I'm not sure how a suppressor reduces recoil but mine do to an extent, even though it's contained the muzzle blast is still being redirected , I also think that the decibel reduction gives you a false sense of less recoil as well
Muzzle brakes...
- Thread starter Nubba0681
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
A suppressor keeps the gasses contained for a longer period of time before discharging them, allowing it to cool down more. this cool down lowers the pressure and reduces the amount of gas discharge. If this discharge is below the speed of sound, it becomes sub sonic and noise is reduced even more. This is the reason suppressors on very small cartridges can be so quite. Also the pressure wave normal with brakes is diminished by allowing more cooling time in the suppressor.
However, this may cause problems with some gas guns because the port pressure will increase due to the pressure curve delay. The gas port will effectively be moved and the gas system will see more pressure.
J E CUSTOM
Sargesniper
Well-Known Member
memtb, I sure hope the grandkids don't live where Laura came ashore. This one was and still is NASTY. It's 8:00 am here and the wind and rain are doing it's thing. We were spared the brunt of it. Only have to worry about backwater from the river. Keep your powder dry! Sargesniper.Sarge, good to see you back.....of course, maybe I just missed your posts. I hope you don't get any water from these two little "weather makers"! I don't want to see my grandkids and great grandkids leaving their homes via boat again!
I handled the "bloody elbows" a little differently.....I bought an elbow pad used by Volleyball players!It's really quiet!
Good luck and God speed to all in the path of the storm!
Sargesniper
Well-Known Member
Thanks man, appreciate your concern.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
View attachment 210836
Let me just start that I have been using muzzle brakes since 2003 and I am a big fan of it and thankful we have plenty of choices to choose from. For recoil, "I" personally would like to see an "actual" test with sensor(s) to measure the "actual" force generated by the rifle set-up on the buttstock (where felt recoil exists) area in FT-LBS. In addition, measurements on muzzle rise and concussion. I know that this kind of testing requires serious capital investment and knowledge base esp. when the MB designer is not equipped for it.
Regardless of the testing approach, the "NUT" behind the trigger remains the biggest deciding factor/critic. Despite this, the MB designers/makers continue to improve their products. I am a big fan of innovations and continuous process improvement, so kudos to all MB designers/builders. Speaking of design, this is where side port design (non-radial) has an advantage over radial design. The radials have very little room for improvement. Yes, I acknowledge the "if it is not broken why fix it" crowd. I am very thankful that we have choices. Gotta love America for this! JMHHO ...
Just for clarification of using load cells.
We looked into using load cells to measure recoil and as you said the cost was prohibitive. the affordable load cells could not handle the speed required to get consistent readings. they typically could not function properly.
Weatherby had Cal Tech built design and build one using the latest technological designed load cells and we checked on the price of these cells. $25.000.00 dollars was the average price of these high Tech cells and out of range for us. after talking to engineers at Weatherby and other businesses that used these load cells we found that there test and reported results proved that impact readings showed an average of 4 % variance reading to reading as apposed to static loads. static loading proved to be less than 1/1000 th with these load cells. so even though they were extremely accurate at weighting static loads, the performance was marginal for impact testing. So we had to come up with a more/very consistent way to measure if we were going to find subtle differences in design changes.
Fortunately, we were able to build a test bed that could and was capable of repeatable results with the capability of reading the Differences in velocity (SD ,s) agreeing with the chronograph.
We are no smarter than anyone else we were just result driven and luck to end up with a very precise measuring device that will/can indicate subtle changes/differences that can prove that many changes we made were for the worse and others were for the better. Something that can measure accurately without prejudice (Like a good chronograph) has to be consistently accurate.
So even if we could afford the high end load cells, we felt that the 4% repeatability percentage was to high for our needs.
J E CUSTOM
memtb
Well-Known Member
Thanks Sarge, Close family all in the Baton Rouge/Zachary area, but have several cousins in the Lake Charles area. Baton Rouge/Zachary folks are great.....no word on the others! Hopefully, y'all don't get substantial rain.....you certainly don't need another 2016! Best Wishes to You and Yours. memtb
Just for clarification of using load cells.
We looked into using load cells to measure recoil and as you said the cost was prohibitive. the affordable load cells could not handle the speed required to get consistent readings. they typically could not function properly.
Weatherby had Cal Tech built design and build one using the latest technological designed load cells and we checked on the price of these cells. $25.000.00 dollars was the average price of these high Tech cells and out of range for us. after talking to engineers at Weatherby and other businesses that used these load cells we found that there test and reported results proved that impact readings showed an average of 4 % variance reading to reading as apposed to static loads. static loading proved to be less than 1/1000 th with these load cells. so even though they were extremely accurate at weighting static loads, the performance was marginal for impact testing. So we had to come up with a more/very consistent way to measure if we were going to find subtle differences in design changes.
Fortunately, we were able to build a test bed that could and was capable of repeatable results with the capability of reading the Differences in velocity (SD ,s) agreeing with the chronograph.
We are no smarter than anyone else we were just result driven and luck to end up with a very precise measuring device that will/can indicate subtle changes/differences that can prove that many changes we made were for the worse and others were for the better. Something that can measure accurately without prejudice (Like a good chronograph) has to be consistently accurate.
So even if we could afford the high end load cells, we felt that the 4% repeatability percentage was to high for our needs.
J E CUSTOM
That is why I clearly noted the cost of the test and highlighted my personal take on the subject matter. My point was to have an "actual" measurement of recoil in FT-LBS. For instance, if you look at rifle recoil table by Chuck Hawks, a 8.5 lbs .300 WM propelling a 180g at 2960 FPS has recoil energy of 25.9 and recoil velocity of 14. I am not sure how he came up with these numbers but let's assume (I know right) they are correct. "IF" the claim is 50% reduction for muzzle brake X, then the recoil energy at 12.95 is pretty darn good in my book.
I am not a fan of WBTY cartridges (actually any proprietary) but love their rifles and hope to own one some day. Based on their current MB offering, I do not think they invested any R&D on MB ... just saying.
Regardless of claim, the end-user have the final say on the MB's effectiveness.
Last edited:
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
That is why I clearly noted the cost of the test and highlighted my personal take on the subject matter. My point was to have an "actual" measurement of recoil in FT-LBS. For instance, if you look at rifle recoil table by Chuck Hawks, a 8.5 lbs .300 WM propelling a 180g at 2960 FPS has recoil energy of 25.9 and recoil velocity of 14. I am not sure how he came up with these numbers but let's assume (I know right) they are correct. "IF" the claim is 50% reduction for muzzle brake X, then the recoil energy at 12.95 is pretty darn good in my book.
I am not a fan of WBTY cartridges (actually any proprietary) but love their rifles and hope to own one some day. Based on their current MB offering, I do not think they invested any R&D on MB ... just saying.
Regardless of claim, the end-user have the final say on the MB's effectiveness.
You are dead on, and that's why we went the direction we did. (Cost and inaccuracy of the load cells) As far as I know Weatherby Is the only rifle manufacture that actually did do testing on there factory muzzle brakes and give test results on their brakes, even though they had someone else build their test platform.
When we first got started they stated that their Accubrake reduced recoil by 52% our test proved they were close to what they claimed. We consistently proved that they would reduce recoil of the 30/378 mark 5 by 51%. very close to what they claimed. Most brakes claimed much more that when tested. many custom brakes claim more than they deliver also. In defense of some of the custom muzzle brakes many were close and the Vais was spot on.
"All" muzzle brakes reduce recoil by some amount, but the efficiency varies depending on the design.
J E CUSTOM
That seems to be a design flaw of the test equipment by Cal Tech peeps or exactly what Weatherby wants (meets their requirements) because obviously they accepted the product and paid $25K for it.
J E Custom
Well-Known Member
Even though the testing equipment Weatherby uses has flaws as far as we were concerned, It is still a decent way to measure actual recoil even if you have to average 5 or more rounds, it is still a way to measure actual recoil instead of just comparing one brake to another that can only tell you that one brake is better than another.
There are formulas that can calculate the recoil of your rifle within a few ft/lbs but it cant tell you what impact any small design change will have on the brake, so we felt we had to do measurements that could show changes as little as 1/16 th of a foot pound (Or .1 ounce) or smaller.
With out the capital to spend we had to be creative and find a better way to build a more accurate system and think outside of the box. We looked at more than 8 different methods and found many flaws and inaccuracies for repeatable results.
Don't be to hard on Weatherby,
at least they didn't claim more than the brake could deliver.J E CUSTOM
JE I appreciate your detailed explanation. I always learn something in these forums.Knowing a little about brakes, I will tell you It can't be done. Recoil comes in two parts. One part is recoil because of the amount gas produced by the cartridge. The other part of the recoil Is produced by the bullet starting inertia. The two combined, is the total recoil produced by the rifle/cartridge combination.
Each cartridges has both and a different ratio of powder to bullet weight. A pistol has a high bullet to powder ratio and most rifles have a high powder to bullet ratio. some of the most over bored rifles only have 74 to 75 % powder in the ratio and only 74 to 75 % to reclaim, So a brake can only reduce less than the powders recoil. you can get up to 95 to 98 % of that 75%. you cant do anything about the bullet recoil unless you lighten it or increase the weight of it.
The very best of brakes can only get within 90+ % of the available gas recoil, and that equates to 40 to 70% of the total recoil. So when someone tells you they are getting 85% recoil reduction, It is not true. They can however be getting 85% of the recoil from the gas produced when the powder is burned. It could be a play on words or just a sales pitch.
You cannot recover more than the potential gas recoil because there will always be a hole in the muzzle break to allow the bullet to exit.
Another comment/belief that testing has proven false is the use of angled ports. Angled ports can be useful if you are trying to control the the effected area around the shooter by directing the gas in a specific direction or a controlled fashion by combining the exhaust ports impingement distance. Angling them back to increase effectiveness only helps recoil when they are 45 degrees +but they make the shooter pay in sound and shock.
Directing the gas away or forward can reduce the shock wave and DB of sound but can be detrimental to recoil reduction. An effective muzzle brake has to be well designed to handle all of the elements and reach a happy medium for total performance. There are many muzzles brakes that are simply metal with holes drilled in it and then there are well designed brakes that will do an efficient job of reducing recoil and shooter discomfort.
Bottom line you cant remove more recoil than available, you can only reduce a percentage of the available recoil.
J E CUSTOM
From experience, I might disagree with the 45 degree angle back ports. I don't think the shooter suffers from increased sound shock. People around the shooter will. I still remember the first time I shot a rifle with the BOSS. It did not affect me, but everyone else on the range complaint
Even though the testing equipment Weatherby uses has flaws as far as we were concerned, It is still a decent way to measure actual recoil even if you have to average 5 or more rounds, it is still a way to measure actual recoil instead of just comparing one brake to another that can only tell you that one brake is better than another.
There are formulas that can calculate the recoil of your rifle within a few ft/lbs but it cant tell you what impact any small design change will have on the brake, so we felt we had to do measurements that could show changes as little as 1/16 th of a foot pound (Or .1 ounce) or smaller.
With out the capital to spend we had to be creative and find a better way to build a more accurate system and think outside of the box. We looked at more than 8 different methods and found many flaws and inaccuracies for repeatable results.
Don't be to hard on Weatherby,
J E CUSTOM
I have no problem with Weatherby (just not a fan of proprietary cartridges as previously noted), test methodology, or their claim, I was simply addressing your comment about the flaw of a load cell that you brought up. Cal Zant's test and use of a load cell are very good, including repeatability. He is probably thinking about improving his test and test stand design because that is how a mind like his operates. I know a reputable member is currently working on a test stand (sorry brother I cannot resist to share but your identity is safe
) and I for one is looking forward to what transpires with his innovative mind. Another reputable member is also modifying/improving his test stand. As noted, I am a big fan of continuous process improvement and innovations and I cannot wait for both of them to share their findings with us. Best of luck guys.I am on this site because I am one of those that like to learn and am not afraid of change if it is for the better . This thread is one of many that I have learned from( Thank You to all) I'm so glad that this thread didn't turn into a p match but just continued to be informative as they all should be .
