Muzzle brakes

I like all this kraig:

What I do know:

1: Brakes reduce Recoil
2: You don't notice recoil while hunting
3: To be proficient with any firearm you need to shoot it A LOT
4: I don't wear hearing protection while I hunt.

So taking those four points in consideration, I want a brake on my rifle (some of them) so I can practice a lot without dealing with recoil. At home or on the range I do wear ear protection so loud brakes don't bother me.

When I go hunting I do wear protection and I don't want the addition of the extra noise blasting my ears.

So I use the brake while shooting at home or at the range and I take it off when I'm hunting. You don't shoot that much when hunting and while shooting at game you don't even notice the recoil.
Click to expand...

But feel like it's important to note, for those who may not know: Once you're done practicing with brake, and take brake off, before you go out to the hunting field, you have to take a few shots without brake to verify zero since the POI does usually change some. With that caveat, I agree wholeheartedly. We tend to forget how valuable and precious our hearing is - you've got to preserve it if you don't want a lot of grief throughout old age (do you want to be able to converse with your grandkids and great-grandkids?)

Oh, and if, instead of brake, you run with a lead sled type device to accomplish same (more pleasant, flinch-free practice), the exact same principle applies - the POI changes, so you always have to shoot a few off bags at the end of the range session, and adjust sights. Note that lead sleds put additional wear and tear on stocks, whereas brakes do not. The less weight you put on the sled, the better - put the least amount of weight on that is necessary to make it reasonably comfortable, so that the entire lead sled unit can move some, even if only 1/8th or 1/4th", to reduce stock wear and tear, and reduce POI change.
 
I've never had an impact change by removing the brake, or putting it back on.

However I do see an impact change between using a lead slid and field positions (using a sling in prone, setting and knelling.

If the brake is of proper design, and fits the rifle, you shouldn't have any change in zeros.

But it never hurts to check.
 
Just because it's threaded doesn't mean you MUST put a brake on it. As others have said, I'd go with a nice suppressor.

Also, will you need a brake on this rifle? 308 isn't so bad on recoil. It's funny your rifle is a Remington 700 308, my shooting buddy and I just conducted our own practical test. His rifle : r700 308 VTR (triangular 22" barrel with muzzle brake). My rifle: r700 308 sps-v (26" varmint barrel, no brake); both scoped with 1pc rails, no slings or bi-pods attached. We each shot (off the bench) a 168gr Nosler Custom Comp factory load through each rifle; then a 175gr Nosler Custom Comp factory load through each rifle. Neither of us could feel any difference in recoil what so ever between the two guns, probably due to the weight difference, but there was no question his VTR was WAY louder.
 
Last edited:
The OP said he wasn't interested in a suppressor ("silencer") only in a muzzle brake, which is not the same thing and requires no applications or tax payment. However, I don't recommend hearing protection (muffs, earplugs) while hunting. In the open air, the noise, even with a brake, will not be that great and if the hearing is blocked, the hunter might not hear a shout that would warn of danger, or a command from a game warden.

Jim
 
I kinda like the idea of shooting the rifle with the brake when practicing, and without the brake while hunting. I'd just leave the scope set to be zeroed without the brake on it, assuming there is even a change In POI.

That seems like a better solution to me because I figure a 16" barrel .308 w/ a brake will be absolutely deafening without any hearing protection.
 
I"m not a fan of muzzle brakes. I had one on my Hakim and it made the shooting experience very unpleasant (although I did enjoy the actual shooting of the Hakim).
I see the necessity of a muzzle brake in the case of a Hakim where firing multiple semi-accurate shots in a short period of time would be a benefit in a war zone. However, in hunting or shooting from a bench rest, your first shot is the most important.
I would recommend against a muzzle brake for those reasons.
happy shooting.
 
There are brakes that divert the blast away from the shooter
as well as those on either side. Levang, Kies, Dragon's Head
are just a few of the ones available. have the Dragon's Head
in both 5.56 and 7.62.
dhmb02.jpg


And a review. None of the linear brakes reduce recoil.
http://ar15armory.com/forums/topic/81126-dragon-head-muzzle-break-review/
 
James K said:
However, I don't recommend hearing protection (muffs, earplugs) while hunting. In the open air, the noise, even with a brake, will not be that great and if the hearing is blocked, the hunter might not hear a shout that would warn of danger, or a command from a game warden.
Click to expand...

