Dlask m14s muzzle break

Same problem

cobra_on_speed said:
I bought on of these a couple months ago from 45ACPKING (thanks again :)). It works great, reduces recoil and muzzle rise. I've got a question thought for those who have one or may know. When I first put it on the rifle, i was able to hand tighten it to where it was tight on the barrel, and the 3 screws were also aligned with the flash hider slots(which I screwed in also). After firing about 100 rounds with it on, before leaving the range, I noticed that the 3 screws had come loose and the break was pretty loose also. Now when I hand tighten the break as far as it will go (to where the 3 screws are aligned with the slots) it's still pretty loose before tightening the hex screws. I'm just wondering if this if normal and the way it's supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Happened to both of my brakes on 2 different M14's. Solved it with 18 wraps of teflon tape around the threads to make sure the brake was screwed on super tight - the vibration loosens the allen screws. Gunsmith locktight on the locking screws helps - I just wrapped black tape around the brake covering the screws in case they loosen so I wont lose them.:eek:
 
chopper 1 said:
Happened to both of my brakes on 2 different M14's. Solved it with 18 wraps of teflon tape around the threads to make sure the brake was screwed on super tight - the vibration loosens the allen screws. Gunsmith locktight on the locking screws helps - I just wrapped black tape around the brake covering the screws in case they loosen so I wont lose them.:eek:
Click to expand...

Thanks, the teflon tape sounds like a good idea, will have to get myself some. Is it harder to get the break off though afterwards?
 
try using smaller length set screws. then you can put two in each slot so that they counter sink each other. should stay tight.
 
Plumbers teflon tape

cobra_on_speed said:
Thanks, the teflon tape sounds like a good idea, will have to get myself some. Is it harder to get the break off though afterwards?
Click to expand...

It lasts a long time but eventually breaks down from the heat and cleaning fluids. I usually re do it every 1000 rds or so. Its easy to take off the brake when tight - hand twist is all.
 
Counter sink

can14 said:
try using smaller length set screws. then you can put two in each slot so that they counter sink each other. should stay tight.
Click to expand...

Nice idea ! Where can I get the allan screws though ? Not exactly a Kambodian tire item . When I go to machine shops they laugh at me when they see the small stuff I need done .:eek: Also - mashing the bottom screw -possible problems getting the wrench in tight ?
 
I don't get it. Not the brake itself, that I understand, but why not set it up as a direct replacement for the stock flash hider. What I mean is, why not have it attach the same way, with the castle nut and front sight. It certainly wouldn't loosen and you wouldn't need to buy a new front sight base. If I were looking for a brake I think I'd go with the Smith Ent unit myself.
 
Leg said:
I don't get it. Not the brake itself, that I understand, but why not set it up as a direct replacement for the stock flash hider. What I mean is, why not have it attach the same way, with the castle nut and front sight. It certainly wouldn't loosen and you wouldn't need to buy a new front sight base. If I were looking for a brake I think I'd go with the Smith Ent unit myself.
Click to expand...

From a manufacturing point of view, threading the brake and drill/tap three holes for set screws would be easier than machining work to make the castle nut slot and the splines as per regular M14 flash suppressor styles (and SEI Vortex and Coast Guard muzzle brake).

Quite simply, the Vortex provides some insight to that....the DC version is $75.00 while the direct replacement is $125.00 (or 167% more). The Dlask just adds a few set screws to prevent loosening.......however, it also assumes that all Chinese barrels are threaded exactly the same..?

Slight offs would mean the brake doesn't thread tightly in-line for the set screws. Does the Dlask also use a typical crush washer?

Personally, while I like to support Canadian stuff, if I were to use a muzzle brake(rather than just a flash suppressor), I'd be more inclined to use the SEI Coast Guard one because it allows for dovetail front sights and it's also a neat design.
 
Last edited:
I have well over 700 rounds through my Dlask muzzle break...... when i installed it i applied red loctite to the barrel threads and to the set screws.... have had no issues and i check it frequently
 
Torch Time !

45ACPKING said:
I have well over 700 rounds through my Dlask muzzle break...... when i installed it i applied red loctite to the barrel threads and to the set screws.... have had no issues and i check it frequently
Click to expand...

Until you want to take it off LOL !
 
Brake !

Winz said:
From a manufacturing point of view, threading the brake and drill/tap three holes for set screws would be easier than machining work to make the castle nut slot and the splines as per regular M14 flash suppressor styles (and SEI Vortex and Coast Guard muzzle brake).

Quite simply, the Vortex provides some insight to that....the DC version is $75.00 while the direct replacement is $125.00 (or 167% more). The Dlask just adds a few set screws to prevent loosening.......however, it also assumes that all Chinese barrels are threaded exactly the same..?

Slight offs would mean the brake doesn't thread tightly in-line for the set screws. Does the Dlask also use a typical crush washer?

Personally, while I like to support Canadian stuff, if I were to use a muzzle brake(rather than just a flash suppressor), I'd be more inclined to use the SEI Coast Guard one because it allows for dovetail front sights and it's also a neat design.
Click to expand...

The dlask brake I believe is a far more effective recoil reducer therefore justifies its use over any other. If you look at the progressive slot design you will notice the similarity to artillery, tank cannons etc. None of the current .50 cal. rifles have many tiny holes or slits because big square side holes are more effective . I believe big top slots will keep the barrel whip down but not stop recoil as effectively {as in the Thompson}, I have full auto fired both the gangster and G.I. and the cutts compensator did keep the barrel down but recoil was the same with both guns.
It would be nice though if Joe made a sighted castle nut version I would pay the extra.
I would also like to see a smaller thread diameter version for a scout which would really benefit from his design because of the shorter barrel.
Its also a great way to get even with someone beside you who keeps hitting you with his brass throws. Pull out yer m14 with Dlask brake and the gawdawful loudnoise and blast wave will make him move! :D
 
^^^^
I know what you mean.
Dlask already makes the one with smaller thread diameter (1/2" - 28tpi)
intended for m14/305.
The ports set-up is a little different though.
It has 3 double ports (instead of 4),
BUT a bigger diameter (1" instead of 7/8").
Last time I was there they were shipping out 5 barrel systems like that
(barrels chopped to 18.5", threaded with 1/2' - 28tpi
and 3-doubleport 1" brakes installed).

That 3-doubleport design is also used
(with very minor differences) on a lot of rifles from 223 to .338.
Just try to find a brake (of any design) on the market
within the same overall dimensions
that is more efficient than the said brake.


Shooters who used both Dlask brakes with 3 and with 4 ports
say that the overall efficiency is the very similar.

However, the 1/2 - 28tpi is a better system to hold the brake on the barrel.
Remember that the little skinny thread on the original M14/305
is not intended for muzzlebrake, but for flash-hider.
When using the 7/8" 4-port brake,
it has to be very careful assembled on the barrel and,
how it was pointed in a post earlier, make sure it is kept tight
and it is not moving (locktite on the threads is a must).
 
chopper 1 said:
The dlask brake I believe is a far more effective recoil reducer therefore justifies its use over any other. If you look at the progressive slot design you will notice the similarity to artillery, tank cannons etc. None of the current .50 cal. rifles have many tiny holes or slits because big square side holes are more effective . I believe big top slots will keep the barrel whip down but not stop recoil as effectively {as in the Thompson}, I have full auto fired both the gangster and G.I. and the cutts compensator did keep the barrel down but recoil was the same with both guns.
It would be nice though if Joe made a sighted castle nut version I would pay the extra.
I would also like to see a smaller thread diameter version for a scout which would really benefit from his design because of the shorter barrel.
Its also a great way to get even with someone beside you who keeps hitting you with his brass throws. Pull out yer m14 with Dlask brake and the gawdawful loudnoise and blast wave will make him move! :D
Click to expand...

I don't dispute the design of the brake cuts. Instead much modern big gun designs use the mega square cuts.

However, I'm not sure how much 'better' it would be over the SEI Coast Guard brake. Particularly with .308Win.... I've never seen them side by side. (Anyone with both want to volunteer a comparison review? :D )

I'd also like to see a flash comparison between the Dlask and the SEI. (For most, this is an irrelevant issue obviously...)

A Dlask brake with castle nut attachment and dovetail would be very nice indeed. Does the current setup use a crush washer? Have any turned out misaligned once threaded on?
 
Convenient post !

Dr.Lector said:
^^^^
I know what you mean.
Dlask already makes the one with smaller thread diameter (1/2" - 28tpi)
intended for m14/305.
The ports set-up is a little different though.
It has 3 double ports (instead of 4),
BUT a bigger diameter (1" instead of 7/8").
Last time I was there they were shipping out 5 barrel systems like that
(barrels chopped to 18.5", threaded with 1/2' - 28tpi
and 3-doubleport 1" brakes installed).

That 3-doubleport design is also used
(with very minor differences) on a lot of rifles from 223 to .338.
Just try to find a brake (of any design) on the market
within the same overall dimensions
that is more efficient than the said brake.


Shooters who used both Dlask brakes with 3 and with 4 ports
say that the overall efficiency is the very similar.

However, the 1/2 - 28tpi is a better system to hold the brake on the barrel.
Remember that the little skinny thread on the original M14/305
is not intended for muzzlebrake, but for flash-hider.
When using the 7/8" 4-port brake,
it has to be very careful assembled on the barrel and,
how it was pointed in a post earlier, make sure it is kept tight
and it is not moving (locktite on the threads is a must).
Click to expand...

