Mag-na-port or muzzle brake?

C

Cnight21

New member
I'm working on building a long range target rifle in 7mm-08. My question is, is mag-na-porting a good option or is a muzzle brake a better option. I am not very familiar with either method.
 
A good brake will do more for recoil reduction than Mag-na-porting. Mag=na=porting gives about 2-% reduction in recoil, a good brake is about 50% reduction.
 
My brother had his 338 Win Mag Mag-na-ported, it does reduce felt recoil and it looks really nice. While standard muzzle breaks don't in my opinion look nice on the end of a sporter rifle they do a way better job of reducing the felt recoil. So if looks matters, and since you're going with a cartridge considered by most to be light recoiling, go with the Mag-na-port. If on the other hand you need as little recoil as possible I'd go with a break.
 
Build it and test it. If the recoil seems onerous, you can then add a muzzle brake.

Magna-porting works more to reduce muzzle flip than to reduce recoil--as near as I can tell from very limited experience (Taurus Raging Bull, .454 Casull).
 
I believe Art is correct. Looking at the port design, they're top and sides- but the sides are not directed rearward at all.

While it would reduce recoil (90 degrees to the side, is still better than nothing), and the top porting would reduce muzzle rise, felt recoil is always best reduced by angling the blast at an angle back towards the shooter. Simple physics on the basic level.

My guess is that's why they also offer a brake...

The "less recoil" moniker comes from an apples to apples comparison for performance with the .308. You can match the .308 performance with a lighter 7mm. bullet, and less powder. However, if you're shooting 162's hot from the 7-08 as I do, recoil doesn't feel any different than a 168 out of a .308 to me. All depends on what your shooting needs are and how you base the "comparison".

I have a brake on mine- but it's in a custom lightweight Okoume stock I made for it. I use the brake to help me spot my hits at long range- but even with it I've had guys at the bench nearby comment that the recoil looks more than they would have expected.
 
I am wanting to reduce muzzle flip mostly but would also like to reduce recoil. The barrel I am getting is a Krieger heavy varmint.
 
I am wanting to reduce muzzle flip mostly but would also like to reduce recoil. The barrel I am getting is a Krieger heavy varmint.
Click to expand...

There is gong to be very little recoil in a rifle that heavy in 7mm08

I'd suggest shooting it before adding any feature that will mostly just make it louder

If you still feel a need for something, I'd go with a screw-on muzzle brake set up similar to the Browning BOSS system to let you fine tune the position for accuracy

I really don't think you'll need either one with a heavy rifle
 
I say use a break with a set screw similar to the Sako TRG break also have a thread protector this way you have options like if you hunt and don’t want to run the break you take it off put your thread protector on and off to the field you go. It also gives you the opportunity to suppress it also down the road if you so decide. I am a huge fan of breaks regardless of caliber because of the recovery time back on the target even on my TRG-22 in 308 I run a break because it reduces muzzle rise which allows me have exceptionally fast follow up shots.
 
I would hands down recommend a brake. I have seen some port jobs done that significantly reduced recoil. To significantly reduce recoil, the ports must be angled back toward the shooter. It is ultra rare to see a port job done that way. Unless you are dealing with mountain rifle contour, you can build a brake that is a near seamless fit to the barrel. You can machine a brake into the barrel as well if you choose. It is a bit aggravating to do, but it looks good.
 
My 700 Ti in 7mm08 weighs 6.5 pounds, "fully dressed", ready to hunt. I have not found the recoil at the bench rest to be onerous.
 
I did not find the recoil of anything to be unbearable until I had my shoulder reconstructed. I used to enjoy shooting .416 Rigby, .458 Win. Mag, 378 WBY, 8Rem Mag, 340 WBY, etc. etc. without a brake. Now? I have brakes on most of my rifles. My model 7 7-08 even has a brake on it. It recoils less than a .223. It does not just have a brake, it has a very aggressive brake.
 
Thanks for the replies. I got a lot of information from you guys. This is my first custom build so I'm excited about it. I'm not recoil shy but the less recoil the better I shoot. I am wanting to shoot to 1000 yards as I have never shot that far. I'm just looking for every advantage I can get.
 
I'm not recoil shy but the less recoil the better I shoot. I am wanting to shoot to 1000 yards as I have never shot that far. I'm just looking for every advantage I can get.
Click to expand...

Go for it, you won't look back. I don't know of anyone that's put a brake on their rifle that's regretted it (as long as it's a quality brake, correctly installed it will not affect accuracy, but may change poi). As I already mentioned above, they are invaluable for reducing recoil to where you can spot your shots and eliminate the need for a spotter.
 
A brake will make some reduction in recoil but will increase the noise factor. If you want to really enjoy shooting the bigger calibers then thread the bbl. and get a suppressor. I shoot 7mm mag,300win. mag,and 338 Lapua all without hearing protection and little recoil.:eek:
 
Weight, slow and light payloads are what reduce actual recoil, that is simple physics. Felt recoil, aka "kick" is reduced with a stock that fits you, a good recoil pad, and even excellent hearing protection. Muzzle brakes and porting can make the gun sound louder which can make it seem like the recoil is actually more than it is. On high pressure rifle rounds, reducing muzzle rise will be the greatest benefit of either.
 
Yes, gun weight and stock design is a factor in felt recoil, but a good brake will make a HUGE difference. I say this as a guy who has shot his over 30# .50BMG rifle with both a very crappy brake (first edition Windrunner) and a very good brake. The difference was going from pain after ten rounds to such low recoil that small children (under careful supervision) have enjoyed shooting full house loads in it. No increase in noise or blast to the shooter, but you don't want to be beside it.
 
Mag-na-porting is precisely sized and shaped, wee holes, electrochemically machined into the barrel. It redirects the gasses up to reduce the muzzle jump. A brake does it by adding a device that literally does the same thing, but also redirects the muzzle blast towards the shooter and sideways towards anybody there.
Neither will make any difference for your shooting at 1,000 yards. The ammo you use will though. Heavy bullets are the norm for long range shooting. You also must know the ballistics of your cartridge.
A Hornady factory 139 grain bullet, for example, drops 41.9" at 500 yards. I'd be thinking 168 grain Matchking. Even though it'll drop 317.97"/26 feet at 1,000.
 
I will be shooting heavy bullets as that is the only way to get the high b.c. bullets. This rifle will be more of a toy than any thing else as I don't know of any shooting clubs with in a decent distance. I'm not to concerned about the blast from a brake as I will probably be by myself most of the time.
 
I have rifles with both brakes and Mag-na-port. The mag-na-port gun is a 338 win mag. The muzzle rise is the only felt reduction on that gun. I have 2 rifles with brakes and a handgun (7-30 Waters TC Contender). Every gun with a brake is pleasurable to shoot. If I was in your shoes, I would go with a brake.
 
T. Oheir, if a brake will not make a difference in shooting 1k, it is odd that most rifles that shoot in classes where brakes are legal, use brakes. I would not even consider shooting 1k without a brake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top