I have to vehemently disagree with this. There is positively no reason, in the year 2014, to EVER discharge a firearm without hearing protection, except when your life literally depends on it.

Modern, electronic hearing protection not only protects your ears but IMPROVES your ability to hear animals and/or range commands. Muffs can be had for as little as $35 (Caldwell) and they work very well. The prices go up, to at least $350 each, for what amount to Behind-The-Ear (BTE) hearing aides.

I refuse to discharge a firearm louder than a .22 rifle without hearing protection. I've given up a day of hunting because I forgot my muffs. I simply will not do it.
 
Rich Reilly in Colorado Springs makes a great brake.

http://htcustoms.com/brakes/

I shoot a lot of big bores and recoil generally isn't an issue with me even with the .458 WM. However, I have a .358 STA that kicks the stuffing out of me so I had Rich make one of his brakes for it. They are shorter than most others -- mine adds 1.25" to the barrel -- they don't increase the noise as much as others and they do reduce recoil. When I picked up my rifle, Rich said the recoil ought to be reduced to about a .30-06 class. He was wrong. The recoil is much lighter than a .30-06. :)

By the way, I'm with Brian on hearing protection. I hunt deer, elk, and antelope here in Colorado and I always wear some kind of hearing protection. It is not an impediment. I even demand that my grandson wear hearing and eye protection when he shoots his pellet rifle and pellet pistol just because I want him to be in the habit of putting it on whenever he picks up a gun.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wish I'd heeded Brian Pfleuger's advice when I was twenty. Too much noise from jet engines while I was in the Air Force for four years and too many gun shots with only cigarette filters or empty brass casings stuck in my ears over the intervening half century to look back on those days now. A little on the tardy side, I know, but I always don ear protection these days in an effort to salvage what little hearing I have left.
Listen to Brian-while you still can...:o
 
Last edited:
I have to vehemently disagree with this. There is positively no reason, in the year 2014, to EVER discharge a firearm without hearing protection, except when your life literally depends on it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Brian is a LOT smarter than I look!
 
+1 for Rich Riley in Colorado Springs (High Tech Custom). He put one of his brakes on my 300WSM a few years ago. Makes the thing recoil like a 308.
 
I shoot an M1A with a flash suppressor, but hate to shoot around folks with Muzzle Brakes.

If the noise bothers you, thread the barrel and add a suppressor. Bonus, you can shoot without hearing protections with supersonic rounds, and subsonic's sound like a cap gun.

Loads of fun.

Bryan
Manassas VA
 
99.9% of the time, zeros will change when a brake is removed. The barrel then has a different weight, shape and vibration node locations. It's also got a higher resonant frequency and harmonic multiples thereof. Bullets will leave at different muzzle axis angles than when the brake was on. If the bullet exit shifts a tiny amount about the extremes of the muzzle axis whip arc, the zero may not change.
 
Last edited:
I only have two rifles that have brakes. An FAL wears an effective brake that was made by a Michigan gunsmith and sold through Brownells a few years ago. The other is my EDM Windrunner that got upgraded from the original (and ineffective) 'wasp nest' brake to a nice stainless clam shell that is smaller, lighter, less noisy (from bystanders) and reduces the recoil to an extent that 11 year old girls are comfortable shooting it. You could hunt with the FAL, but are not likely to carry the Windrunner unless you're large and green. ;)
 
Brakes are definitely loud, but I don't think it would justify the use or not of one as Brian has stated, there is absolutely no need to ever shoot without hearing protection unless it's an emergency. I am a firm believer in electronic muffs and I can't imagine a day I'd ever go back to regular plugs. If I hunted, I would use the electronic muffs. It is plenty noticeable to me the recoil with and without a brake and I would always prefer one. With a .308 I think it will greatly enhance the way you shoot the rifle as it will make it more enjoyable to you and thus you will shoot it more often. Do I think they are necessary on a hunting rifle? No. Would I put one on my barrel if it was threaded? Well, you can't leave the threading naked!! There are few things in life that if people said they liked it, they'd be lying and recoil is one of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top