Johnn Peterson
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Chemainus B.C.
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%.
It's 'starting' to sink in. Slowly, but it is starting