source for large dia benchrest muzzle brakes ?
- Thread starter rsmithsr
- Start date
So what you seem to be saying is.... you have strong opinions about how a brake works and
Therefore you want one minimum 1.4" tall by at least a couple inches wide
And this means probably 5"-6" long to be proportional. Plus locker.
so this means a 50BMG clamshell is "too small" for you.....
And you want to "source it" instead of make it......
Good Luck
BTW having done this a lot of times, I will state with some alacrity that it will be worth your time to make the first one from 12L14 to test concept...... then if you really think you've changed the world step over to 304 SS and spend a week making the final product.....
Therefore you want one minimum 1.4" tall by at least a couple inches wide
And this means probably 5"-6" long to be proportional. Plus locker.
so this means a 50BMG clamshell is "too small" for you.....
And you want to "source it" instead of make it......
Good Luck
BTW having done this a lot of times, I will state with some alacrity that it will be worth your time to make the first one from 12L14 to test concept...... then if you really think you've changed the world step over to 304 SS and spend a week making the final product.....
Mike Bryant
Active member
You can get the Harrell’s Tactical brake in large diameters and various thread sizes.
al,
1.4xx DIA X XXX LONG with 3 or so flat faced ports
but yes I have a STRONG OPINION on the subject.
what did your brake trials tell you ??
1.4xx DIA X XXX LONG with 3 or so flat faced ports
but yes I have a STRONG OPINION on the subject.
what did your brake trials tell you ??
So what you seem to be saying is.... you have strong opinions about how a brake works and
Therefore you want one minimum 1.4" tall by at least a couple inches wide
And this means probably 5"-6" long to be proportional. Plus locker.
so this means a 50BMG clamshell is "too small" for you.....
And you want to "source it" instead of make it......
Good Luck
BTW having done this a lot of times, I will state with some alacrity that it will be worth your time to make the first one from 12L14 to test concept...... then if you really think you've changed the world step over to 304 SS and spend a week making the final product.....
yes I did not know that. they look good except for the funky 32 thread ?
I have 24 on most of mine.
I have 24 on most of mine.
#1, Harrell's DO NOT make anything as large as 1.4", their largest is 1.375 nominal and round. And they make side-facing fish-gill brakes ONLY because the market wants it, not because they're "better."
#2, "funky 32 thread???" I don't even know what this means... thread is thread. Except that I have blown some 32tpi's right off the barrel and sent them down the range when experimenting with the "expansion chamber" concept but that's completely irrelevant here.
#3, I take your STRONG OPINION...call...and raise with FACTS. I built a recoil sled twenty yrs ago. I TEST this stuff. In the archives are some great threads, months long on the subject. Due in part to these discussions there are now at least 6 muzzle brake companies that own sleds and conduct tests and youtube them on the innernet. Speaking of which, I recently put up some footage showing "The World's Biggest Muzzle Brake" and explaining WHY it's the biggest and HOW brakes work. In simple fact brakes are known, quantifiable science......easily measured up for efficacy. I can look at a design, run some quick calcs and predict within 5% how effective it'll be. Effectiveness is not a matter of type, arrangement nor angle, it's a simple matter of square inches of impingement surface.....FACT..... easily testable, verifiable fact.
One thing you'll notice, if you're the NOTICING sort as opposed to the OPINING sort is that you will not find a bland holey Harrell brake being tested on the innertube against any "new" or "better" design!!!
Same like you won't find flu statistics in the news, EVER....
And for exactly the same reasons....
GeneT
Active member
I've tested a few...
First, on quantification. I am very much a fan of quantifying things. One of my favorite quotes is from Sir Kelvin (William Thompson):
HOWEVER, numbers are meaningless without an understanding of their significance. If you don't understand what the numbers tell you, it's the same as not having numbers. Recoil statistics are a great case in point. You can find all kinds of recoil and recoil-reduction statistics (lies, damn lies, and statistics) on the web, but I have *never* seen them presented with sufficient information to make the stated numbers meaningful.
Oh yeah, brakes. Al, I'm guessing you can tell, within a small window, how effective a brake can be, but it's not exclusively a matter of square surface of impingement area because the blast diminishes as it spreads across said surface so the more surface you add the less reduction you get per square inch added. The angle of the surface matters as well. No matter, because most shooters can't tell a difference, nor see different results on target for differences that seem relatively significant on paper.
I agree with part of your sentiment though: it's a solved problem. Computational Fluid Dynamics can readily predict the performance of a brake with much more accuracy than the shooter will ever discern.
So there are a huge number of brakes, with vastly different measured results, that for most people will be "identical" in a functional sense. I very much like a certain "shark gill" brake, which I found (numbers aside) to be as comfortable as the much larger Armalite / K&P clamshell brake with 2x+ impingement surface.
And rows of holes can help with muzzle rise, but make a lousy brake.
GsT
First, on quantification. I am very much a fan of quantifying things. One of my favorite quotes is from Sir Kelvin (William Thompson):
HOWEVER, numbers are meaningless without an understanding of their significance. If you don't understand what the numbers tell you, it's the same as not having numbers. Recoil statistics are a great case in point. You can find all kinds of recoil and recoil-reduction statistics (lies, damn lies, and statistics) on the web, but I have *never* seen them presented with sufficient information to make the stated numbers meaningful.
Oh yeah, brakes. Al, I'm guessing you can tell, within a small window, how effective a brake can be, but it's not exclusively a matter of square surface of impingement area because the blast diminishes as it spreads across said surface so the more surface you add the less reduction you get per square inch added. The angle of the surface matters as well. No matter, because most shooters can't tell a difference, nor see different results on target for differences that seem relatively significant on paper.
I agree with part of your sentiment though: it's a solved problem. Computational Fluid Dynamics can readily predict the performance of a brake with much more accuracy than the shooter will ever discern.
So there are a huge number of brakes, with vastly different measured results, that for most people will be "identical" in a functional sense. I very much like a certain "shark gill" brake, which I found (numbers aside) to be as comfortable as the much larger Armalite / K&P clamshell brake with 2x+ impingement surface.
And rows of holes can help with muzzle rise, but make a lousy brake.
GsT
Riverwolf1
Member
You might check Area419, he might have what your looking for.
Gene, Gene
....... you NEED to make a recoil sled man! T'ain't hard, just strap a Caldwell lead sled to a hunk of plywood....The simple fact is..... the REASON none of them guys on the innertube will video their brake VS a Harrell (silly rows of holes) is because THE HARRELL'S BRAKE WILL WIN!
Ain't NUTTIN' will beat a cylindrical "row of holes" brake when it comes to mitigating recoil. They do look like a turd on a stick, but to say they don't work???
c'MON mon...
Dude, you need a sled!
LOL
al
PLEASE notice.
you and I AGREE.
large surface area(rear facing)
hooley spiral round holes have very little rear facing surface area.
the large brake is ROUND,,,the PORTS are not.
what about the custom drawing/pic in this thread ? three port large flat rear facing ports ??
you and I AGREE.
large surface area(rear facing)
hooley spiral round holes have very little rear facing surface area.
the large brake is ROUND,,,the PORTS are not.
what about the custom drawing/pic in this thread ? three port large flat rear facing ports ??
al.
are you saying the
spiral rows of small holes is better than the 3 large port brakes from harrells ?
are you saying the
spiral rows of small holes is better than the 3 large port brakes from harrells ?
Gene, Gene
The simple fact is..... the REASON none of them guys on the innertube will video their brake VS a Harrell (silly rows of holes) is because THE HARRELL'S BRAKE WILL WIN!
Ain't NUTTIN' will beat a cylindrical "row of holes" brake when it comes to mitigating recoil. They do look like a turd on a stick, but to say they don't work???
c'MON mon...
Dude, you need a sled!
LOL
al
"Better" is a tough term for me..... Is cheesecake better than steak?
There are two things driving muzzle brake efficiency, #1 is surface area and #2 is basically friction or "how long can the you HOLD the gas, letting it work.... But without allowing it to bounce back against itself....." via configuration.
So, regarding #1, surface area. I think if you take the time to measure up a radial Harrell you'll find it to have more area than the side-discharge models.
Regarding #2, "friction", this has to do with "force over time" which some will recognize as the formula which defines the term "impulse" which once you add the DISTANCE a thing is moved equals "work." In essence it's possible to change the RATE OF DISCHARGE which in turn spreads out or lengthens the impulse allowing it to act longer etc etc.....
Tell ya' what..... It'll take me 20 minutes to type up my answer. INSTEAD, I'll let you waste 10 of your minutes on this vid and maybe it'll save time
Disregard the first half but see whether or not you agree with the stuff that starts at about 9:30 into the vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btCAVVv2r6I
BillBrawand
New member
check this out
use step drills for muzzel brakeSo what you seem to be saying is.... you have strong opinions about how a brake works and
Therefore you want one minimum 1.4" tall by at least a couple inches wide
And this means probably 5"-6" long to be proportional. Plus locker.
so this means a 50BMG clamshell is "too small" for you.....
And you want to "source it" instead of make it......
Good Luck
BTW having done this a lot of times, I will state with some alacrity that it will be worth your time to make the first one from 12L14 to test concept...... then if you really think you've changed the world step over to 304 SS and spend a week making the final product.....
so I watched the vid
what is the operating pressure of the cartridge ?
what is the weight and velocity pf the bullet, bbl length ?
as far as surface area. IMHO only rear facing area counts, and as the angle of the surface( to the bolt face) increases the efficiency decreases. so how you determine EFFECTIVE surface area ?
me thinks there is a big diff in low pressure and high pressure brake design ad efficiency.
what is the operating pressure of the cartridge ?
what is the weight and velocity pf the bullet, bbl length ?
as far as surface area. IMHO only rear facing area counts, and as the angle of the surface( to the bolt face) increases the efficiency decreases. so how you determine EFFECTIVE surface area ?
me thinks there is a big diff in low pressure and high pressure brake design ad efficiency.
WHAT cartridge?? Or is this just a rhetorical question?
Again, WHAT chambering??? As I stated in my vids, the more "overbore" a cartridge is, the more effective the brake. The brake in the pictures is aluminum, 'YUGE, and designed specifically in an attempt to extract some work from a very very small amount of gas. The case outlined in the video is so absolutely efficient that even with a 12" barrel the brake does nothing. This is just how muzzle brakes work.... ain't nuttin' you can do..... although Boyd Allen only half jokingly told me "make the gun double-barreled and fire on barrel with JUST POWDER!! .... just to make a gas burp!....LOL...
Yes, rearward-facing only, altho the entire escape hole does act as a metering device.
True.
Simply put, low pressure rounds preclude effectiveness of a muzzle brake. (Altho it technically has no appreciable effect on "efficiency")
Mike Bryant
Active member
I get Harrells brakes with 24 pitch threads all the time.