IS the 30-378 too much with no brake?

[nmbarta]

I'm not saying that anyone should ever pull the trigger on a firearm without hearing and eye protection, but the reality is, when hunting, but many of us do exactly that.

Whether the db level is higher or not, when the shot causes physical pain, It's doing more damage. The fact that they both cause damage is a pointless argument to me. Occasionally having a cigar with glass of scotch is completely different than smoking two packs of camels and drinking a fifth of Jack on a friday night. Neither one is a great idea, but one is obviously a lot worse.

PRB did a pretty extensive test on this matter, that found a 40% to 160% increase in perceived loudness for the shooter. They also found a direct link between how loud the brake is and how effective it is at reducing recoil. The louder they are, the better they work generally speaking, some were certainly better than others in this regard. The db level of the rifle is not increased with a brake, but the db level behind the rifle is raised closer to the db level in front of it. It's sort of like turning a speaker at a constant volume. If you point the speaker right at your ear, your ear will be exposed to higher db levels than if you point it away from your ear, even though the speaker is not changing volume. You will do more damage pointing it directly at your ear, than pointing it away.

I don't care if someone does or doesn't use a brake, but would not want someone to think that a brake just makes a gun "seem" louder, but isn't actually doing any more damage. That is not correct. In the event that someone would fire a rifle without hearing protection, the same rifle with a brake will cause significantly more damage than the same rifle without one.

To each his own. I completely understand why someone would not want a hunting rifle with brake, it makes perfect sense for some people and how they hunt.

 

[Damo450]

Just wanted to clear up the perception that muzzle brakes are louder than un braked rifles. "THEY ARE NOT"

There perceived sound/noise is, but not the decibels. While testing brakes we also tested DB to see what the difference was. We placed the DB meter directly behind the shooter to measure what the shooter was exposed to. The results were surprising. The highest DB reading we encountered was
108 Decibels. This was an un braked rifle. The lowest we encountered was 105 Decibels and that was with a brake installed. Interestingly, The DB meter showed higher levels of sound/noise on the un braked rifles. So much like a car horn, if you stand in front of it, (Not a good idea with a rifle, Ha Ha) It is louder than if you stand beside of it even though the horn produces the same decibels of sound.

Some brakes directs the sound out or backwards towards the shooter increasing the perceived sound
but not increasing the actual decibels of sound (Volume).

80 to 85 Decibels is considered to be the safe level to work in continuously anything over 100 Decibels is not even momentarily safe and can cause permanent damage.

105 to 108 doesn't sound like a wide range, but it is. For every Decibel of sound increase, the DBs
go up by a factor of x10 (106 DB is 10x louder than 105 DB)

I am not trying to push brakes because they can actually lower the Decibels, but warning that ether way a rifle should not be fired without hearing protection. With or without even one time can permanently damage your ears because of the intensity.

Ask any of the older shooters and they will tell you how they have lost hearing doing this. So even though some think that brakes are louder, they are not. Testing has proven this to even me (A strong believer that brakes were louder Before testing.

Believe it or not some brakes produced the same levels of sound as the un braked rifles but none of the braked rifles produced more decibels that the un braked rifles , and flash hiders consistently
did better than un braked rifles and some muzzle brakes.

So just because someone has said that brakes are louder and don't want to use them, it is not a reason to shoot the rifle without hearing protection. Ether way, Save your ears.

Just trying to save some young ears.

J E CUSTOM

This may be true and I have no scientific data to back up my claims other than most everyone I hunt with has a rifle with a brake and I flat out refuse to sit with them. Hear I got protection or not. And I do a lot of still hunting in the Midwest where we have zero time to put on ears but I do hunt now with custom inserts when the wind is low but that isn't an option on every hunt. I don't like brakes. Never will.

 

[Pdvdh]

I don't like brakes. Never will.

I don't like muzzle reports, with or without muzzle brakes and don't think I ever will. However I like shooting heavy recoiling rifles equipped with muzzle brakes much more, compared to shooting the same rifles without their brakes.

I wear hearing protection, and even at that, I believe I'm doing some damage to my hearing with each shot fired. My ears still ring after hearing protected shooting sessions. A suppressor is the way to go if you're willing and able to put up with the costs and inconveniences. Both noise and recoil reduction. However they add 1 to 1 1/2lbs at the end of the barrel, extend the barrel length of the firearm another 8-10", cost $1,000-$1,500 plus an additional $200 for the Federal permit, and require an 8-9 month waiting period for permit review and approval. While tempting, I haven't gone there yet. A great convenience for noise reduction, they pose a significant inconvenience for backpack hunting.

 

[ATH]

Brake hating is silly. Beat the heck out of yourself and shoot less accurately if you wish I guess.

It's only silly if you choose the alternative of shooting a rifle with too much recoil for you to manage, rather than the alternative of sticking with a rifle whose recoil you can manage without a brake. I think this is another way of saying what you are saying.

My primary long range hunting rifle is a 300WM specifically because it is the largest round I can comfortably shoot without a brake. For many years this has served me just fine, so I find nothing silly about it.

Recently I decided that it is time to move up to a 338 Edge for certain hunts. It WOULD be silly to do this, but not brake it, just because I don't like brakes. So this rifle will be braked, even though I generally dislike brakes, because the alternative is I don't shoot a rifle that can do things the 338 Edge can do.

This seems perfectly logical to me.

 

[bigngreen]

I don't like muzzle reports, with or without muzzle brakes and don't think I ever will. However I like shooting heavy recoiling rifles equipped with muzzle brakes much more, compared to shooting the same rifles without their brakes.

I wear hearing protection, and even at that, I believe I'm doing some damage to my hearing with each shot fired. My ears still ring after hearing protected shooting sessions. A suppressor is the way to go if you're willing and able to put up with the costs and inconveniences. Both noise and recoil reduction. However they add 1 to 1 1/2lbs at the end of the barrel, extend the barrel length of the firearm another 8-10", cost $1,000-$1,500 plus an additional $200 for the Federal permit, and require an 8-9 month waiting period for permit review and approval. While tempting, I haven't gone there yet. A great convenience for noise reduction, they pose a significant inconvenience for backpack hunting.

Co worker just ordered a suppressor for a back pack gun, 10oz adds 6 inches and rated 338 Lapua, looking forward to shooting it!!
I used to completely go with the if it don't hurt it's not hurting anything, man I wish I could do it over with my hearing again, makes me sad when guys refused to understand and then put their kids in that situation, the thing I hate the most is there are a lot of times I can hear an elk bugle anymore, certainly can't hear game moving till it's to late, now days there just is no excuse or reason to hunt without hearing protection with so many great products.

 

[Pdvdh]

Co worker just ordered a suppressor for a back pack gun, 10oz adds 6 inches and rated 338 Lapua, looking forward to shooting it!!

My hearing-damaged ears just perked up! Any more details on the make, model, cost? That's getting down to where I might take the plunge.

 

[Damo450]

Co worker just ordered a suppressor for a back pack gun, 10oz adds 6 inches and rated 338 Lapua, looking forward to shooting it!!
I used to completely go with the if it don't hurt it's not hurting anything, man I wish I could do it over with my hearing again, makes me sad when guys refused to understand and then put their kids in that situation, the thing I hate the most is there are a lot of times I can hear an elk bugle anymore, certainly can't hear game moving till it's to late, now days there just is no excuse or reason to hunt without hearing protection with so many great products.

I believe suppressor a are the greatest accessory to shooting we have ever seen. And I have the utmost hope that we will all be able to buy one with a 4473 very, very soon.

 

[J E Custom]

I'm not saying that anyone should ever pull the trigger on a firearm without hearing and eye protection, but the reality is, when hunting, but many of us do exactly that.

Whether the db level is higher or not, when the shot causes physical pain, It's doing more damage. The fact that they bo<script id="gpt-impl-0.2165329096144077" src="https://securepubads.g.doubleclick.net/gpt/pubads_impl_110.js"></script>th cause damage is a pointless argument to me. Occasionally having a cigar with glass of scotch is completely different than smoking two packs of camels and drinking a fifth of Jack on a friday night. Neither one is a great idea, but one is obviously a lot worse.

PRB did a pretty extensive test on this matter, that found a 40% to 160% increase in perceived loudness for the shooter. They also found a direct link between how loud the brake is and how effective it is at reducing recoil. The louder they are, the better they work generally speaking, some were certainly better than others in this regard. The db level of the rifle is not increased with a brake, but the db level behind the rifle is raised closer to the db level in front of it. It's sort of like turning a speaker at a constant volume. If you point the speaker right at your ear, your ear will be exposed to higher db levels than if you point it away from your ear, even though the speaker is not changing volume. You will do more damage pointing it directly at your ear, than pointing it away.

I don't care if someone does or doesn't use a brake, but would not want someone to think that a brake just makes a gun "seem" louder, but isn't actually doing any more damage. That is not correct. In the event that someone would fire a rifle without hearing protection, the same rifle with a brake will cause significantly more damage than the same rifle without one.

To each his own. I completely understand why someone would not want a hunting rifle with brake, it makes perfect sense for some people and how they hunt.

All good points but test proved that the braked rifle was no louder. We positioned the DB meter directly behind the shooters head to try and measure what the shooter heard. The only way to compare sound levels is with a DB meter. all studies are done using DBs and safe levels are set based on DB, So it was the logical to use this measuring instrument for a apples to apples comparison.

There is no question that an observer beside the muzzle brake will get hammered but the same is true if you are in front of the rifle without a brake. If you were in the service and had someone shoot over your head in combat you know how loud they are.

We also tested the angle theory of the ports looking for a quieter design and found another wives tale that was not true. brake efficiency was the main contributor to the lower DB level not the angle of the ports The most efficient brakes had the lowest Decibel level.

As to the ear protection, there are many types that you can wear while hunting that don't get in your way and can actually improve your hearing. I started using the hearing aid type while bow hunting so I could hear better and converted to them while rifle hunting rather than using ear plugs
that reduced hearing, The electronic ear protection allows you to hear better and when the rifle goes off they crop the sound to safe levels (The best of both worlds)

I can't (don't like shooting any rifle with ear muffs), so I look for alternatives, and the electronic ear plug type work best for me.

While testing the 50 BMG M82A1 we found that the factory fish gill brake (Ports are angled back at 45o ) required ear plugs and ear muffs to prevent sinus problems from the pressure wave. After experimenting with different angles we found that straight or converging ports produced far less DBs and pressure waves and only required ear plugs, plus recoil was reduced from 117 ft/lbs without a brake to 62.7 with the fish gill brake and 42.4 ft/lbs with the straight or converging ported brake with far less DBs.

All test performed were done so with no ulterior motive in mind and only to find the truth about muzzle brake designs, noise produced with different designs, recoil reduction of different designs.
accuracy effects of different designs. and perceived recoil and DB levels of different designs. Many times the results were not what I had though for many years and I had to change my beliefs and philosophy on many things.

I have not done any extensive testing on suppressors, so I cant comment on the pluses and minuses of them as of this moment. but I have done extensive testing on muzzle brakes and just reported the facts based on real world testing and not perception.

J E CUSTOM

 

[nmbarta]

The db levels might be the same, but without a doubt, something else happens behind the rifle when it is shot with a muzzle brake that is way worse for ears. Maybe it's not db levels, but whatever it is, it's bad for ears. Maybe it's the pressure. Precision Rifle Blogs muzzle brake field test showed db levels increasing by over 100% for some brakes. These readings were taken behind the rifle close to shooter position. My ears agree with these numbers.

I have a 338 lapua with a fat bastard brake. I use plugs and muffs when I shoot this rifle. It is too loud to shoot with muffs for me. With just a pair of muffs (just cheaper walkers) it hurts my ears worse than my 280ai with no hearing protection. My 375 cheytac with a lawton brake is just fine to shoot with muffs. No doubt about it, it's a much louder rifle, but it's easier on the ears than the 338. I can guarantee with 100% certainty that if you shoot that 338 without ears on one time, you have hurt yourself, and probably bad. The fat bastard is much more effective for recoil imo.

I guess with the logic that I'm gathering here, it's not any louder to be in front of the muzzle than behind it? This is basically what a brake does, it exposes you to something very similar to being in front of or beside the muzzle. If that's not louder, I don't know what is.

I'll have to try some better electric ears, the ones I bought are terrible. Any recommendations?

Just to be clear, I don't expose my kids to shooting without hearing protection ever.

 

[Deleted member 46119]

My ears are so sensitive I cannot shoot any center fire weapon without my ears hurting.

I'm in the same boat. I wear plugs and e-muffs. I took some shots with a braked 338 without. Never again.

 

[FEENIX]

It boils down to personal preference/choice ...

If one chooses to shoot a .30-378 WBTY without a muzzle brake, I say go for it. Others like me have made the adjustment successfully and have enjoyed the benefits of effective muzzle brakes. With proper hearing protection, the perceived increased noise level can be mitigated. How we choose to protect our hearing is another level of personal preference/choice.

Let us not forget this is a long range hunting site and we "should" have plenty of time to set up including all the necessary/preferred personal protection equipment. However, even with our best intentions, there will be time that we will forget them; this reminds me of Jim See's video of his muscle brake test when he forgot his hearing protection.

[ame]https://youtu.be/RMit5FMqp6E?t=56[/ame]

(http://www.longrangehunting.com/forums/f23/new-concept-muzzle-brakes-44252/)

When I am stalking/still hunting, I just use a balaclava without ear plugs so I can still hear movements (I'd like to have the e-hearing protection one of these days), for me it works like having a cupped hands over your ears.

I spent my first 10 years in the USAF working in the flightline with prolonged exposure to noise levels in 120dB and up. My first 6 years was with the F-4s, just imagine being in a base with 5 squadrons of F-4s esp. during a full blown aircraft generation exercise. Not sure what they use now but back then we use foamies + standard ear muff.

When I transitioned from F-4s to A10s, my hearing improved with the same hearing protection being provided. Two years after I got off the flightline, my hearing improved to near my pre-flightline days. It's amazing what exposure to a different in airframe makes.

Keep it simple, keep real, and keep it fun ... happy safe shooting/hunting.

Cheers!

Ed

 

[Big Jake Duke]

another way to approach this may be with adequate-feasible hearing protection. and use the brake.

I use the Silynx Clarus Pro.

it is very small, amplifies sound and cuts off all shot noise. they are great while hunting and NOT too expensive. they use one AAA and run for 60 hours.

https://www.silynxcom.com/products/

 

[ctw]

I never shot my .30-378 without the brake and don't want to either. I have punished my self enough over the years with my share of the big calibers. The first time I pulled the trigger on the big thirty weatherby was an eye opener. That rifle seemed to caress my shoulder with the recoil of a .243 win. Is it loud? oh yes. But I won't shoot it with out ear protection or for that matter any of my other rifles. This was the first rifle I've ever had the opportunity to hunt with that had a brake. To be able to shoot a game animal and watch the reaction to the hit unfold right before your eyes thru the scope was amazing. I had never experienced that before, and I then became my own spotter. No more searching for the game animal thru the scope to see what the reaction was due to the lack of recoil and muzzle jump. I now am able to see water jugs explode after the hit while placing them at long yardages. There are pros and cons to everything, but for me the benefits outweigh the negatives.

 

[gusd]

After reading all posts in this thread And being this is A Long Range Hunting Forum.
I think FEENIX SAID it best
"Let us not forget this is a long range hunting site and we "should" have plenty of time to set up including all the necessary/preferred personal protection equipment. However, even with our best intentions, there will be time that we will forget them"
I would assume the 30-378 is mainly going to be used for long range.
But it may not be either.I have not shot My 338 Lapua without a brake and I probably never will there are just way to many advantages for a brake for me personally.
I have 2 custom 6.5 creedmores one with a brake and one without.
The non braked one does not get used.
I personally think everything from 22LR on up is to loud to safely use without hearing protection and try my best to always use protection when doing any shooting.