone shoot his .50 BMG, and if you like he will take the brake off. You will not maintain a seated position without the brake.

Take care,
Mike
 
There is a big difference between felt recoil and recoil forces. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction blah blah blah. The energy can be diverted or transferred in ways which will make the gun FEEL like it is recoiling less. You can mitigate felt recoil through many different means. Sorry if that isn't scientific enough but I have to go put a muzzle brake on my .300 so the yote's don't see my shots......:rolleyes:
 
There is one thing people should keep in mind is that according to the laws of physics and NASA scientists, a bumblebee cannot fly. It appears that no one has told the bumblebee...

I'm into aviation, and the theory of flight is still a theory... any ideas as to why that is? Because we cannot prove it correct, or disprove it enough to dump it and start again.

There appears to be a large gap in our understanding of aerodynamics (physics). Perhaps that would explain why muzzle brakes work yet perhaps should not?

Also, if you would like a demonstration, see Gord at EESA in Ontario. He lets everyone shoot his .50 BMG, and if you like he will take the brake off. You will not maintain a seated position without the brake.

Take care,
Mike

Ooooooo.... Love it when the challenge flag gets thrown down. :D
 
Sadly I have limited experience with breaks. I.

Yet you speak in absolutes...:rolleyes:

If muzzle breaks were so great, and had real world benefits, why isn't every gun outfitted with them?

Because they are expensive, loud and not necessarily necessary. I'd never own a braked rifle unless I got serious about shooting .50 BMG or something similar.

Recoil being the single biggest complaint of shooters, especially as we age, why aren't every gun comming with these fantastic magical devices. Why is every clays gun outfitted with one (or two) ?

Quite a few clays shooters port thier shotguns for recoil reduction, but the real reason they don't all use them is because they are shooting relatively heavy shotguns with light loads.

Why hasn't my experience shown any reduction in recoil

Because you don't really have much experience with them, and have yet to do a side by side comparison with a braked/unbraked firearm. Different firearms will have a different % in reduced felt recoil, as well.

I am not philosophically opposed to recoil reduction. In fact I would champion them if they did a damn thing. But they don't.

Again, you speak in absolutes- with no real experience. I suggest you take up the offer to shoot a braked and unbraked 50BMG, and tell us your experiences.
 
Here is a good explanation, it basically reduces the "jet effect" of the expanding gases leaving the barrel.....nothing else. Perhaps a shotgun muzzle break would be less effective than a rifle muzzle break due to the larger diameter of the muzzle as less gas is diverted.

Muzzle Brakes

By Chuck Hawks



Newton's law says (to paraphrase) that for every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction. Recoil (kick) is the rifle's reaction to the action of the bullet being accelerated down the rifle barrel. Recoil is caused by two factors. The first is the bullet itself, which cannot be interfered with. The second is the expanding powder gasses that are pushing the bullet and must also exit the barrel. Muzzle brakes reduce recoil by diverting part of these gasses to the side so that they do not add to the rearward recoil.

A properly designed muzzle brake can significantly reduce recoil. The actual effectiveness depends to an extent on the cartridge for which the rifle is chambered. Ahlman's claims a 50% recoil reduction when their Recoil Reducer muzzle brake is used on large magnum rifles. Mag-na-port International claims recoil reduction of up to 45% for their Mag-na-brake. Browning, whose BOSS (Ballistic Optimizing Shooting System) is both a muzzle brake and an accuracy tuning device, claims a recoil reduction of up to 30%. Weatherby, who claims that their Accubrake is the most effective on the market, claims recoil reduction of up to 53%.

In their literature, Weatherby compares the effectiveness of the Accubrake to several other makes of muzzle brake. According to Weatherby, who used a .416 Weatherby Magnum rifle for testing, the Recoil Reducer reduced recoil by 39%, the KDF Slimline reduced recoil by 40.6%, and the KDF Regular reduced recoil by 49%. These devices reduced recoil by an average of 42.86%. I find that pretty impressive.

The Recoil Reducer, Magna-brake, Accubrake and BOSS muzzle brakes are screwed onto the end of the barrel. They are essentially a ventilated steel tube bored a little larger than the groove diameter of the barrel. Screwed firmly into place, they add a couple of inches of length to the end of the barrel, and are usually slightly fatter than the normal outside contour of the barrel. There is no loss of bullet velocity or change in the rifle's ballistic performance with these muzzle brakes.

The bullet never touches this type of muzzle brake, simply passing through the muzzle brake tube as it leaves the barrel. Some of the expanding powder gas pushing the bullet also passes through the center of the muzzle brake and exits the barrel in a normal manner. But a considerable percentage of the escaping gas finds its way through the holes drilled into the body of the muzzle brake and is deflected outward and at an angle to the rear. This is how these devices reduce recoil. They do work, it is simple physics.

There is another type of muzzle brake. These are "installed" by porting (drilling or cutting angled holes or slots into) the barrel itself. Such brakes avoid the added length and the slight bulge at the end of the barrel of a screw-on muzzle brake. They are a neater installation and cannot loosen with use. On the other hand, they slightly reduce bullet velocity, tend to collect fouling, make the barrel more difficult to clean, and, most importantly, cannot be removed.

Mag-na-port cuts a total of four slots into the barrel. The first pair of these are 180 degrees apart on opposite sides of the barrel, starting about 1.5" back from the muzzle. The other pair are 50 degrees apart on the upper surface of the barrel and closer to the muzzle. Mag-na-port claims an average recoil reduction of 15% with their porting system. Other porting systems are said to deliver about a 20% reduction in recoil. Clearly, porting systems are less effective than muzzle brakes attached to the end of the rifle barrel.

If the advantage of muzzle brakes is reduced recoil, the disadvantage is increased muzzle blast. As always, in the real world, there is no free lunch. The increase in muzzle blast with these devices can be literally deafening, even for shooters wearing hearing protection.

The muzzle blast from a powerful muzzle brake equipped rifle is so loud that even with hearing protection the shooter risks suffering some permanent hearing damage after a few shots. Earmuff type hearing protectors typically reduce noise by about 25 dB. A muzzle brake equipped magnum rifle (like a .300 or .338 Magnum) produces a sound pressure level (spl) in the 130-dB range, according to reports I have read. Thus the spl inside the hearing protector is in excess of 100 dB, a potentially damaging level.

For a hunter in the field, shooting without ear protection, the muzzle blast from a muzzle brake is immediately deafening. Nearly complete temporary deafness usually lasts from about a minute to several minutes after firing a powerful magnum rifle equipped with a muzzle brake. Later almost all of the shooter's hearing returns, but a certain amount is permanently lost, and the losses are cumulative.

This is why hunting rifles equipped with muzzle brakes are illegal in some African jurisdictions. They have proven damaging to the unprotected hearing of the scouts and guides accompanying the hunter. In North America an increasing number of big game guides now refuse to let a sport use a rifle equipped with a muzzle brake for the same reason.

For the hunter, a muzzle brake that can be removed is the best option. That way it can be used to save the shooter's shoulder when shooting at the range, and removed to help save the shooter's hearing during the hunt.

Both the Weatherby and Browning devices mentioned above are removable. When the Weatherby Accubrake is unscrewed from the muzzle, a cover ring is screwed on to protect the threads. The Browning BOSS muzzle brake is unscrewed and a solid (no holes) BOSS-CR muzzle weight replaces it. The accuracy tuning function of the BOSS system is thereby retained.

The muzzle brake tested for this article is a BOSS attached to the barrel of a .338 Winchester Magnum caliber Browning BAR Mark II rifle, which weighs approximately 9 pounds with scope and mount. This rifle was fired from a bench rest at an outdoor rifle range with covered, but not enclosed, firing positions. (It rains a lot in Western Oregon.) The rifle was test fired with both the standard (drilled) BOSS muzzle brake and the solid BOSS-CR (conventional recoil) replacement installed. These are the same length and weight, so there is no difference except for the absence of the muzzle brake effect when the BOSS-CR is used. The test load was Remington Express 225 grain Core-Lokt factory loads with a claimed MV of 2780 fps and ME of 3860 ft. lbs.

