Muzzle Break Question?

[J E Custom]

J E CUSTOM,

Where's the book or articles on proper tuning of brakes?!

Good question. I'm not bragging, But I wrote the book on tuning because no one else has even tried. The best attempt made was to add more ports (The Russians tried all the way past 15 ports)
and they discovered that there was an optimum number of ports and that any more did not improve recoil reduction.

We found that Hatchers notes concurred with our findings some where between 4 and 5 depending
on the cartridge, bore, powder charge, bullet weight, velocity and the rifle weight. the only thing the 6th port added was length.

I do not tell anyone what the parameters are for tuning, because as long as I am making them it will remain a secrete (Like Colonel Sanders chicken).

J E CUSTOM

 

[J E Custom]

While I totally agree that a custom built brake can be optimized to a caliber I'm not sure I believe your percentages. Here is a video I did on my test sled using a 300 Weatherby with 208 Amax's at only about 2650fps. Anybody that's been around muzzle brakes very long knows that the more overbore the case is the higher percentage of recoil reduction the brake will accomplish. So if you were to shoot those same 208 Amax's at 3300fps in a 30-378 the percentage of travel would be even higher as would a larger diameter brake with 5 or 6 ports.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlgmxDp114A

If you just look at percentages based on travel it would be around 70% less compared to a rifle without a brake. This is using a small diameter 4 port brake.

A 338 Lapua has a ton of primary recoil due to the heavy bullet weights and it still has over 69% less travel in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0TU1JDspnE

It slammed the end of the sled so the percentage would actually be higher if the sled had more travel and it could be measured.

Different brakes work different and have different percentages of efficiency so I can believe some have numbers as low as you quoted but I don't believe a custom built brake is going to be upwards of 20% less recoil compared to the top recoil reducing brakes.

BTW I tested a 6.5saum shooting 60grs of powder versus a 6.5x47L shooting 40grs of powder and the overall travel was less than a inch of difference with the same brake. So it proves that the more overbore the case the higher percentage of recoil reduction you get with a good brake.

I have made many post on this and hate to re hash the process but I will.

When we started trying to improve muzzle brake design we decided that if we couldn't, it was not a problem because of the many brakes available. (Why build something when you could buy it).

First we had to decide on the test equipment type that would give us real world recoil numbers.
We wanted to test rifles in there hunting/shooting trim with no/little added weight.
We wanted recoil distance to be consistent with normal travel.
We also wanted a platform that was not stationary so undue stress would/could damage the stock.
It also had to be repeatable every time and could repeat at least 3 shots.
Next we wanted the test bed to be accountable and we intended to be able to measure the recoil values to confirm. (test the tester).

This criteria ruled out many possible test bed designs being currently used.

Without starting an argument I wont go into designs that we rejected, just that none of them met our requirements for one reason or many.

The final test bed design has exceeded our hopes and has been less 1 ft/lb off of actual recoil.
the consistency has been spot on and each time we started a test session we did a bench mark test
to verify nothing had changed. By modifying a known brake we discovered that some brake designs could not be improved by tuning because of there design. This testing is how we developed the process for tuning.

We also tested against all claims and found two that were close. Weatherby has a very sophisticated
system that uses load cells and they state that it has an error of 4% (Pretty close) and we tested there brake that is rated for 51 to 53 % and found it to be true (We averaged 51.4% consistently with there brake. Vais was the only other brake that did what was advertised. we tested many other brakes and found 3 that actually fell within 55 to 58% reduction.

This video shows test 300 RUMs (considered Over bored) and the results are there for any one to see
A 30/378 has produced the highest reduction in recoil to date with 74.8% reduction (It is badly over bored) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2BM396_6AY

If anyone says that they can get more recoil reduction from a 30/378 than 75% it is false because the 30/378 has a 75/25 ratio of propellant gas to bullet weight. so over 75% is not possible because it would over 100% of gas recoil.

I am very confident that our recoil numbers are correct and have video proof of the same.
We have not been able to exceed the gas recoil that each cartridge and load produce. The bullet recoil is unaffected by muzzle brakes and only velocity and rifle weight can change them.

J E CUSTOM

 

[tbrice23]

We have not been able to exceed the gas recoil that each cartridge and load produce. The bullet recoil is unaffected by muzzle brakes and only velocity and rifle weight can change them.

J E CUSTOM

This makes a lot of sense. It seems very logical.

 

[Doublezranch]

Thank you so very much J E Custom for explaining your processes and teaching us how tuned muzzle brakes work. Your numbers are correct because I've witnessed them first hand. The one thing that puzzles me....people are quick to say your numbers are incorrect, but no one (to my knowledge) has ever gone head to head and compared their brake with the Assassin Brake. Not one has a JE Custom Assassin Brake on the table. I've seen lots of comparisons...lots of them. Even seen people try and copy the Assassin technology. Why copy something that isn't "up to the numbers"?

Anyone else find this interesting?

If there is indeed a comparison...I would like to see it.

Thank you JE Custom for your brakes and knowledge.

 

[IdahoCTD]

Send me one and I'll test it on my test sled. I have a T-3 Terminator and will have a T-4 Terminator brake along with a APA Little Bastard, Fat Bastard, Muscle brake, Harrells brake, and my brakes to test it against. I have a 300wm and a 338 Lapua I built just for testing brakes but have plenty of actions and junk stocks so I can pick up a cheap barrel and make a 300RUM. I already have a 30-378 Imp I could use too.

The factory Weatherby brake and Vias brakes are not very good at reducing recoil. I can see you getting around 50% recoil reduction with those. The better baffled brakes kick the crap out of any drilled hole brake. Just about any muzzle brake test on YouTube will show that. I tested a drilled hole brake on my 300 Weatherby in the video above. It travels 20" with the drilled hole brake versus about 11" with my Beast brake and 37" with no brake.

 

[J E Custom]

The factory Weatherby brake and Vias brakes are not very good at reducing recoil. I can see you getting around 50% recoil reduction with those. The better baffled brakes kick the crap out of any drilled hole brake. Just about any muzzle brake test on YouTube will show that. I tested a drilled hole brake on my 300 Weatherby in the video above. It travels 20" with the drilled hole brake versus about 11" with my Beast brake and 37" with no brake.[/QUOTE]


The Weatherby Brake and the Vias were the only ones that actually met there advertised recoil
reduction By percent. I have to give them kudos for telling the truth. There were lots of other brakes that did not even come close to ether one and made claims of much more, some even claimed more than possible .

Most brakes fall below 40% and some reduced recoil under 20 % the problem is that people can feel even 20% and perceive that It feels like it is cut in half and there lies the problem, perception is not
the same as an actual measurement.

I am not knocking your test bed so don't take it that way. you at least took the time and effort
to build a test bed to do some testing for your self. with the total mass of your sled(The part that moves, +the rifle weight and the hanging weights there is so much inertia to over come and momentum to stop you will have trouble getting real recoil values. Travel is dependent on so many different factors that it will not give consistent recoil numbers.

In our research we ruled out any device that had to overcome inertia and momentum. the oldest way of measuring impact energy was hundreds of years old (The ballistic pendulum) and it has been proven to be inaccurate by a large percent.

Your device is ok for a comparison as long as you don't change anything but it will not give true recoil values/numbers.

I like the fact that you took the time to build something for your test. Most people only use perception and some don't like anything that they don't have. so if someone does not believe me, I cant change that. I didn't design my brake to sell to the general public I though that some of the membership would like something better If I could build it. In fact I started out trying to tame the M82A1 50 caliber and reduce the muzzle blast/signature. and went from there.

For the record, Lots of "My" beliefs were proven wrong and we had to think out of the box to solve
many of the issues.

On a side note: just for the record, I to believed that Ported brakes were superior to drilled brakes because of the testing we did and some of my old beliefs, and that bugged me after we got the ported brake to max possible recoil reduction I could not leave the radial brake alone. after trying what we knew and had learned about the Ported brake we started messing with the radial brake and found that the rules were "Not" the same. with lots of prototypes and testing we have bumped the radial up to the same recoil reduction as the ported brake and are about to do a video for a comparison. Interestingly enough, DB volume was the toughest nut to crack.

Again this is a hobby and I do it for fun I am not interested in selling to the public (To old to start another business) and just like helping out my friends.

J E CUSTOM

 

[IdahoCTD]

My sled is actually quite light as it's all aluminum. The first one I build was steel and it was too heavy. This sled is almost exactly half the weight of the steel one and the measured travel is almost exactly double with the aluminum one. The further something travels the more resolution you have. I might even go to a smaller size aluminum tubing to try and lighten it up even more. It will show a bigger gap when you have tightly clustered brakes. I thought I'd have to hang weight to make it consistent but I didn't and it shortened the travel so I just hang the metal bucket. It is more consistent with just the weight of the bucket hanging then nothing at all though. It is also quite repeatable and will change with velocity changes. The weight of the rifle and the sled combined is less than 17lbs. If I go down on tubing size I can probably drop the weight another 2-3lbs.

I did not build my sled to specifically measure the recoil reduction. I built it to compare muzzle brakes side by side without any external influence. The rifle is fired electronically. I'd rather compare something side by side on the same day to know how my stuff compares to everything else. Measured or calculated numbers are just numbers without side by side comparisons IMO.

 

[J E Custom]

My sled is actually quite light as it's all aluminum. The first one I build was steel and it was too heavy. This sled is almost exactly half the weight of the steel one and the measured travel is almost exactly double with the aluminum one. The further something travels the more resolution you have. I might even go to a smaller size aluminum tubing to try and lighten it up even more. It will show a bigger gap when you have tightly clustered brakes. I thought I'd have to hang weight to make it consistent but I didn't and it shortened the travel so I just hang the metal bucket. It is more consistent with just the weight of the bucket hanging then nothing at all though. It is also quite repeatable and will change with velocity changes. The weight of the rifle and the sled combined is less than 17lbs. If I go down on tubing size I can probably drop the weight another 2-3lbs.

I did not build my sled to specifically measure the recoil reduction. I built it to compare muzzle brakes side by side without any external influence. The rifle is fired electronically. I'd rather compare something side by side on the same day to know how my stuff compares to everything else. Measured or calculated numbers are just numbers without side by side comparisons IMO.

Sounds like you have built what you want and need and that's what's important. If it does what you want then it is a success. I wanted recoil numbers to be able to see what a change did and if I was on the right tract. comparing my brake to another only told me it would be better or worse not buy how much. we live in a numbers world and in order to be able to confirm or deny any recoil numbers that are presented we had to be able to measure actual stand alone recoil.

If a change made little or no difference The numbers told me which way to go or just discard the idea and move on. some improvements were very subtle and a comparison would not have shone the difference. Measuring it in performance would, even if it was 1 ft/lb It would indicate I was heading in the right direction.

We looked into the electronic trigger because we though it was the least intrusive and would not effect the recoil values, but it was not practical for testing all types of rifles, pistols and shotguns.
we used a mechanical device that did not preload the sled buy what ever the trigger pull was and could be used on any firearm.

We also looked at a test barrel and action only (Simple)but it would not tell us how much a change in scope weight or any other addition or subtraction would make so we ended up with what we have and can test any combination with ease, reliability and consistency.

Like you, all test were conducted within 1 or 2 hours using the same ammo and under the same conditions.

To me, using actual recoil numbers is like using a chronograph and grouping together, You are looking for good groups but also low SDs and ESs for a total performance picture.

We both want the same thing, we just went about it differently.

J E CUSTOM

 

[JJD]

This discussion is highly informative. I have learned more in 10 min of reading this thread and watching the attached videos than I found in a internet search on my own.
Again, thanks much.

 

[Rich Coyle]

Gentelmen,

I also made a recoil slide to test free recoil travel. The part that hold the rifle weighs three or four pounds. I would have to go to the barn to get it and will weigh it another time. The most significant thing I discovered, with all things being equal, was if the hole through the center of the brake was close to bullet diameter it reduced recoil more than one with the larger hole. Also thicker brakes work better than thinner brakes. Another thing that proved to be better was holes or slots angled toward the rear rather than the front. I have several tests, but will only present the angled info. The slots are angled about 15 degrees. I fired three shots to get the average.

Without a brake:
14 7/8"
14 5/16"
14 5/16"
Average - 14 ½"

With the brake installed so the ports angled toward the front:
4 5/8"
4 7/8"
4 7/8"
Average - 4 13/16"
reduction – 66.8%

With the brake installed so the ports angled toward the rear:
3"
3 ¼"
3 5/16"
Average - 3 3/16"
Reduction – 78%

The rifle weighs 5 lb 10oz without rings and scope. The average velocity for the eighty-five grain G.S.Custom bullets was slightly over 3,800 feet per second.

 

[IdahoCTD]

Thicker brakes work better because the baffle wall is larger or has a larger surface area for the gases to push against. Also if you steepen the angle even more it will work better yet. The down side to super steep ports is the concussion to the shooter. The objective with a muzzle brake is to get it to work as efficiently as possible. If you open the exit hole too large it loses efficiency because it allows more gas to escape the brake without performing work. That means the gases follow the bullet out the brake rather than acting on the brake to reduce recoil. Brakes on smaller calibers work better because the exit hole is smaller and allows less gas to exit behind the bullet. This is really apparent when you go up to big calibers like 416's, 45's, 50's, etc. I did some testing with my 458 Lott and even though I was shooting lighter bullets faster it travels further then a 338 Lapua with 300's. Also as has been discussed, the more overbore the caliber the better a brake works.

 

[Bluejay]

Very interesting reading indeed !

I am particularly interested in the comparison between "ported" and "radial" brakes.

From what I read, it seems to me that "ported" brakes are more efficient in recoil reduction, although I didn't quite get whether they're less or more "noisy" than the "radial" ones.

One question I have is this : What differences are there between the two types when it comes to stability, harmonics and, ultimately and consequently….accuracy between "ported" and "radial" brakes of the same (high) built quality ? ....and for which reasons ?

Thanks

 

[J E Custom]

Very interesting reading indeed !

I am particularly interested in the comparison between "ported" and "radial" brakes.

From what I read, it seems to me that "ported" brakes are more efficient in recoil reduction, although I didn't quite get whether they're less or more "noisy" than the "radial" ones.

One question I have is this : What differences are there between the two types when it comes to stability, harmonics and, ultimately and consequently….accuracy between "ported" and "radial" brakes of the same (high) built quality ? ....and for which reasons ?

Thanks

The ported brakes have always been more efficient in the past because of there design differences
until now. As mentioned earlier, and to me it didn't make sense that they could not be made to be as efficient.

Radial brakes were more common in rifles in the earlier years because they were easy and cheep to build. That eventually became there downfall because so many made them and little thought was put onto the design. Most were no more than a piece of round stock with holes drilled in it.

When some of the forward thinking people started playing with ports, they found that they were more efficient than the existing Radial brakes and that where all the development was concentrated.

The designs are totally different and must be treated that way in order to acquire the same level of recoil reduction.

I feel we have unlocked Pandora's box and found the design that makes the radial as efficient as the ported brake and will soon do a video comparison.

As far as noise, a poorly designed brake (radial or ported)can be very loud as far as the shooter is concerned because it directs the shock wave backwards towards the shooter/spotter and the perception is that it is louder. In out test using a DB Meter, we found the sound to be the same
level but the position of the shooter or bystander effected how loud it sounded.
An un braked rifle projects the sound forward and the function of the brake projects it to the side and backwards depending on the design.

A well designed and installed muzzle brake should have no ill effects on accuracy because the bullet is gone by the time the brake starts to work. In fact, often they can improve the accuracy by calming down the harmonics an helping the shooter concentrate on the task instead of recoil.

People that shoot/hunt prone like the Ported brake because they direct the gas out horizontally
preventing grass and dirt from being throne up off the ground.

The guys that shoot offhand or from a blind don't have this problem and often prefer the Radial
because of its looks and it general size. (Smaller).

Radial brakes direct the gases in 360o direction and ported brakes direct gas in a horizontal direction Both should be well balanced if designed correctly.

If a brake is designed with more ports on one side or an un even number opposing other ports/holes, An imbalance can occur and possibly effect accuracy.

The attached Video shows what the effects can be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W4HviShfEs

Hope this helps

J E CUSTOM

 

[J E Custom]

Gentelmen,

I also made a recoil slide to test free recoil travel. The part that hold the rifle weighs three or four pounds. I would have to go to the barn to get it and will weigh it another time. The most significant thing I discovered, with all things being equal, was if the hole through the center of the brake was close to bullet diameter it reduced recoil more than one with the larger hole. Also thicker brakes work better than thinner brakes. Another thing that proved to be better was holes or slots angled toward the rear rather than the front. I have several tests, but will only present the angled info. The slots are angled about 15 degrees. I fired three shots to get the average.

Without a brake:
14 7/8"
14 5/16"
14 5/16"
Average - 14 ½"

With the brake installed so the ports angled toward the front:
4 5/8"
4 7/8"
4 7/8"
Average - 4 13/16"
reduction – 66.8%

With the brake installed so the ports angled toward the rear:
3"
3 ¼"
3 5/16"
Average - 3 3/16"
Reduction – 78%

The rifle weighs 5 lb 10oz without rings and scope. The average velocity for the eighty-five grain G.S.Custom bullets was slightly over 3,800 feet per second.

What cartridge were you using in the test ? and are the percentages of the travel or the recoil.

J E CUSTOM