Muzzle Brake

Steve Nash

Steve Nash

New member
I have a Winchester Model 70A with a Ruger S/S sporter barrel chambered in 30-06Ackley. I would like to fit a muzzle brake to this barrel. The diameter at the muzzle is around 0.600". Would there be a problem fitting a muzzle brake with a 1/2"x 28 thread?

Thanks Steve
 
There are some smiths that are highly critical of using 1/2" threads on anything larger than .22 caliber. For many years it was the most common size for up to .30 caliber.
For a lightweight rifle like yours with a relatively tame cartridge there should not be a problem if the brake is not too large.
 
I try not to do a bunch of one-off work but I had a buddy want a brake for a light weight 300 Weatherby rifle with a muzzle diameter close to that. I opted to make a brake with 9/16-24 threads and had it index on the muzzle face instead of a rear shoulder. He was happy with the performance. The people next to him at the range when sighting it in weren't quite as happy with the concussion...
 

Attachments

  • Rods Brake 1.jpg
    Rods Brake 1.jpg
    92.5 KB · Views: 241
  • Rods brake 2.jpg
    Rods brake 2.jpg
    113.4 KB · Views: 194
Not a big believer in brakes, except for military use (field pieces, tanks, etc.) They can only divert gas in chosen directions. Said gas must be directed to the rear in order to provide any recoil reduction. Upward direction would affect only muzzle rise.

I'm calling BS on most other brake claims, IMNTBHO.

PS: The EDM machining process leaves no burrs, and can provide exotic hole shapes. ?
 
Brakes

Fussy1 may not shoot many magnums. Most any brake will reduce recoil, yes Fussy1 you are correct in that a brake which directs gases to the rear will (should) reduce recoil more than brakes which direct gases to the side. Just check out youtube on brake comparisons. Pays to have a gunsmith mount the brake and ream concentric with the bore of your rifle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the brake was made to serve double-duty as a tuner, that could possibly be useful. Was it Winchester that offered some kind of tuner a few years ago?

Would like to see some pendulum testing done to check the degree of any recoil reduction.

I guess the "perception is reality" concept always applies. So, whatever floats your boat! ?
F1

PS: I do avoid heavy recoil, in the interest of pain avoidance, and retina concerns. I once had a Marlin .444, and that was quite enough for me! ?
 
Venting muzzle gas to the rear is not necessary. By redirecting the escaping gas away from it pushing out the front works fine. After installing a couple dozen Harrell tuners which redirects the gas from its normal front exit works just as well as a couple I’ve made with drilled holes 20 degrees to the rear.


.
 
Rubicon Prec. said:
I try not to do a bunch of one-off work but I had a buddy want a brake for a light weight 300 Weatherby rifle with a muzzle diameter close to that. I opted to make a brake with 9/16-24 threads and had it index on the muzzle face instead of a rear shoulder. He was happy with the performance. The people next to him at the range when sighting it in weren't quite as happy with the concussion...
Click to expand...

Do you go with a flat crown in that application, or a recessed crown with an adequate "shoulder" for the brake- or should it really make no difference?
 
Very interesting to read of those test results. I'm still living in Missoura, though. I wish they had tested the Famous Herter's Perfect brake. ?

Back in the 60s Guns and Ammo magazine did a two-part test of the recoil of various shotguns. They put a needle in the shooter's vein, and measured the effect of recoil as expressed by the jump in blood pressure when the shotguns were fired. If I recollect correctly, the Winchester 1400 had the lowest recoil.

I only had part 2 of the test; would like to see G&A repeat the test, using modern shotguns.
 
Fussy1 said:
Very interesting to read of those test results. I'm still living in Missoura, though. I wish they had tested the Famous Herter's Perfect brake. ?

Back in the 60s Guns and Ammo magazine did a two-part test of the recoil of various shotguns. They put a needle in the shooter's vein, and measured the effect of recoil as expressed by the jump in blood pressure when the shotguns were fired. If I recollect correctly, the Winchester 1400 had the lowest recoil.

I only had part 2 of the test; would like to see G&A repeat the test, using modern shotguns.
Click to expand...

Fussy, "Shotguns" is not where muzzle brake tech is implemented. In fact, if you understood how brakes worked you would know that shotguns are poor candidates for braking. Brakes DON'T WORK WELL on shotguns. This is fact, science, truth based on (and tested on) the realities of theoretical VS realized REDUCTION of felt recoil.

You're just not listening. And you're opining about something of which you're totally ignorant. Get off the "perception" boat, not everyone's an idiot.

Some of us TEST this stuff. And some of us OWN ballistic pendulums (as does the article referenced) and this isn't single test done in a vacuum by someone with an agenda...... there are lots of folk who've spent time and money to actually TEST brakes. Yeahh, some of the tests are produced by folks selling something. There is also a lot of stuff available from independent sources, the innertube isn't the sole repository of research


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf3rLi8L67I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2u3sVt0yhs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sBjQjC89uA

Some of us who do understand WHY they do what they do can take a completely new brake design, measure it up and get measured results within 5% of predicted.

BTW the G&A "needle in the vein" test is entirely irrelevant. Again, if you'd lissen.........

In simple fact, Newton's Laws apply, "equal and opposite", but the brake steps in AFTER THE FACT and pulls the gun off the shooter before it hurts him. I shoot, own and build big guns and believe me, if I took the brake off some of my big stuff it would (WILL) break your shoulder.
 
And BTW the main article ref'd above in Tooley's post contains one salient mis-perception if I'm reading it correctly. He rambles on about "not being able to easily measure the effect of the gases" and "diversion of said gases so they don't contribute to the recoil equation" which shows that he doesn't understand how brakes work. As his article shows, brakes DO WORK but how they work is interesting. And in his case, misunderstood. (His testing apparatus is also flawed, but I digress)

He furthermore makes this statement "Since the force felt by the shooter is a combination of those two forces, to get the full story on recoil, it must be measured instead of calculated." Again showing his misunderstanding. In most cases, when the "theoretical" mismatches the "measured" it's the fault of the "theory"..... His theory is flawed. And it shouldn't be, needn't be IMO.......This ain't Dark Matter here :) we aren't trying to rectify the mass of the known universe, just our little corner of it.


He entirely misses the mark. Once gasses have been accelerated and leave the muzzle THEIR WORK IS DONE in the recoil equation. What the brake does is add a 3rd component to the action/reaction equation, a component NOT ACCOUNTED FOR in the blog from Mr Zant. All the math in the world doesn't change the fact that what a brake actually does is AFTER ALL RECOIL HAS HAPPENED, it catches a bunch of the gas that's already been expended and uses it to "catch" the rifle. That gas was GONE..... it's work was DONE...... the recoil equation was BALANCED........ and then the brake catches this moving gas (wind) like a sailboat sail catches moving gas (wind) and REUSES IT, in other words, you add a catching device (sail) onto the rifle and use it to pull the rifle off the shooter.

It's as if you tied a rope from the rifle to the bullet..... and when the bullet hits the end of the rope, it pulls the rifle forward.

In simple fact, the impact plates in the brake catch the expended "wind" and yank the rifle off the shooter. This is measurable, predictable, and simply WHY Harrell's brakes are as effective as they are (SO EFFECTIVE that test after test IGNORES them!!)

LOL


al
 
alinwa said:
And BTW the main article ref'd above in Tooley's post contains one salient mis-perception if I'm reading it correctly. He rambles on about "not being able to easily measure the effect of the gases" and "diversion of said gases so they don't contribute to the recoil equation" which shows that he doesn't understand how brakes work. As his article shows, brakes DO WORK but how they work is interesting. And in his case, misunderstood. (His testing apparatus is also flawed, but I digress) He furthermore makes this statement "Since the force felt by the shooter is a combination of those two forces, to get the full story on recoil, it must be measured instead of calculated." Again showing his misunderstanding. In most cases, when the "theoretical" mismatches the "measured" it's the fault of the "theory"..... His theory is flawed. And it shouldn't be, needn't be IMO.......This ain't Dark Matter here :) we aren't trying to rectify the mass of the known universe, just our little corner of it. He entirely misses the mark. Once gasses have been accelerated and leave the muzzle THEIR WORK IS DONE in the recoil equation. What the brake does is add a 3rd component to the action/reaction equation, a component NOT ACCOUNTED FOR in the blog from Mr Zant. All the math in the world doesn't change the fact that what a brake actually does is AFTER ALL RECOIL HAS HAPPENED, it catches a bunch of the gas that's already been expended and uses it to "catch" the rifle. That gas was GONE..... it's work was DONE...... the recoil equation was BALANCED........ and then the brake catches this moving gas (wind) like a sailboat sail catches moving gas (wind) and REUSES IT, in other words, you add a catching device (sail) onto the rifle and use it to pull the rifle off the shooter. It's as if you tied a rope from the rifle to the bullet..... and when the bullet hits the end of the rope, it pulls the rifle forward. In simple fact, the impact plates in the brake catch the expended "wind" and yank the rifle off the shooter. This is measurable, predictable, and simply WHY Harrell's brakes are as effective as they are (SO EFFECTIVE that test after test IGNORES them!!) LOL al
Click to expand...
Wish I could use the "smiley faces", and italics for this AL(l)egory - well stated, Al. :) My initial muzzle-brake experience was from the perspective of a pure skeptic - my huntin' pal, Troy, had purchased a .300 WBY rifle, complete with brake, which, surprised me, as he was/is recoil sensitive. He also had dies, and wanted me to help develop a load - he did the shootin', while I loaded the ammo. After getting the rig shooting well enough, he wanted me to shoot a group, which I did - the lack of recoil was amazing . . . so, just prove the uselessness of the brake, I removed it and fired one shot, whereupon, I re-installed the brake, and admonished Troy, "never fire a single shot without the brake!" Since then, I have used muzzle-brakes (mostly Harrel's) on all of my big-boomers. RG
 
Muzzle brakes

Hey Steve...once the dust settles take a look at Witt Machines MB's...they have a clamp on one that should satisfy ALL the Bull pucky about noise at ranges as it can go off and on with an Allen wrench in seconds. I just ordered one for my 500 S&W Mag and I will order one for my 32" 28 Nos build

First one I've seen commercially...I've seen many home grown iterations and made one myself( TOTALLY YOUGLY).

I have a couple dozen rifles with MB's from 22 cal up. One particular 15" 7-08 on a XP-100 receiver that I LOVE... with the MB off the pistol jumps up, backwards and rolls to the left completely off the bi-pod(it weighs slightly over 5 lbs) with me holding on for dear life....with it on it barely lifts the right bi-pod leg(still torques to the left a bit), but NO rearward movement and I barely hold it.

I made the brake for added weight and recoil reduction so it is ~2" OD, 4 - 5/16" x 5/8"(? I think) slots on top and each side and ~3" long tapered to give it a bit of pretty and match the barrel contour. and YES it's noisy, but thats what those electrified ear buns are for.

Good Luck
 
RATGONIFER said:
>>>> snip <<<<<

I have a couple dozen rifles with MB's from 22 cal up. One particular 15" 7-08 on a XP-100 receiver that I LOVE... with the MB off the pistol jumps up, backwards and rolls to the left completely off the bi-pod(it weighs slightly over 5 lbs) with me holding on for dear life....with it on it barely lifts the right bi-pod leg(still torques to the left a bit), but NO rearward movement and I barely hold it. >>>> snip <<<<<
Click to expand...

A few years ago (in another life) I was involved in controlled comparative tests between an AK-47 and an AK-74.The AK-74 was a later development of the AK-47.

One of the improvements on the AK-74 was the inclusion of barrel porting (upwards facing muzzle brake).
It was scary how the shots stayed on target without the barrel climbing when firing bursts on full auto. I made a mental note to keep well away from anybody who wanted to hurt me with one of them.

Also some of the other toys that I played with (50cal - 155mm) also had generous, side-rear facing muzzle brakes. Try firing a Barrett M82 without the muzzle brake and you better have a good medical plan! If they are good enough for Government work they are ok by me.

* doghunter *
 
doghunter said:
A few years ago (in another life) I was involved in controlled comparative tests between an AK-47 and an AK-74.The AK-74 was a later development of the AK-47.

One of the improvements on the AK-74 was the inclusion of barrel porting (upwards facing muzzle brake).
It was scary how the shots stayed on target without the barrel climbing when firing bursts on full auto. I made a mental note to keep well away from anybody who wanted to hurt me with one of them.

Also some of the other toys that I played with (50cal - 155mm) also had generous, side-rear facing muzzle brakes. Try firing a Barrett M82 without the muzzle brake and you better have a good medical plan! If they are good enough for Government work they are ok by me.

* doghunter *
Click to expand...

I have a special set of dunnage at the range. When guys are shooting 50s the outside 4-man bench becomes a 2-position bench with a couple hundred lb of wood on the table to make a fence.....

And the fence gets batted around.

The very first rule with the big stuff is, "the harder you hug it, the worse it stings!" You gotta hang on to the train until it puts the brakes on! You cannot stop it.7

We use very few back blasting brakes, because they suck. They suck the air right out of you. One in particular I got rid of because firing it was like getting slapped about the face and chest with a snow shovel. Left you gasping.

BTW some kid on youtube just came up with something called "The Square Brake". Gonna go make me one. New idear's are scarce.
 
I need to apologize to BenchRest members for posting about brakes without having made, or used one.

This discussion has made me very angry with just about all firearms manufacturers, because of their failure to include brakes on all of their products. At least all of them over .22 caliber (I recently read of a factory-original BSA Monarch in .243 caliber that has a BESA brake.

And speaking of BSA, I have handled a 7X57 that appeared to have originally featured a BESA integral brake. Said brake was removed (by a previous owner) by shortening/crowning the barrel, and mounting a new front sight. The original (multi-leaf?) rear sight was also swapped out. ???

I'm also sorry about mentioning the (1960's) Guns and Ammo blood pressure shotgun recoil comparison test. I only offered it as something anecdotal, and had no intention to mislead.

F1

PS, look after your retinas, guys!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fussy1 said:
Not a big believer in brakes, except for military use (field pieces, tanks, etc.) They can only divert gas in chosen directions. Said gas must be directed to the rear in order to provide any recoil reduction. Upward direction would affect only muzzle rise.I'm calling BS on most other brake claims, IMNTBHO.PS: The EDM machining process leaves no burrs, and can provide exotic hole shapes. ?
Click to expand...
Having shot numerous brakes over the years as well as ported barrels, I call BS on your calling BS :) They definitely do work. I would never shoot either without proper ear protection. I already have some tinnitus, and take care so that it does not worsen. I believe that it came from work related noise rather than shooting. If you look on Youtube you will find some very well done tests that demonstrate the amount of recoil reduction of various brake designs as compared to the same rifle and load without one. This is not to say that ported barrels are not a good way to go. Years back I suggested that a couple of acquaintances who were having recoil issues have it done and both were extremely happy with the result. One was a smaller guy that was getting beat up by the Remington 700 BDL 7mm Mag. that he had always wanted, and the other was an older gentleman who had lost enough muscle mass that his .300 WM had become a bit much with 180s. The first fellow told me that recoil was reduced to that of a .308, and I had a chance to shoot the second one and it was significantly reduced as well. Lately I have seen varmint shooters put brakes on their rifles, not so much for recoil reduction but so that they can see their hits. EDM porting stays with the barrel, and for a high volume shooter being able to move a brake to a new barrel is an advantage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top