From the shooter's perspective, there is a noticeable reduction in recoil with the drilled BOSS muzzle brake in place. I am inclined to guess about 30%, as Browning claims. In other words, the approximately 29.7 ft. lbs. of free recoil energy is probably reduced to about 20.8 ft. lbs. This means, for example, that the recoil of a BOSS muzzle brake equipped .338 Mag. rifle feels subjectively about like the recoil of a similar 7mm Magnum rifle without the BOSS device (or with a BOSS-CR).

How a muzzle brake will feel to you, on your rifle, is mostly subjective. The best candidates for a muzzle brake are obviously hard kicking rifles, particularly high velocity magnums that burn a lot of powder. The higher the momentum of the powder gasses being ejected from the muzzle in relation to the momentum of the bullet, the more effective the muzzle brake can be.

Magnum rifles are generally good candidates for a muzzle brake. For example, Weatherby rifles in the ultra-powerful calibers .378, .416, and .460 Magnum are sold only with the Accubrake installed, which speaks volumes in itself.

Other rifles chambered for huge magnum calibers, such as the Remington Ultra Mag line of cartridges, are also prime candidates for a muzzle brake. Any lightweight magnum rifle could probably benefit from the installation of a muzzle brake. This includes most of the rifles chambered for the WSM and Remington SAUM lines of short magnum cartridges. (Several Browning models for WSM calibers can be ordered with BOSS.)

A rifle of adequate weight for its cartridge kicks less than a lightweight model. If a rifle stock fits the shooter well the effect of recoil is minimized. A good recoil pad, such as a Pachmayr Decelerator, softens the effect of recoil; so does a large buttplate. Some rifles, such as the gas operated BAR Mark II used for this test, have a reputation as soft shooting guns and seldom require additional recoil reduction. I prefer the BOSS-CR to the regular BOSS on this rifle, as I find the increase in muzzle blast worse than the recoil.

Muzzle brakes are controversial devices, because they offer real advantages and entail real disadvantages. As a general guide, I would suggest that hunting rifles, especially those that might be used for hunting dangerous game, should never be ported. If a hunting rifle is equipped with a muzzle brake it should be removable, for the reasons cited above.

The best answer to the muzzle brake question is simply to avoid calibers that generate more recoil than you can comfortably tolerate. Then you will never need a muzzle brake. Try this. Instead of a .264 Win. Mag., buy a rifle in .260 Rem. or 6.5x55. Instead of a .270 WSM or a .270 Wby. Mag., buy a .270 Winchester. Instead of a 7mm short magnum, buy a 7mm-08. Instead of a standard length 7mm Magnum, buy a .280 Remington. Instead of a .300 short magnum, buy a .308 Winchester. Instead of a standard length .300 Magnum, buy a .30-06. And so on. See, it's easy. You can hunt the same animals and avoid having to make a choice between being kicked out from under your hat or being deafened.

Please remember that muzzle brakes are exceptionally hard on hearing. Always wear ear protection. Earplugs worn inside of earmuff type hearing protectors are highly recommended when shooting a rifle equipped with a muzzle brake.
 
. Perhaps a shotgun muzzle break would be less effective than a rifle muzzle break due to the larger diameter of the muzzle as less gas is diverted.

I woudn't doubt if a shotgun brake is less effecitve than a rifle brake due to large broe diameter, less pressure, etc.

I like being right. It doesn't magically reduce recoil, it redirects recoil energy in a way that makes the gun easier to shoot.

Yup...

Brakes reduce FELT recoil. The recoil energy is still there, it just goes somewhere other than your shoulder.
 
I woudn't doubt if a shotgun brake is less effecitve than a rifle brake due to large broe diameter, less pressure, etc.



Yup...

Brakes reduce FELT recoil. The recoil energy is still there, it just goes somewhere other than your shoulder.

A shotgun brake would be less effective with shot, due to the gasses escape around the shot.
As for the larger bore making less effective, look at tanks or any big gun, they all have them.
 
Back
Top Bottom