broke my first rifle...

[ken snyder]

Hello. We arrived at .040 For several reasons after testing different brands of brakes on a recoil sled and using our ears as a scientific measurement using the WOW that really makes my ears ring method and for safety reasons. We noticed that a lot of people loose brakes because they don't bother to make sure they are tight ( the well it was tight 2 years ago mentality) and that somewhere between loose and falling off they droop. We also are not after maximum brake power, it is very simple to reduce recoil but is quite a bit harder to reduce noise. From sled testing we found that noise increases as brake efficiency increases, even at that it is also only part of the story. The pitch or frequency of the muzzle blast is also of consideration. I'm sure that the difference between the sharp crack of a .357 revolver compared to a shotgun at decibels that are equal would be a good example. Ear friendly brakes tend to direct the shockwave forward while forcing the gasses to oppose each other, kind of like a blasting crew directing which way the rocks will fly. By design and requirement trade offs it is entirely and routinely possible to make a brake that is neighboring bench at the range friendly or blow him off his bench. My best advice is to start looking at a brake as something crossed between a garden hose nosel and a violin, but stop well short of it becomeing a can.

 

[rscott5028]

Hello. We arrived at .040 For several reasons after testing different brands of brakes on a recoil sled and using our ears as a scientific measurement using the WOW that really makes my ears ring method and for safety reasons. We noticed that a lot of people loose brakes because they don't bother to make sure they are tight ( the well it was tight 2 years ago mentality) and that somewhere between loose and falling off they droop. We also are not after maximum brake power, it is very simple to reduce recoil but is quite a bit harder to reduce noise. From sled testing we found that noise increases as brake efficiency increases, even at that it is also only part of the story. The pitch or frequency of the muzzle blast is also of consideration. I'm sure that the difference between the sharp crack of a .357 revolver compared to a shotgun at decibels that are equal would be a good example. Ear friendly brakes tend to direct the shockwave forward while forcing the gasses to oppose each other, kind of like a blasting crew directing which way the rocks will fly. By design and requirement trade offs it is entirely and routinely possible to make a brake that is neighboring bench at the range friendly or blow him off his bench. My best advice is to start looking at a brake as something crossed between a garden hose nosel and a violin, but stop well short of it becomeing a can.

Thanks for putting it in context.

Perhaps someone should design a brake for varmint hunters that whistles instead of crack or boom?

 

[bigngreen]

I've been contemplating trying to size the holes incrementally to try to spread the work more evenly over the baffles but use all the gas as well, starting loose on the first then tight on the last. I did notice that with the Muscle Brake that first port being straight really deflects and disrupts the noise and gas coming back from the second and third baffles. Don't know probably just over thinking it

 

[ken snyder]

Thanks, I think? Maybe I really wasn't too clear. Put a bigger bore hole in it so that the bullet wont hit the "screw on brake" should it come loose. Get rid of those flat baffles that bounce the concussion back at you like throwing a baseball at a brick wall, angle them away from you. Once the bullet leaves the muzzle it has no effect on recoil. The exhausting gasses are the only thing a brake can control. Once a bullet enters the brake some of the gasses leave the brake before the bullet and in all directions including ahead of the bullet, while the bullet is in the brake it becomes an obststacle for the much the higher velocity gasses and re-directs their flow. The more that is allowed to go straight ahead the less effective and quiter the brake becomes to the shooter and bystanders. The physics behind high velocity water and high velocity gasses is the same. look at an adjustable garden hose nosel, the water is controllable from a fine stream to a get you wet fan shape, the gasses leaving the brake are directed in the same manner. Sound travels about 1/4 the speed of the gasses and in essence follows the shock wave created by the gasses because the noise is the shock wave. IF you make a brake with evenly spaced ports around its circumfrance and is adjustable for length you now have control of barrel vibration just like tuneing a violin string. For pitch control you need the rest of the violin and as far as brakes are concerned that is an outer brake cover that has vent holes in it as well. The principles behind what you expect from your brake are as simple as water or as complicated as a violin. Quieter brakes equal less recoil reduction and a noisier brake equals more recoil reduction. It is interesting to note that the typical flat baffle break is so common because the better multi canister brakes are already patented in just about every way imaginable leaving only the basic flat baffle brake as fair game, since they can be made by anyone they are the most popular, not the best. Ive played with a lot of brakes and sad as it is for me to say " Ive only found 1 that I like and pay the patent holder to install them for me. Have fun playing with them, someday I might be buying one of yours!

 

[Hired Gun]

I would agree the first port being straight redirects the flow from the subsequent ports. I have been really studying some video's of brakes in action frame by frame and found that based on observation only that on baffle style brakes the first port relieves about 90% of the gasses. Second port gets 9%. The 3rd port about 1% and everything beyond that is just for looks. This started when I was looking for a place to make my brakes with more than 3 ports and they educated me on this. Ever notice most military brakes are usually 1 port and almost never more than 2 ports even up to artillery? I'm about to enter into testing with some angled 2 port designs that save weight and length yet as effective as comparable 3+ port brakes. It's basically like say for example a Holland Radial brake with the end port cut off. Beyond two ports seems to be a result of the uninformed demand by consumers who are suckers for , "more is better" mentality.

Using fluid flow testing I find that with the end of the brake plugged to simulate the bullet that fluid only flows from the very first row of ports and the last set before the plug. This is interesting as this occurs with baffle and brakes with holes all around. Even more interesting is no matter how much pressure I introduce that without a plug present most of the flow is directed out the first ports and the rest out the muzzle. Just how long is that bullet present on the brake anyway when the meaningful pressure is being vented?

 

[rscott5028]

Not sure if I was clear. But, the brake I installed is a Holland QD brake. I'm not set up to make my own.

In any case, I really appreciate the in-depth explanations. It's really worthy of a separate thread.

thanks!
Richard

 

[Coyboy]

I've been contemplating trying to size the holes incrementally to try to spread the work more evenly over the baffles but use all the gas as well, starting loose on the first then tight on the last. I did notice that with the Muscle Brake that first port being straight really deflects and disrupts the noise and gas coming back from the second and third baffles. Don't know probably just over thinking it

biggreen, I have done just that with the Muscle brake.
Opened the first baffle to .040" second to .030" and the last to .020". It did give the gun a bit more forward push than what one would feel with just a .020" hole all the way thru. not extreame but it did feel/act a bit different.

Your not over thinking, that was the point of the design, and from the feedback I get it is working as designed.

 

[rscott5028]

biggreen, I have done just that with the Muscle brake.
Opened the first baffle to .040" second to .030" and the last to .020". It did give the gun a bit more forward push than what one would feel with just a .020" hole all the way thru. not extreame but it did feel/act a bit different.

Your not over thinking, that was the point of the design, and from the feedback I get it is working as designed.

First to last == relative to the direction the bullet is travelling???

 

[Coyboy]

First to last == relative to the direction the bullet is travelling???

yes bullet enters first baffle then 2nd ect.

 

[bigngreen]

biggreen, I have done just that with the Muscle brake.
Opened the first baffle to .040" second to .030" and the last to .020". It did give the gun a bit more forward push than what one would feel with just a .020" hole all the way thru. not extreame but it did feel/act a bit different.

Your not over thinking, that was the point of the design, and from the feedback I get it is working as designed.

Those were the numbers I was thinking of cutting on a three port to give it a try. Thanks for the info, I need to get a few more brakes soon, now that me and everyone I shoot with are spoiled