That certainly make sense.
Muzzle Brake on a Slug Gun?
- Thread starter tactical870
- Start date
That certainly make sense.
darkshadow
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- OH Ontario, OH NO!
there is a great video out there of a couple of redneck retards shooting a .50bmg with the brake off, he looked sore...... after he stopped crying.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
I think the shot cup would serve to seal much the same as the base of a bullet, and as such, minimizing any gas escaping around the shot.
I'm not positive but I believe much of the 'apparatus' on the barrel of a tank gun, field piece and even on the end of the barrel of 'many' small arms is more to disperse or attempt to eliminate/hide flash.
Last edited:
Ported barrel makes quite the difference in felt recoil and muzzle jump.
Here's my old Mossberg 195 bolt action 12 that I used mainly as a slug gun.
The few times I took it out to Poco I can hit the 200 yard gongs with 2 3/4" cheapo slugs, slugs are just more fun against reactive targets in the bush.
Makes one hell of a bang tho.
Here's my old Mossberg 195 bolt action 12 that I used mainly as a slug gun.
The few times I took it out to Poco I can hit the 200 yard gongs with 2 3/4" cheapo slugs, slugs are just more fun against reactive targets in the bush.
Makes one hell of a bang tho.
Enjoy jumping to conclusions about stuff you have no real knowledge about!
I really think you should try out the unbraked 50BMG.
The thingy on the end of many military rifles is a flash hider.
The thingy on the end of many tanks and artillery pieces is a muzzle brake.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
Okay, thanks, but help me out a little further. The purpose of the flash eliminator is to redirect and/or disperse the light signature of the blast, in much the same way a muzzle brake redirects or mitigates the recoil caused by the blast. My question then is what design function, specifics or differences define the "thingy" on the end of the barrel as a flash eliminator or muzzle brake??
For real world experience, I can say that I have fired my Tikka Tactical .300WM with and without the brake at the range.
With the brake, it feels like a 30-06 or a .270Win to me. Muzzle jump is not very great, and it is easy to be back on target quickly. If shooting 200gr bullets and up, the felt recoil is tamed down a lot.
Without the brake, muzzle jump is significant, and takes more time to get back on target. POI is not the same. With heavier loads I don't really like shooting it from the bench for very long.
It's a free country so everyone can say whatever they want. It works for me, and it's all about me,D) so I will keep using it.
With the brake, it feels like a 30-06 or a .270Win to me. Muzzle jump is not very great, and it is easy to be back on target quickly. If shooting 200gr bullets and up, the felt recoil is tamed down a lot.
Without the brake, muzzle jump is significant, and takes more time to get back on target. POI is not the same. With heavier loads I don't really like shooting it from the bench for very long.
It's a free country so everyone can say whatever they want. It works for me, and it's all about me,
D) so I will keep using it.
Okay, thanks, but help me out a little further. The purpose of the flash eliminator is to redirect and/or disperse the light signature of the blast, in much the same way a muzzle brake redirects or mitigates the recoil caused by the blast. My question then is what design function, specifics or differences define the "thingy" on the end of the barrel as a flash eliminator or muzzle brake??
I'm not an expert on these thingys, since I am not a real military firearm aficionado, but here is what I understand. The muzzle flash when you shoot a firearm isn't "unburned powder" as many believe, it is hot gases hitting oxygen and creating a flash/fireball whatever.
A flash suppressor or flash hider is intended to reduce the intensity of the flash seen by the shooter, so he is not blinded, and can get back on target ASAP.
If you look at most flash suppressors, they consist of long, wide grooves cut into the flash suppressor, as well as a fairly wide open hole at the end. Some of them also are "prong" shaped at the muzzle. This disperses the hot gases in a number of different directions, which makes the gas cool down faster, which makes for a lesser flash.
Flash hiders (like on a .303 Jungle Carbine) direct the muzzle flash away from the shooter using a cone shaped hider.
There is already much explanation on brakes on this thread, but put simply, the holes are drilled at an angle to direct the expanding gases towards the side/rear so it doesn't go straight back into the shooters shoulder.
Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
And that's kinda' the reason I wondered about some of the muzzle brakes on some tank guns and many field pieces as many appear to be angled at 90 degrees to the axis of the barrel. In doing so, that wouldn't seem to really mitigate or minimize the amount of recoil generated. That being the case, brings me back to my original point of contention on tank and field artillery. It would 'seem' to be more of a flash eliminator than a muzzle brake.
A side issue but in line with what you've said concerning the "angling back of ports on muzzle brakes" is the one aspect of the 500 S&W I dislike. The ports, on the top of the muzzle brake are as you say, "angled back" which serves to blow the odd piece of burnt powder debris, back into the face of the shooter.
Mike Oxbig
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Scarborough Ontario
My .300 WM (savage) would put me on my ass until i put the brake on it. Now it's a puppy.. (A really LOUD puppy!)
)
Remember that there are two things that contribute to recoil; the mass of the bullet being accelerated to a given velocity and the mass of the powder being accelerated to a given velocity. Muzzle brakes work by diverting the expanding gas from the powder charge such that it does not contribute to recoil.
Most brakes vent the gas straight sideways, but some have angled ports. Those that have rearward angled ports have the greatest recoil reduction effect, as they deflect some of the gas rearward, but at the expense of increased muzzle blast felt by the shooter. Forward angled ports will result in less recoil reduction, as some of the gas is still traveling forward, but the muzzle blast felt by the shooter is the least of any muzzle brake.
The most extreme example of this principle would be a recoilless rifle (such as a Carl Gustav), which vents enough gas directly rearward to completely counter the impulse of the projectile plus the gas moving forward.
