Opinions on a muzzle brake

I got a brake, I like it.
But my 2 cents;
-My rifle range is busy when more than 1 person is there, and I hate shooting when its busy. If I shoot when I'm hunting I'm either alone or the guy was warned.
-I found the noise behind the gun was the same, beside the gun is a different story. Mine seems to have about a 30 degree cone extending rearward of the muzzle.
-The recoil reduction was very noticable and well worth it.
-Its a bit more of a pain to clean it, and in the bush more crud can get into it ( I use finger condoms now).
-Mine is on a 338WM Stainless Synthetic Sako that had heavy felt recoil (for me), I have several 300WM's and I haven't seen a need to add it to one of them (but I shot a buddies 300WSM Remington that flat out needs one)
 
I love mine, Im no big guy, 5'6" 170 and I have no problem with 60-80 in a sitting with my .300win mag, the only thing limiting me from more is cost. My father doesnt have a brake on his, I won't shoot his anymore and he loves mine for the lack of recoil.

I find it's ok is a natural soft terrain like field and forest but prone on hard ground with hard objects around is excruciating. My last time out I somehow forgot to put my ear plugs in and fired, it hurt so bad I was holding my ear and looking at my hand for blood, I thought my gun blew up.

Anyhow I was under the impression that with a properly designed brake you could remove it with very little to no shift in impact?

With all that being said, everyone who has tried my rifle does comment how loud it is but they wish they had one on their high powers.
 
Anyhow I was under the impression that with a properly designed brake you could remove it with very little to no shift in impact?
Click to expand...

Since adding a brake can change the harmonics of the barrel,the point of impact can change.
 
Noise is much more likely to cause flinching than is recoil. As stated above, if the recoil of an un-braked hunting rifle is too strong, load it down a bit or choose a smaller cartridge. If folks were honest, they would admit there isn't much they could do with a .300 that they couldn't do with a .30/06 over normal hunting ranges. If you think the additional 300 fps makes a larger wound volume, forget it, it won't unless your bullet fails in a spectacular fashion, in which case the wound will be shallow. The .300 can be a wonderfully versatile cartridge, but if I'm going to put up with the abuse that is commonly handed out by a light weight .300 magnum hunting rifle, I'd sooner have something bigger.

A few years back I threw a braked .375 H&H to my shoulder and let fly. It was a snap shot and I made it without the benefit of wearing any hearing protection. I had simply forgotten about the brake being on the borrowed rifle, and the pain was immediate and intense. The effects lasted for days, not hours. The point is that the potential for injury is always present with a braked rifle. If you only shoot under specific circumstances that is one thing, but around here those of us who carry rifles do so on nearly a daily basis and we might make a shot without much warning. The chances are we won't be wearing hearing protection, and neither will you unless you are the type who walks around all day with your muffs on.
 
guntech said:
I have installed hundreds of muzzle brakes on hunting rifles and I continue to install many every year with many repeat customers.

The VAST MAJORITY of those using them are very happy. The few that were not are not using them.

The noise difference in a hunting situation for the person behind the trigger is not very much. The noise to anyone beside the shooter is increased.

All hunting caliber rifles are loud and can cause hearing damage.

Shoot any rifle without hearing protection as little as possible.

Don't be afraid to try a brake, the recoil reduction is tremendous.
Click to expand...

So the braked gun is quieter in a hunting situation than on the bench? You need to patent these "smart" brakes. ;)

One option if you really must have a braked gun is to get a removable brake and use that with hearing protection at the bench. While hunting, take the brake off and use a thread protector.

My experience has been that all braked guns are louder than they would be without the brake, anyone who says otherwise is full of it. Some of the loudest ones being the BOSS system on Browning/Winchester and the Accubrake on Weatherby's, though the latter is removable I believe.

If the 300WM is too much, then it's best to buy a caliber with less recoil and no brake, like a 30-06.
 
stubblejumper said:
Given the option of choosing between your opinion,and the opinions of medical doctors,and the people that test my hearing every two years,I am thinking that the people with the medical qualifications should be more credible.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstand what I said. It is not just my opinion I state. It consists of facts concerning my slight hearing loss.

My hearing loss is not due to the loud noises and ringing in the ears I suffered from in the past... to say that permanent damage is done if you ears ring is not necessarily true. It does not occur every time.

The hearing technicians who administer the test and tell the doctors the frequency range the hearing loss is in are very qualified. Their testing is what the doctor will base his opinions on.

I did not state that loud noises can not cause hearing damage, they can. The statement about anytime your ears ring after shooting means you have suffered permanent damage is not true in all cases. Obviously there are different degrees of ringing, and obviously if it is loud enough there will be damage. I recommend using hearing protection and eye protection anytime you are shooting not just with a brake.

Brakes disperse some of the gases and sound to the side. This makes the brake sound very loud to anyone beside the shooter. The concussion is felt much more as well. When this happens at a shooting range the result is very traumatic as the hard floor, roof, shooting benches all reflect the noise and blast. It is a real shock to those beside the rifle. The shooter wearing muffs will see the results of the blast as anything small loose on the bench is often blown off and the recoil is barely noticeable. If an idiot did not have their hearing protection on they will be quite pissed off.

In a hunting situation you are not sitting at a bench with a concrete floor and roof so the sound is not reflected and concentrated nearly as much, consequentially it does not sound as loud as at a range, and you are not shooting shot after shot after shot...

Shooting a rifle without hearing protection may damage your hearing, this is a fact... regardless if a muzzle brake is used or not... this is a fact. Obviously the louder the blast the more potential the risk of damage.

Occasionally I see people shooting at a range without hearing protection... quite foolish in the long run I think. I don't see any using hearing protection while hunting. Is it any less foolish?
 
bearkilr said:
So the braked gun is quieter in a hunting situation than on the bench? You need to patent these "smart" brakes. ;)
Click to expand...

Brakes disperse some of the gases and sound to the side. This makes the brake sound very loud to anyone beside the shooter. The concussion is felt much more as well. When this happens at a shooting range the result is very traumatic as the hard floor, roof, shooting benches all reflect the noise and blast. It is a real shock to those beside the rifle. The shooter wearing muffs will see the results of the blast as anything small loose on the bench is often blown off and the recoil is barely noticeable. If an idiot did not have their hearing protection on they will be quite pissed off.

In a hunting situation you are not sitting at a bench with a concrete floor and roof so the sound is not reflected and concentrated nearly as much, consequentially it does not sound as loud as at a range, and you are not shooting shot after shot after shot... and the shooter is behind this more than to the side.
 
A problem with removing a brake for hunting and using it for target practice is the big change in barrel harmonics and accuracy.

If a load is worked up with the brake in place and excellent accuracy achieved and the rifle sighted in just where you want it... this can all change if you replace the brake with a small threaded cap. There is no guarantee the accuracy will be the same or that it will still be sighted in. In all likely hood accuracy will not be as good and the point of impact will be off.
 
RUPZUK said:
I got a brake, I like it.
But my 2 cents;
-I found the noise behind the gun was the same, beside the gun is a different story.
-The recoil reduction was very noticeable and well worth it.
-Its a bit more of a pain to clean it, and in the bush more crud can get into it
Click to expand...

In my experience the majority of users would agree with you.

If the brake is threaded (most of them are) you can remove the brake for cleaning and re-install tightly.
 
No one will ever convince me that a brake is required. I don't like recoil anymor ethan the next guy, but I can shoot a 300WM without a brake. I have fired a .338 Lapua before they had brakes. Decent recoil pad, and it wasn't too hard, although after 20 rounds I was done. I shoot my .30-06. It takes care of everything. If you gotta go big to compensate for poor practices, then I say, go ahead. But when you have to compensate the gun because you can't fire it, then leave it alone and stay down here with the rest of the guys. In reality, as was already stated, if people were honest, they wouldn't need any more than the .30-06. Someone has yet to prove to me that it won't do the job.
 
Get the brake, you'll love it.
As for ear protection, get a good pair of electronic muffs when you get the brake and wear them when you're shooting, all the time, even hunting, you'll come to love them too.
 
I never noticed any difference in noise with my break or without..I also use hearing protection in every situation.
 
I had a brake on my 7mm and loved it. I don't shoot at an organized range so I don't know about it bothering other people. The only time it bothered me I was sitting under overhanging limbs of a fir tree and shot a deer, that was pretty loud but other than that it was great. I am going to put one on my .243 and .270 barrels for my TC Encore. The 243 so I can see the hits on coyotes and the .270 because I have a wrecked right shoulder and even the .270 hurts after a few rounds. I like them and will use them on most of my guns. I even have one on my 11-87.
Kim
 
guntech said:
A problem with removing a brake for hunting and using it for target practice is the big change in barrel harmonics and accuracy.

If a load is worked up with the brake in place and excellent accuracy achieved and the rifle sighted in just where you want it... this can all change if you replace the brake with a small threaded cap. There is no guarantee the accuracy will be the same or that it will still be sighted in. In all likely hood accuracy will not be as good and the point of impact will be off.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be too hard to remove the brake at the range and fire a test shot to see if it's off. Accuracy is better with brakes?? :confused:

Brakes increase noise level for the shooter and bystanders, they have to, end of story. When you're wearing muffs, it's obviously a moot point.

I realize you sell and install these things for a living, so your opinion may be a bit biased. ;)

noneck180 said:
I never noticed any difference in noise with my break or without..I also use hearing protection in every situation.
Click to expand...
earmuff.jpg


Is this you ????? :D
 
Guntech is giving you the straight goods and I suspect he could care a rats ass whether he sells you a brake or not....Just sayin. ;)

When shooting I can't tell the difference when shooting with a brake on or off. Its the bystander that you need to watch out for.
Stand beside a brake without hearing protection and expect to feel pain and maybe hearing loss.

As far as point of impact change I have experienced everything from an inch to near a foot at 100 yards.
Point of impact is a simple sight adjustment right?

Muzzle brakes are great for practice.
Out of courtesy for my freinds I remove them in the field.
 
I hav not used a brake but do appreciate the value of a device that can reduce recoil... Having said that, I can understand how the Browning brake (or similiar designed brake)would be loud as the holes in the brake are 90 degrees to the shooter. And, a percentage of the blast is bound to be directed rear-wards and heard by the shooter. And probably more so by an observer who may be standing off to the side of the shooter. (Although in my mind that's a dangerous place to stand, risking possible injury).

I've read somewhere that some of the brakes have the holes cut on the brake on a more forward angle. Now if the design of these particular types of brakes are designed to direct the blast in a "more forward" direction. Would the sound be somewhat less then, say a Browning brake...? Or are they the same...? And, if a brake has the holes cut in a more forward direction, does that type of design lessen the ability of the brake to reduce recoil, over the brake that has it's holes cut at a 90 degree angle...?

On a closing note, the electronic ear sounds like a good piece of equipment to use, any comments on this device would be appreciated. As I have a certain degree of reluctance to use something that promises to enhance one's hearing in the bush, then, somhow be able to cut the sound of the blast off when the rifle is fired???
 
bearkilr said:
Wouldn't be too hard to remove the brake at the range and fire a test shot to see if it's off. Accuracy is better with brakes?? :confused:

I realize you sell and install these things for a living, so your opinion may be a bit biased. ;)
Click to expand...

With hunting rifles better accuracy is usually experienced using a correctly installed brake . I have never seen a loss in accuracy.

I don't rely on selling or installing brakes for a living... but I have had a lot of experience with them over the last 42 - 43 years.

It isn't my opinion as much as actual facts and a freedom of choice I am trying to put forth. It seems some people who dislike brakes and don't use them - feel no one should... or they use a particular calibre and feel everyone should do the same...

What ever happened to personal choice?
 
bearkilr said:
Wouldn't be too hard to remove the brake at the range and fire a test shot to see if it's off. Accuracy is better with brakes?? :confused:

Brakes increase noise level for the shooter and bystanders, they have to, end of story. When you're wearing muffs, it's obviously a moot point.

I realize you sell and install these things for a living, so your opinion may be a bit biased. ;)

What if it is off, then what? You either use a brake or you don't, they are not really a once in a while at the range kind of thing. If you put one on your gun you use it all the time and only take it off for cleaning. I don't think anyone said accuracy is better with brakes but they do cut down on a lot of recoil and you may shoot better as a result which could result in tighter groups or more accuracy.
Kim
Click to expand...
 
Highwind said:
On a closing note, the electronic ear sounds like a good piece of equipment to use, any comments on this device would be appreciated. As I have a certain degree of reluctance to use something that promises to enhance one's hearing in the bush, then, somhow be able to cut the sound of the blast off when the rifle is fired???
Click to expand...

They work really well. They detect the incomong sound level a cut off anything above a certain point before it reaches your ears. They do it in like a few thousandths of a second. They can also amplify sounds till those sounds reach the threshold limits and then they cut off. The muffs are also getting smaller and smaller all the time. Check out the Walkers Game Ears site.
Kim
 
guntech said:
With hunting rifles better accuracy is usually experienced using a correctly installed brake . I have never seen a loss in accuracy.

I don't rely on selling or installing brakes for a living... but I have had a lot of experience with them over the last 42 - 43 years.

It isn't my opinion as much as actual facts and a freedom of choice I am trying to put forth. It seems some people who dislike brakes and don't use them - feel no one should... or they use a particular calibre and feel everyone should do the same...

What ever happened to personal choice?
Click to expand...

I have no issues with people wanting brakes, but it's wrong in my opinion to tell them noise level increase to the shooter is minimal at best, that's simply false. They will get a rude awakening when firing their newly braked gun.

I have admittedly no experience with brake installation, but have serious doubts whether an installation increases accuracy. The increase in accuracy is more than likely due to no flinching, not the rifle itself.

Though none of my rifles have or ever will have brakes, I have fired many that do have brakes. With some, reduction in recoil is very noticable, but the trade off in noise is not worth it to me. To each his/her own. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom