New Canadian AR Brake |||*|||

NeitArms said:
??? Looks nothing like a SVT-40 brake.. Acts nothing like it, in fact other than the SVT 'has' a brake.. and this rifle 'has' a brake.. and they're both made of 'metal'.. there are no similarities at all.

Thanks though.
Click to expand...

I'll be disagreeing with you on that one. It appears to just be an updated version on the exact same principle. Not that it matters, I was just having fun. That being said the brake on the SVT 40 works extremely well. If you had this brake in .308 I'd be putting one on my RFB in a hearbeat!!!

gx1sTQqr.jpg


223crusader.jpg
 
Epoxy7 said:
I'll be disagreeing with you on that one. It appears to just be an updated version on the exact same principle.
Click to expand...

I realize you meant your response to be flippant, but this is like saying that a Model T Ford and Ford Mustang are the the same car, except the Mustang is and updated version of the exact same principle.
9553635.jpeg

223crusader.jpg


There are many, many things that need to be considered when designing a muzzle brake. As Neit pointed out in his previous posts, muzzle devices are NOT generally transferable between calibers. For obvious reasons like pressure, gas volume and velocity, blah, blah, blah, you can't expect the same performance of a particular muzzle brake design between different calibers. There are specific baffle designs, certain "bore" diameters, certain "port" geometry's and a million other things that have to be considered. All these things can be used to maximize the effectiveness of a muzzle brake to it's specific desired uses.

Please do some research on the science of muzzle brakes and transitional ballistics in general (if you can find any) and then come back with an informed response. Brush up on your mathematics skills and bring a dictionary, because if you can find any of the very few texts out there about the subject you are in for heavy technical reading.
 
Last edited:
John in B.C. said:
What is the difference between this and a Miculek brake?
Click to expand...
The Miculek looks more like the Holland design.
The NeitArms design appears a bit more narrow O.D. with the first chamber being straight and the next two angled slightly rearward. Actually that is nicely done with respect to brake engineering and the 5.56.

The first chamber will do most of the braking straight on while the last two pickup what's left.
For the price you can't go wrong. I can see getting one of these if someone can tell me if my Norc M4 I'm getting has SAE threads.
I can fabricate my own brakes, but not when I can buy these for $55.
 
lejarretnoir said:
The Miculek looks more like the Holland design.
The NeitArms design appears a bit more narrow O.D. with the first chamber being straight and the next two angled slightly rearward. Actually that is nicely done with respect to brake engineering and the 5.56.

The first chamber will do most of the braking straight on while the last two pickup what's left.
For the price you can't go wrong. I can see getting one of these if someone can tell me if my Norc M4 I'm getting has SAE threads.
I can fabricate my own brakes, but not when I can buy these for $55.
Click to expand...

Ahh.....yeah I see it now thanks :)
 
Clobbersauras said:
I realize you meant your response to be flippant, but this is like saying that a Model T Ford and Ford Mustang are the the same car, except the Mustang is and updated version of the exact same principle.
Click to expand...

Umm no it's more like you stating that the 2011 Mustang didn't take it's styling cues from the original 1960's fastback Mustang. If this wasn't confirmed by the manufacturer I'm sure there are those on here who would argue it wasn't. Even though it's smacking you right in the face that it is.

There are many, many things that need to be considered when designing a muzzle brake. As Neit pointed out in his previous posts, muzzle devices are NOT generally transferable between calibers. For obvious reasons like pressure, gas volume and velocity, blah, blah, blah, you can't expect the same performance of a particular muzzle brake design between different calibers. There are specific baffle designs, certain "bore" diameters, certain "port" geometry's and a million other things that have to be considered. All these things can be used to maximize the effectiveness of a muzzle brake to it's specific desired uses.
Click to expand...

So the same shape of the brake, and almost identical gills would mean what then? Just asking because even the gills on that brake are the same shape as the SVT40. There's 6 on the early SVT40 and it's a 7.62x51r round vs the 3 on the 5.56mm new brake. Yes obviously technology is superior to that of 1940 or 1938 with the SVT-38, however there is an uncanny resemblance.

Please do some research on the science of muzzle brakes and transitional ballistics in general (if you can find any) and then come back with an informed response. Brush up on your mathematics skills and bring a dictionary, because if you can find any of the very few texts out there about the subject you are in for heavy technical reading.
Click to expand...

Now you're just pissing me off. I simply pointed out that this brake looked like it was copied or inspired from the SVT40 brake. A prolific battle rifle on the Eastern front during WWII. That's it, that's all. You're really trying to over complicate things.
 
No, not really much of a secret... It's fairly standard practice to use a crush washer. We include one for free, if you'd rather use a jam nut or peel washer or anything else, do..

Enjoy the free crush washer.
 
John in B.C. said:
Why do you use crush washers instead of a jam nut?

John
Click to expand...
A jam nut requires more thread length than a crush washer.
Consequently, there is less thread left for the muzzle device.

Also, the jam nut will put a lot more stress on the thread.



So, if there is a shoulder behind the thread and the thread length is
more or less mil-spec (650), use a crush washer.
If there is no shoulder because the barrel is pencil-thin (Tavor),
then use a jam nut if you have enough extra thread length.
 
NeitArms said:
... It's fairly standard practice to use a crush washer. We include one for free, if you'd rather use a jam nut or peel washer or anything else, do..

Enjoy the free crush washer.
Click to expand...

Okay so it isn't a secret :)


I am just curious if there are advantages -or not- to one method or the other. It seems that indexing a comp or brake can be a bit of an issue sometimes.

When you designed this product was there a reason - other than standard practise - to go this way?

Or did you consider other options?

John
 
Dr.Lector said:
A jam nut requires more thread length than a crush washer.
Consequently, there is less thread left for the muzzle device.

Also, the jam nut will put a lot more stress on the thread.



So, if there is a shoulder behind the thread and the thread length is
more or less mil-spec (650), use a crush washer.
If there is no shoulder because the barrel is pencil-thin (Tavor),
then use a jam nut if you have enough extra thread length.
Click to expand...

So if you have a standard thread length, using a jam nut will hold the break further from the muzzle. Will this cause any harm? I am currently using a jam nut and I curious to know if I should change to a crush washer.
 
Bolivar said:
So if you have a standard thread length, using a jam nut will hold the break further from the muzzle. Will this cause any harm? I am currently using a jam nut and I curious to know if I should change to a crush washer.
Click to expand...

Well considering jam nuts are sometimes provided with some brakes and comps specifically designed for AR's I don't think it is a problem.

I have a Miculek brake which comes with a jam nut.

Still I am curious what goes into the decision making process when during the design phase of putting together a new product.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom