Muzzle Brake? Please Help!!

[fishnfrank]

I am thinking of having a muzzle brake installed on my 300 RUM when i get it, but I don't know what kind to buy, where to have it done, ect...Any advice?

[gd357]

First, don't do it. By my way of thinking, if you have to get a break to shoot a rifle comfortably, it's too much gun. Muzzle blast is much worse. If you MUST get one, look at a Vais break. They seem to be pretty popular with long-range target shooters, so they must be doing something right. That's my $.02

gd

[fishnfrank]

I have no problem shooting a gun that has kick to it. Most of my guns don't have recoil pads on them, including all my shotguns. I have just never had the money growing up to spend on customizing a rifle. Now I do and I don't see any harm in lowering the recoil a little bit, if possible.

[IchWarrior]

Ops Inc makes a fine brake.


http://www.opsinc.us/brake.php

[300 RUM]

I had Barnes bullets install the brake on my 300 RUM and it works very well. I carry ear plugs when hunting anyway so the noise doesnt bug me. I have shot it twice at 2 different deer without putting in my plugs and honestly did not notice that much more noise than my old 300 win or 7mm without a brake. Amazing what adrenaline will do.

I will warn you not to shoot across a hood of a truck with a bug shield or small crack in the window.

[Lone Star]

Adrenalin is part of it, but think about the differences between a target range and the hunting environment. At the range the muzzle is over a hard, flat surfaced table (and perhaps under a roof as well) which reflects the blast and noise back at you, increasing the discomfort. In the woods the nearby surfaces are "soft" and absorb the sound reasonably well.....

I find that when shooting a rifle with a brake at the range it helps to be certain that the muzzle overhangs the end of the bench. This reduces the blast reflected back to you. The most obnoxious part of firing a braked rifle, to me, is the blast wave which hits you in the face. The sound I can easily deal with, but my face is something else.

There appears to be a cottage industry in "dissing" rifle brakes, accusing the shooter of not being a man, etc., but the reality is brakes serve a good purpose by allowing you to shoot a heavily-recoiling rife more often without developing a flinch. On lightly recoiling rifles they allow you to see the bullet impact, a vital ability if you are shooting at varmints.

[L. Cooper]

It's not a "cottage industry" to warn anyone of the absolutely real damage to hearing that unprotected shooting does to the shooter every single time he pulls the trigger. Adding a muzzle brake only makes that damage worse every time the gun is fired without protection. There is no escaping the physics of that fact.

A muzzle brake should be used only on guns that will be shot with hearing protection 100% of the time. Like from the bench.

I too would say to anyone thinking of putting a muzzle brake on any hunting rifle for any reason, don't. If you are afraid of the recoil, just shoot a lighter caliber. There is very, very little real need for the ultra velocity and big cased magnums in North America anyway.

If it is just to see more red mist, get over it. Have someone spot your shots for you if you want to "walk" the next ones onto the target.

When you are 65 and can still hear the conversation around the dinner table, you will be very thankful.

[Lone Star]

The thinking in the above post would deny shooting for hundreds of shooters with disabilities who cannot fire rifles with much recoil. I know two such, and their enjoyment of shooting even mild cartridges like .243s would not exist without brakes.

But the poster above failed to read what I wrote. The "cottage industry" I detailed abuses the shooter as not being "man enough" to shoot a heavy rifle without a brake. It had nothing to do with the potential for hearing damage or disruption of fellow shooters.

Anyone who varmint hunts knows the great advantage of being able to see your own misses - using spotters is not the same at all, as experienced varminters know very well. I'll leave it to the rest of the readers as to why the poster above had to evoke the "red mist" comment to color the subject as somehow inhumane or even 'gross'.

To dismiss brakes out-of-hand is everyone's right to do of course, but it smacks of the same thinking used to justify the outlawing of guns themselves.

"No American needs to own a gun, they are just too dangerous! Just take up archery instead, you can safely perforate bales of hay and not endanger the rest of us with guns your fellow shooters use in crimes. Think of the children whose unprotected hearing is damaged by hearing gun fire!"

[GoodOlBoy]

I have to disagree with you lonestar. I know a few disabled shooters myself, and while several of them DO use brakes, most of them simply go with a lighter caliber, OR use recoil pads, etc to break up the recoil. A muzzle brake is NOT the end all and be all of getting rid of recoil.

Myself I AM recoil sensitive due to arthritis. I found that a pachmar decelerator pad was a MUCH better solution on my rifle than a muzzle brake. PARTICULARLY since I hunt without hearing protection.

Many people use a muzzle brake as the cure all. The problem is that the problem may actually be a flaw in the gun, from chamber problems, to crown problems, bedding, there are any number of things that affect the way a gun recoils, and some of them simply never get any better no matter how much money you throw into fixing them. Slapping a muzzle brake on it for the hell of it may not, and I would venture to say is usually not the answer.

On the flip side I do have at least one gun with a brake on it. It was not the worst decission I every made, but it was pretty close. I never use it to hunt with now because it is VOLUMES louder than it was before the brake was installed, and the sound problem is actually worse than the recoil problem was (it has virtually not recoil now). If I got to the range with it I try to pick a time when I am not going to interfere with another shooters enjoyment of the sport. I have seen more than one family, and or new shooter run off from the range by somebody shooting a supder duper mega mangle 'em with a muzzle brake that was setting off car alarms down the street every time the trigger was pulled.

Just as being recoil sensitive and needing some means of cutting recoil does not make you any less manly (or womanly for the gals on here) haveing a 300 rum with a muzzle break that is louder than a zztop concert does not make you and MORE of a man either.

Now before this heats up, I am not trying to simply discount the value of a muzzle break, nor do I hold anybodys choice of large calibers against them. However that being said I know of at least two people with 45-120's that will drop anything on the continent at 400 yards, and NEITHER of them is as loud, or obnoxious as the mega mangle 'ems with muzzle brakes. AND neither of them recoil as bad as mega mangle 'ems without brakes either.

GoodOlBoy

[Rocky Raab]

Both gentlemen are correct - but that's to be expected: they're Texans

Seriously, both have valid points. American shooters suffer from the "bigger is better" syndrome, and perceive that a mega-magnum must be best because it's biggest.

I won't address that, but in choosing a mega-mag, you get other results besides higher muzzle velocity. Just one of those is higher muzzle pressure - the pressure of the remaining gas when the bullet exits. Two things result from THAT: much higher noise level, and much higher "jet" effect.

Translation: magnums are louder and kick more. Now, adding a muzzle brake (and that's the correct spelling, not "break") can do wonders for the recoil, but can actually seem to intensify that noise even more. There's no free lunch.

Muzzle brakes aren't evil, nor are they a panacea for all problems. They may well allow some shooters to shoot better - or even shoot at all. In that, they are beneficial. But they also may encourage, to some degree, shooters to pick a rifle that's much more powerful than they should be shooting - or need to.

Like guns themselves, muzzle brakes are just inanimate objects, neither good nor evil on their own. It's how they're used that draws the line.

[fishnfrank]

Hey I want to thank all of you for your input on this subject. I didn't mean for it to turn into an argument, but your going to get that when you ask opinions from a bunch of hunters and shooters. Thanks Guys

[Rocky Raab]

There's almost never an argument on HuntChat. That's just one of the great things about it. We all truly do discuss things. Even when people don't agree they're still handshake pals.

[GoodOlBoy]

Yup Rocky has it right, we usually agree to disagree and still part on speaking terms.

After all each to his own, this would be a boring place if everybody wasn't different.

GoodOlBoy

[Lycanthrope]

Having shot a .460 Weatherby a few times in a T-shirt I was glad it had a brake! And....sometimes you NEED the big gun. Of course, if anyone wants to take a .243 to hunt water buffs who am I to stop them.......

That said, my 7STW has a custom brake and kicks less than a .270. It also has LESS noise that my 16" .223 that does not have a brake. There are many factors that make up how loud a gun is or is perceived to be. No one should be shooting any high powered rifle without hearing protection and many brakes can be had with the ports vented at an angle forward.

[Adirondacks]

If you do get one be sure to be
considerate of others at the range
where you shoot. You should warn
all around you that you have a muzzle
brake and when possible stay to the
other end of the range from others.
They make the gun very loud.