Question about the "muzzle brakes"

[bluey]

..er, I guess that would be me..'cause, in case I haven't told you, I don't like them much.. :biggrin2:

pretty sure you've taking every opportunity that's presented itself to remind me doco .
since when did you change from not liking them at all to not much..........:fishing:

 

[tarbe]

However, your preference or necessity to rely on recoil reducing devices does not address the point of my previous post. That is; how were the hunters of the past able to regularly and 'effectively' use large caliber firearms, (including, but not limited to, 470NE, .500NE, 577NE, 600NE, 500 Jeffery, 505 Gibbs, etc) when hunters of today seem to be finding it increasingly more necessary to use muzzle brakes on even small and medium bore rifles? . . . seriously, I don't get it.

[/FONT]

At least part of the answer is lighter weight rifles.

Have you noticed how some guys advertising large bore doubles (esp .500 and up) will mention in the ad "proper big bore weight"? There is a reason they need to mention it!

Heck, a 7 pound 300 mag comes back pretty fast and hard!

Still don't want one....

 

[colorado]

I've got a 7 1/2 lb 375 Weatherby, and it doesn't even kick compared to my 11.25 lb 500 Jeffery. I've got to say if muzzle brakes didn't increase the noise level (which would probably defy the laws of physics) I would use one in a heartbeat. No one likes recoil, at least after the first three or four shots on the range. I bought a 270 instead of the then new 7mm Mag in the late 60s out of concern for the recoil and additional weight of the 7mm Mag. I will say, that after three or four shots with the 500 Jeffery, that little 375 Weatherby doesn't kick at all lol ... Maybe that's the answer, all of the hunters need to have a 505 Gibbs or a 500 Jeffery to help them acclimate to the recoil of the gentler calibers ... And as far as old, I think I remember the invention of the spear ...

 

[Norwegianwoods]

Sometimes sestoppelman and I disagree and other times we agree.
On this subject we totally agree.
A muzzle brake will NEVER get close to any of my weapons.
They are close to be an abomination.
I don't call it cheating to use one, but there are better ways to reduce felt recoil than attaching a noise amplifier on your gun.

If you have problems with the recoil of a gun you use, the first thing you do is to look at stock fit. A stock perfectly shaped for you reduces the recoil by lots.
And have a gun that have a decent weight. Very light guns increase the recoil by lots.
Then attaching a high quality recoil pad like one from Limbsaver, will also reduce felt recoil by much.
Then you can reduce your loads a bit. It is very few times in real hunting situations you need maximum loads. Specially when using big bores.

The last but most efficient way to reduce recoil AND noise is by using a silencer if legal.
A high quality silencer reduces both the noise and recoil by very much.
A 308 with max loaded 180 grain bullets feels like shooting a 223 with 50 grain bullets.
A 223 feels like a 22 lr.

I don't have a silencer on my 308 to reduce the recoil for me. I have it so my 8 year old son can shoot it.

 

[rnovi]

About the only time I actually enjoy a brake on someone else's gun is at the range. Everyone and again some yahoo comes by with a 50 bmg and caps off a few rounds. Is it back and enjoy two or three good, solid explosions.

It reminds me of being a kid. You know, when that BIG pyrotechnic explodes in the air. The 6" mortar fireworks???the GOOD stuff.

And then it gets so old, so fast.

Brakes in the field are just abusive to everyone around you. I had the privilege of hunting with a guy who had a braked .338WM. We ended up next to each other shooting at goats up in Alaska. It was kind of a two for one shot.

I had an earplug half stuck in my left ear, still expanding a bit. Damned if that shot dint ring my noggin fierce anyway.

It is what it is...but if you choose to hunt with a brake you should be prepared to tip very heavily when you are done. Hearing doesn't regenerate and Diana doesn't care if you are the PH or the Hunter...

 

[bluey]

95 % of the hunting l do, is done solo , or with my dog, shes that old now that she is usually 5 metres behind me anyways.
sometimes l may have someone new to hunting with me , to show them an area or share what little l know with , to get them started .
or me and a mate /son ,will walk in so far together ,then go our separate ways .
near every one who has a hate with these brakes ,speaks like you hunt in packs .
if l had to have three or so people with me hunting samba , l wouldn't see a deer .
and then when im fortunate enough to get in on a samba ,its only one shot ,every so often 2.
around half the samba l shoot are on the run ,as they already knew l was there before me or vidal (the dog) picked them up .
when l sight in a braked gun ,again im generally the only one there,(proberly because no likes the noise ):ignore:
so l have to ask who am l upsetting , really ?
the deer ?
the dog ? not a chance on doing that ,except when l make her ride in the tray ,when its raining ,she would follow me straight through the gates of hell ,

 

[sestoppelman]

Sometimes sestoppelman and I disagree and other times we agree.
On this subject we totally agree.
A muzzle brake will NEVER get close to any of my weapons.
They are close to be an abomination.
I don't call it cheating to use one, but there are better ways to reduce felt recoil than attaching a noise amplifier on your gun.

If you have problems with the recoil of a gun you use, the first thing you do is to look at stock fit. A stock perfectly shaped for you reduces the recoil by lots.
And have a gun that have a decent weight. Very light guns increase the recoil by lots.
Then attaching a high quality recoil pad like one from Limbsaver, will also reduce felt recoil by much.
Then you can reduce your loads a bit. It is very few times in real hunting situations you need maximum loads. Specially when using big bores.

The last but most efficient way to reduce recoil AND noise is by using a silencer if legal.
A high quality silencer reduces both the noise and recoil by very much.
A 308 with max loaded 180 grain bullets feels like shooting a 223 with 50 grain bullets.
A 223 feels like a 22 lr.

I don't have a silencer on my 308 to reduce the recoil for me. I have it so my 8 year old son can shoot it.

:meyou::beer:

 

[colorado]

:meyou::beer:

I like this silencer idea, how big would one have to be for my 500 Jeffery? Seriously ...

 

[Johnny7604]

Just some observations from someone with some education and experience in occupational hygiene. Most unsuppressed centerfire firearms create a sound pressure impulse that exceeds the human threshold for noise induced hearing loss. I have read many studies and conducted tests myself.

The levels do typically decrease as a person moves to a position rear of the firearm. This reduction is typically negated with the use of a muzzle brake and I have seen increases in maximum peak measured sound pressure as well.

That being said whether a muzzle brake is used or not hearing protection should be used by anyone in close proximity to a firearm being discharged. If anyone thinks they are not causing hearing damage to someone nearby with an un-braked rifle you are most likely wrong.

 

[colorado]

Agree. I was at the range with a friend who had a braked 338 RUM. It was at least twice as loud as my 500 Jeffery and since it was also higher pitched even more painful even with hearing protection. After a few shots, I put in foamies plus my normal hearing muffs. Can't imagine how bad that would be hunting if I were close to him and by his side when he shot. As an earlier poster said, if you're hunting or shooting alone they are amazing as far as recoil reduction is concerned.

 

[Norwegianwoods]

I like this silencer idea, how big would one have to be for my 500 Jeffery? Seriously ...

There are lots of different silencers and some are more efficient that others. But if you have a high quality silencer that is about 2-2 1/2" in diameter and about 10" long, you will notice a big difference in noise and recoil. Of course bigger is better, but you need to balance the reduced noise and recoil with the balance and weight of the weapon.
If you use open sights, you also need to make sure that the diameter is not to big to interfere with your aiming

In general will a silencer be more efficient for smaller bores when it comes to reduction of noise because of the smaller diameter of the hole where sound can escape.

 

[PaulT]

I have severe muzzle blast effected hearing loss.
Self inflicted through negligence, no sympathy sought.

I find, for my own personal use, muzzle brakes to be an abomination.
Excessively noisy and physically offensive at the report of the shot.

So much so that I need to physically sheild myself from them when with hunters who are using them.

If I don't, I suffer for days.

I'm not here to dictate to anyone's choice of equipment.

If you NEED one and believe it helps then use one.

Personally I think that if your at that stage of your recoil intolerance you should perhaps step down to a milder caliber.
Muzzle brakes may indeed reduce "felt" recoil but I have also seen some shooters anticipate the muzzle blast, which is significant, and flinch.

In excess of 10 years of guiding buffalo hunters the only hunter who I have had to send home without a Trophy was a hunter who was using a .458 with a brake that was an absolute shocker (noise wise).

I respectfully requested leave of absence from this hunter (by placing myself behind the shooter) at the time of the shot.
The shot clipped the lower brisket, drawing deep red blood, producing a non-lethal hit.
That bull ran on for days and was never found.
I was in no position to back-up and the shooter did not either.
I attribute this loss to many varied contributing factors, not least of which was that brake.

At the end of the day, if you ask enough people you will get justification for what-ever piece of gear you may have invisaged as being "necessary", but that doesn't make it necessarily so out in the field.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[Velo Dog]

I have severe muzzle blast effected hearing loss.
Self inflicted through negligence, no sympathy sought.

I find, for my own personal use, muzzle brakes to be an abomination.
Excessively noisy and physically offensive at the report of the shot.

So much so that I need to physically sheild myself from them when with hunters who are using them.

If I don't, I suffer for days.

I'm not here to dictate to anyone's choice of equipment.

If you NEED one and believe it helps then use one.

Personally I think that if your at that stage of your recoil intolerance you should perhaps step down to a milder caliber.
Muzzle brakes may indeed reduce "felt" recoil but I have also seen some shooters anticipate the muzzle blast, which is significant, and flinch.

In excess of 10 years of guiding buffalo hunters the only hunter who I have had to send home without a Trophy was a hunter who was using a .458 with a brake that was an absolute shocker (noise wise).

I respectfully requested leave of absence from this hunter (by placing myself behind the shooter) at the time of the shot.
The shot clipped the lower brisket, drawing deep red blood, producing a non-lethal hit.
That bull ran on for days and was never found.
I was in no position to back-up and the shooter did not either.
I attribute this loss to many varied contributing factors, not least of which was that brake.

At the end of the day, if you ask enough people you will get justification for what-ever piece of gear you may have invisaged as being "necessary", but that doesn't make it necessarily so out in the field.

Your mileage may vary.

Hello PaulT,

It is good to find that there are kindred spirits out there.
I am one of those (perhaps self-righteous) people who will never own a muzzle brake.
None of the chaps I hunt with will have one either.
The reason is that we cannot even practice with them, due to the ear pain/hearing damage they cause, right through the hearing protection.
Most of the crew mentioned have rifles in the .40 and over calibers, yet not one of us has been crippled by recoil from these (and we're no more than a tattered mob of old geezers).
If any of us ever decide to try Australia, we will consult you about a hunt.

Cheers Mate,
Velo Dog.

 

[moosemike]

I've heard a few guys say that they just use the brake at the range and screw the thread protector on to go hunting. My Ruger .338 shoots 4" lower at fifty yards with the brake removed as opposed to on. So I can't just remove the brake and hunt. Is this unusual?

 

[sestoppelman]

That's a huge change! Don't know if that's at all normal but you could simply just take off the stupid brake and re-sight/adjust without it and go hunting. I have a Ruger .338 too and never found the recoil so fierce that a brake was needed, even from the bench. I do however wear a PAST recoil shield when doing load development for the kickers.

 

[moosemike]

Once I get a better scope I might do that. It had a Bushnell on when I got it and the brake is keeping it from crapping out.

 

[enysse]

Every gun shoots different. The amount of recoil, may require you to hold the gun different.
I see people hold a gun different between strong recoiling guns and light. That brake does make a difference.
You might have to re sight the gun if you remove the brake.

 

[spike.t]

j I do however wear a PAST recoil shield when doing load development for the kickers.

ses dont tell me you are becoming a wuss

 

[spike.t]

Once I get a better scope I might do that. It had a Bushnell on when I got it and the brake is keeping it from crapping out.

what is crapping out in a scope?....

 

[spike.t]

I've heard a few guys say that they just use the brake at the range and screw the thread protector on to go hunting. My Ruger .338 shoots 4" lower at fifty yards with the brake removed as opposed to on. So I can't just remove the brake and hunt. Is this unusual?

throw it away, why do you need a brake on a .338 or any other rifle????????