Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
How loud are brakes, to the shooter, in a hunting situation, in the woods?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="aspenbugle" data-source="post: 1341993" data-attributes="member: 6481"><p>No worries Rich. This is why I seldom dive into these these...I read and move one normally (which is why I have 78 posts in 10+ years vs. you and JE Custom having 2000+ and 7000+ respectively probably - I'm happy with my life and don't care to argue "whose is bigger" most of the time. You guys are braver or bigger gluttons for punishment than I probably). If you'd just stated your post without attaching it to me, saying all the science and facts I tried presenting were irrelevant, I wouldn't have cared. I was honestly just trying to add some science (by wiser people than me) to the conversation. I honestly would like to know if muzzle brakes are worse and by how much, because like Calhunter, I'm sure I'll occasionally still shoot a bull at 60 yards without protection like I did 2 years ago. I know it isn't smart, but, at least for my current real-world that seems like the most reasonable answer, occasionally, but if I know undoubtedly that a brake will totally permanently ruin my hearing then I'll do my best to let it never happen (I'll just make sure to not hunt with it on).</p><p></p><p>I apologize, I've been a professional scientist for 30 years (in the AF and Gov/Corp. life), so "facts" of 3 guys impressions of something is an interesting amateur anecdote (at least to me). No offense, but we could get 100 different post with 100 different opinions/anecdotes. Sadly (to me) I've worked in research labs and around researchers enough to know that there are 20-30 folks out there in the US, for almost any topic, including this, that spend their entire scientific lives studying this. They spend millions of dollars, researching it for years on end. They eat-drink-and-sleep it. They all know each other, and see each at all conferences. They are mega-nerds, with mega-expensive equipment, and they don't guess, they know. I'd rather have 2-3 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, which don't get published if they are flawed, than 100 random opinions and anecdotes (but that's me). For example, remember those truck-bed nets that you could buy to replace your tailgate to lessen wind-resistance and improve gas mileage (I bought one). It made sense and seemed logical, but actual science in a wind-tunnel showed that the solid tailgate was actually more fuel efficient and caused less drag (contrary to uneducated logic). Tailgates basically formed a bubble of stationary air in the bed, that all other air going over bounced off of, but letting that bubble escape by using a net or putting the tailgate down, actually made gas mileage worse (more drag). My point: that may not make sense to a lay-person, but if it's true, it's true. Nevertheless, I'm sure I could still find 1000s of people today that would swear it saves them gas. So, I'd rather have 2 high-quality scientific studies than 100 opinions - but that's just me. Makes sense to start with the best facts and then add our opinions and values on that, vs everyone randomly hypothesizing.</p><p></p><p>I agree, if this is the worst of our week, life is good. I'll do my best to go crawl back under my rock. I enjoy good debate and conversation. I think it just needs to be based on reliable, repeatable scientific facts and not just be opinion, personal or judgmental if possible, which I don't always pull off. No worries. Sorry if I came across coarse - not my intent. My wife tells me I'm just too logical and scientific for my own good sometimes but I'm also a country bumpkin and live in elk country, and any breakfast in our no-stoplight town is filled with talk of hunting, by life-long hunters and guides. Life is good. Have a great one.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="aspenbugle, post: 1341993, member: 6481"] No worries Rich. This is why I seldom dive into these these...I read and move one normally (which is why I have 78 posts in 10+ years vs. you and JE Custom having 2000+ and 7000+ respectively probably - I'm happy with my life and don't care to argue "whose is bigger" most of the time. You guys are braver or bigger gluttons for punishment than I probably). If you'd just stated your post without attaching it to me, saying all the science and facts I tried presenting were irrelevant, I wouldn't have cared. I was honestly just trying to add some science (by wiser people than me) to the conversation. I honestly would like to know if muzzle brakes are worse and by how much, because like Calhunter, I'm sure I'll occasionally still shoot a bull at 60 yards without protection like I did 2 years ago. I know it isn't smart, but, at least for my current real-world that seems like the most reasonable answer, occasionally, but if I know undoubtedly that a brake will totally permanently ruin my hearing then I'll do my best to let it never happen (I'll just make sure to not hunt with it on). I apologize, I've been a professional scientist for 30 years (in the AF and Gov/Corp. life), so "facts" of 3 guys impressions of something is an interesting amateur anecdote (at least to me). No offense, but we could get 100 different post with 100 different opinions/anecdotes. Sadly (to me) I've worked in research labs and around researchers enough to know that there are 20-30 folks out there in the US, for almost any topic, including this, that spend their entire scientific lives studying this. They spend millions of dollars, researching it for years on end. They eat-drink-and-sleep it. They all know each other, and see each at all conferences. They are mega-nerds, with mega-expensive equipment, and they don't guess, they know. I'd rather have 2-3 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, which don't get published if they are flawed, than 100 random opinions and anecdotes (but that's me). For example, remember those truck-bed nets that you could buy to replace your tailgate to lessen wind-resistance and improve gas mileage (I bought one). It made sense and seemed logical, but actual science in a wind-tunnel showed that the solid tailgate was actually more fuel efficient and caused less drag (contrary to uneducated logic). Tailgates basically formed a bubble of stationary air in the bed, that all other air going over bounced off of, but letting that bubble escape by using a net or putting the tailgate down, actually made gas mileage worse (more drag). My point: that may not make sense to a lay-person, but if it's true, it's true. Nevertheless, I'm sure I could still find 1000s of people today that would swear it saves them gas. So, I'd rather have 2 high-quality scientific studies than 100 opinions - but that's just me. Makes sense to start with the best facts and then add our opinions and values on that, vs everyone randomly hypothesizing. I agree, if this is the worst of our week, life is good. I'll do my best to go crawl back under my rock. I enjoy good debate and conversation. I think it just needs to be based on reliable, repeatable scientific facts and not just be opinion, personal or judgmental if possible, which I don't always pull off. No worries. Sorry if I came across coarse - not my intent. My wife tells me I'm just too logical and scientific for my own good sometimes but I'm also a country bumpkin and live in elk country, and any breakfast in our no-stoplight town is filled with talk of hunting, by life-long hunters and guides. Life is good. Have a great one. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
How loud are brakes, to the shooter, in a hunting situation, in the woods?
Top