Muzzle brakes are most effective with high pressure ammunition that has a high powder charge relative to its projectile weight, such as a .300 magnum, .50 BMG, or an artillery piece. I predict that a muzzle brake on a shotgun would not be particularly effective because the weight of the shot (or slug) is fairly high relative to the weight of the powder charge. Any recoil reduction with a shotgun would be negligible at the expense of increased noise and muzzle blast.
For those interested in a more in-depth coverage of the subject, I recommend Chapter XI of Hatcher's Notebook.
Most brakes vent the gas straight sideways, but some have angled ports. Those that have rearward angled ports have the greatest recoil reduction effect, as they deflect some of the gas rearward, but at the expense of increased muzzle blast felt by the shooter. Forward angled ports will result in less recoil reduction, as some of the gas is still traveling forward, but the muzzle blast felt by the shooter is the least of any muzzle brake.
The most extreme example of this principle would be a recoilless rifle (such as a Carl Gustav), which vents enough gas directly rearward to completely counter the impulse of the projectile plus the gas moving forward.
Muzzle brakes are most effective with high pressure ammunition that has a high powder charge relative to its projectile weight, such as a .300 magnum, .50 BMG, or an artillery piece. I predict that a muzzle brake on a shotgun would not be particularly effective because the weight of the shot (or slug) is fairly high relative to the weight of the powder charge. Any recoil reduction with a shotgun would be negligible at the expense of increased noise and muzzle blast.
For those interested in a more in-depth coverage of the subject, I recommend Chapter XI of Hatcher's Notebook.
- Location
- Southern MB
The other thing I think the non brake believers are missing, is that felt recoil is not an instantaneous happening.
The round fires, immediately setting in motion the bullet forward, and the rifle rearward. As the bullet accelerates forward, the rifle accelerates rearward. This continues on for the bullet until it leaves the barrel, the bullet then being at its highest speed, while the rifle is still receiving thrust towards your shoulder as the powder races to escape the barrel.
So it takes all of what, 2 milliseconds for the bullet to leave the barrel after its been started in motion? Where as absorbing the energy into your shoulder probably is more on the magnatude of what, around 50 milliseconds?
So for those 48 milliseconds, you are going to not only have less recoil from the expanding gasses as they are directed rearwards with the muzzle brake, those re directed expanding gasses will also reduce the fixed amount of recoil received from accelerating the bullet out of the barrel.
Lets look at it this, just as an example: Rifle Recoil: 80% Based on bullet weight, 20% based on charge weight.
In an unbraked rifle, 100% of the recoil is absorbed into your shoulder.
In a braked rifle thats ported perpendicular to the bore of the rifle, lets say half of the gasses choose to move out of the break. 100%-10%(half of 20%)=90% of the recoil of the unbraked rifle.
In a braked rifle that is ported rearwards, you get the added benefit that the expanding gasses push the rifle forwards. So 90%-10%(as now the gasses are fighting the rifles recoil)=80% the recoil of the unbraked rifle. That is if just half of the expanding gasses are on your side.
Reported efficiencys of muzzle brakes that I have read, are from between 5, and 45%.
The round fires, immediately setting in motion the bullet forward, and the rifle rearward. As the bullet accelerates forward, the rifle accelerates rearward. This continues on for the bullet until it leaves the barrel, the bullet then being at its highest speed, while the rifle is still receiving thrust towards your shoulder as the powder races to escape the barrel.
So it takes all of what, 2 milliseconds for the bullet to leave the barrel after its been started in motion? Where as absorbing the energy into your shoulder probably is more on the magnatude of what, around 50 milliseconds?
So for those 48 milliseconds, you are going to not only have less recoil from the expanding gasses as they are directed rearwards with the muzzle brake, those re directed expanding gasses will also reduce the fixed amount of recoil received from accelerating the bullet out of the barrel.
Lets look at it this, just as an example: Rifle Recoil: 80% Based on bullet weight, 20% based on charge weight.
In an unbraked rifle, 100% of the recoil is absorbed into your shoulder.
In a braked rifle thats ported perpendicular to the bore of the rifle, lets say half of the gasses choose to move out of the break. 100%-10%(half of 20%)=90% of the recoil of the unbraked rifle.
In a braked rifle that is ported rearwards, you get the added benefit that the expanding gasses push the rifle forwards. So 90%-10%(as now the gasses are fighting the rifles recoil)=80% the recoil of the unbraked rifle. That is if just half of the expanding gasses are on your side.
Reported efficiencys of muzzle brakes that I have read, are from between 5, and 45%.
Enjoy jumping to conclusions about stuff you have no real knowledge about!
What part of " I shot a braked pump and an unbraked pump side by side and felt the same recoil" did you not understand?
I would hardly call that no real knowledge.
You shot 2 different makes of shotguns one of which had a brake. I'd hardly call that enough experience to make an absolute statement that "muzzle brakes don't work".
When you shoot a few identical firearms in braked and unbraked configurations, especially large rifles, get back to us about how muzzle brakes dont' work.
Last edited:
I really don't know enough about tanks to comment, but I dont' know if they would care about muzzle flash, since thier rate of fire is much slower than a rifleman.
tactical870
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Buckhorn, Ontario
Wow..... What have I started? I started this thread wondering if anyone had ever installed a muzzle brake on a slug gun and it's effect on recoil. I never questioned the effectiveness of a muzzle brake. I already own a Browning medallion A-Bolt in 270 with the BOSS and it shoots like a 22 but sounds like heavy artillery. My pursuit of accuracy in a slug gun requires a gun with less recoil but still able to shoot 385 gr partition ammo as I have found it to be the most accurate slug I can buy. The hornady SST shoots ok with much less recoil but does not give the sub MOA accuracy I'd like to achieve. For this season it looks like i'll be shooting without a brake but I'd still like to see what others have come up with. I can't be the first with this idea.