Was wondering about cutting my barrel and custom threading it for an infratek vz 58 brake - now I can just call joe - Great !
 
Dr.Lector said:
^^^^
Last time I was there they were shipping out 5 barrel systems like that
(barrels chopped to 18.5", threaded with 1/2' - 28tpi
and 3-doubleport 1" brakes installed).
Yup those 5 barrels went to some very happy gunnutters..... my barrel vice was busy hehehe ;)
I might pop in and see Joe tomorrow and check on a project he's workin on for me.... I'll see if he has had a chance to finish a run of muzzle breaks. After the last batch of barrel chops we may have cleaned him out of breaks...... he had a fresh batch of 1/2 x 28 vortex F/H's and was thinkin of whippin some up for standard norinco barrels as well. I will light a fire under his @ss :D :D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Winz said:
I don't dispute the design of the brake cuts. Instead much modern big gun designs use the mega square cuts.

However, I'm not sure how much 'better' it would be over the SEI Coast Guard brake. Particularly with .308Win.... I've never seen them side by side. (Anyone with both want to volunteer a comparison review? :D )

I'd also like to see a flash comparison between the Dlask and the SEI. (For most, this is an irrelevant issue obviously...)

A Dlask brake with castle nut attachment and dovetail would be very nice indeed. Does the current setup use a crush washer? Have any turned out misaligned once threaded on?
Click to expand...



I did have BOTH the SEI coast guard and the dlask...... I sold my SEI coast guard..... it was too damn loud... and it directed to much muzzle energy/blast back to the shooter.... it did perform very well however for muzzle flip and recoil.
I find the Dlask tames the muzzle flip somewhat.... manageable for sure..... and it definately allows for quick follow up target aquisition by taming recoil somewhat and it seems to "pull" itself back to the target..... if that explains it right ;)
Only drawback to the Dlask items is that , at this time...... they do not offer a front sight option.... so one must use a gas lock front sight or make the rifle scope/eotech dedicated.... which is the route i took with my scoped shorty.
I have installed around 18 dlask made barrel devices, on standard barrels and dlask threaded/crowned barrels.... both brakes and flash suppressors and all have mounted up true. The Brakes on a standard norinco barrel do not use a thrust washer, instaed they are secured via the three set screws...... The brakes and flash suppressors for the 1/2 x 28 tpi threaded shorrty barrels DO use a thrust washer and do not have set screws.
 
Last edited:
45ACPKING said:
I did have BOTH the SEI coast guard and the dlask...... I sold my SEI coast guard..... it was too damn loud... and it directed to much muzzle energy/blast back to the shooter.... it did perform very well however for muzzle flip and recoil.
I find the Dlask tames the muzzle flip somewhat.... manageable for sure..... and it definately allows for quick follow up target aquisition by taming recoil somewhat and it seems to "pull" itself back to the target..... if that explains it right ;)
Only drawback to the Dlask items is that , at this time...... they do not offer a front sight option.... so one must use a gas lock front sight or make the rifle scope/eotech dedicated.... which is the route i took with my scoped shorty.
I have installed around 18 dlask made barrel devices, on standard barrels and dlask threaded/crowned barrels.... both brakes and flash suppressors and all have mounted up true. The Brakes on a standard norinco barrel do not use a thrust washer, instaed they are secured via the three set screws...... The brakes and flash suppressors for the 1/2 x 28 tpi threaded shorrty barrels DO use a thrust washer and do not have set screws.
Click to expand...

:rockOn:

Sweetness. Thanks. I was very interested in how they compare up...I reckon there is a Dlask coming to me in the near future as well. Though I'll probably stick a 1/2 x 28tpi one on a shortty as well.
 
Just dropped by Joe again and this time I brought him a new muzzlebreak. I believe this one will be great in terms of reducing recoil and flash. Joe says that 1/2x28tpi will be ideal if he decides to produce and modify this one. The design is like the DNTC but incorporates a vortex front. Will soon find out when this will be produced. I will not have this part back until after next week, so if you want pictures, you'll need to wait.
 
echo charlie said:
Just dropped by Joe again and this time I brought him a new muzzlebreak. I believe this one will be great in terms of reducing recoil and flash. Joe says that 1/2x28tpi will be ideal if he decides to produce and modify this one. The design is like the DNTC but incorporates a vortex front. Will soon find out when this will be produced. I will not have this part back until after next week, so if you want pictures, you'll need to wait.
Click to expand...

The only problem with the Vortex front is that those prongs catch on vegetation if your pushing through bush. For that reason I would prefer something that does not snag on branches and other vegetation. Something to consider for the products appeal to a wide market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom