Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Africa Muzzle brakes

When any big game rifle bullet travels at more than 2900'/sec, a muzzle brake on the end of your rifle, is a must have. It will make one a much better shot because you'll practice more with your rifle and place the bullet more precicely w/o worrying about getting knocked out from underneith of your Bwana Hat or get hit with the scope & the 1/2 Moon Eye.

Comon sense should prevail when hunting with your PH guide or in a party of other hunters. No matter what the rifle.

The report is not much louder than a same caliber rifle w/o a brake, and hardly noticeable to the shooter, when your hunting in the outdoors.

Granted, You get more rearward concussion and slightly louder report, but that's it. A slight decibel increase/better shot placement/no bleeding forhead, I can live with that.

I don't care what your shooting, it will all destroy your hearing if it is not protected (braked or unbraked rifles).

When you think of how few shots are taken at game. I don't think there is a big difference between the two (Braked or Non). The advantages far out weigh the negatives, IMHO.

Finally, it has been my experience that a big game bullet traveling at less than 2700'/sec has little effect in reducing felt recoil while using a muzzle brake and I would not put a brake on that rifle. Of course, the opposite is also true.

What are your thoughts/experiences?

I hate muzzle blast enhancers and think that if they have any use at all it's on the bench or in practice. When in the field take it off and put the thread protector back on.

The damage to a guide or professional hunters hearing after a season of being around these is significant. I can understand the need for those who have an injury of some sort but for the avearge healthy guy an unbraked rifle is the only way to go.

Prospector, I'm afriad I disagree completely with you're conclusions. Muzzlebrakes are far louder than non braked rifles and many vent the noise towards you instead of forward. The Decible scale is logrithmic, a few decibles increase is a very large increase in noise. My ears rang for days after 1 shot with the muzzle brake and the same rifle without it doesn't cause the same ringing i.e. hearing damage.
If you have to have a muzzle brake to shoot an adequate caliber, you should quit hunting. There are plenty of low-recoiling rounds that can be used with superb effectiveness on game, use one of them instead of a braked magnum. I think that muzzle brakes are a serious mistake on a hunting rifle. I know this from personal experience and from consulting with audiologists.
I don't mind muzzle brakes for off the bench, varminting or other situations where wearing hearing protection isn't a problem. But hunting continually with muzzle braked rifles is a serious mistake, and one that will make you deaf much sooner................DJ

I too agree that muzzle brakes are unnessasary on a Big Game Rifle, I shoot a .300 RUM with speeds in excess of 2900 feet per second and a .340 Mag, the .340 I had a muzzle brake installed and the noise from the brake will damage your hearing, two years ago when I shot the .340 I would get a ringing in my ears, I don,t anymore which is not a good thing. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Prospector if you can't hear much difference it's because your hearing is damaged already.

I'd say that breaks are bad news...I used one in Africa and would never hunt with one again....

Count me in with the anti break crowd. One of my biggest pet peeves is some yahoo pulling up at a bench next to me on the range with a breaked rifle. I wear plugs and muffs at the range but it doesn't stop the concussion from the muzzle blast. Frankly in most cases I consider the use of a break rude and selfish. It shows me someone who cares more about a little punch to their should than to the health of anyone else around them.

Jeff

My PH in RSA refused to take hunters with brakes, put it in his brochure even. There is a huge difference in report with the brake on or off, and if you can't hear it, as Vig noted, then your hearing acuity is already seriously damaged.
There are simply too many effective cartridges out there that don't require a brake to justify all their downsides. They are rude, and a threat to bystanders. One crack can do permanent harm to somebody who had no choice in the matter. Brakes bad. Very bad.

"The report is not much louder than a same caliber rifle w/o a brake, and hardly noticeable to the shooter, when your hunting in the outdoors."

That sure as hell doesn't match with my experience! Brakes are a horrible idea, in my opinion, and can cause permanent hearing loss even when wearing hearing protection. And, aside from the health issues, they make a beautiful gun look clumsy.

Alternatives:
Use a recoil shield when shooting at the range.
Get a good recoil pad installed.
Use enough barrel length.

Well I think the torrent of well-reasoned responses about covers those worthless devices. jorge

Many PH's do not like muzzle brakes. I do not use them.

Bill Tibbe

Thanks for the replies.

I have seen the same responses from most of self proclaimed rifle experts. I have to laugh each time I read an article about how braked rifles are to loud. It'll damage your hearing. True to a point.

My next logical question to the expert is: A Regular Rifle (non-braked) isn't loud and will not hurt your hearing? That its not necessary to wear hearing protection because their isn't a muzzlebrake on the end of the rifle. This is total non-sense.

Some background should be inorder.
In 1978, I started shooting braked rifles, after a shooting demonstration using a .300 magnum with the felt recoil of a .243 Win. That is exactly how the recoil felt, like a .243 Win.

27 years, thousands of rounds later, with many differently braked rifles, I think I have formed an opinion or two about how they really work and what the downsides really are. Unlike some posters here, that have suggested very little experience with them, I have had much.

It seems brakes are hated, or they are loud, or I love this one, Rude ( "Oh Sir, would you hold it down over there, your rifle is Rude." "Well isn't this a rifle range?" <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />) If someone elses opinion differs, that's OK. We don't need to like the same thing. However, this isn't a reason to discount it totally. I like them, it's just my opinion based on years of experience with braked rifles.

I thought we were men here? A little noise/concussion is good for the soul. Why the heck do you think we go to the 4th of July Celebrations.

BTW, my hearing is fine. I shoot and hunt wisely and protect my hearing. If we are out hunting/shooting, it is your responsiblity to protect your own hearing, not mine or someone elses. The implied here from the begining is that shooting is noisey and one should protect himself/herself. No big deal.

If a PH guide doesn't want my muzzlebraked rifle, then he isn't getting me or my money either. That is OK, I'll respect his choices. JJ if your prolong hearing exposure to rifle reports isn't protected, it doesn't matter if the rifles are braked or not, you'll loose you hearing.

I know we may have a difference of opinion here, but if a man wants to give it a try, I highly recommend one. They are less punishing (anyone who says he enjoys recoil is full of crap. It's like having the flu, you don't like it, but tollerate it), allow many rounds down range w/o shooting fatigue in heavy recoiling rifles. It makes shooting fun and you get to know your rifle much more intimately, w/o all the downside of the heavy recoil and all the poor shooting techniques that heavy recoiling rifle induce. IMHO.

As an alturnitive, some have suggested mercury recoil reduces as a means of reducing recoil. On the heavies, fine. But you better be in shape to carry such a pig.



Finally


Who the hell are you? How do you justify such an inflated proclaimation?

You just bit off more then you can chew friend.

I know a lot of these guys.

Tex

Webster's New World Dictionary;

Rude--def.4--"discourteous, unmannerly"

I'd say it fits, on several levels.

Me? No way.

Tex

Well, bud. I for one really need to hear the snap of a twig, or the rustle of leaves just ahead of or next to me when I'm in the bush doing follow while tracking game. My years of expereince with this has shown me that after the discharge of a braked rifle I cannot hear well for several minutes or longer. I'm not all the happy to be tracking a wounded animal which I cannot hear snap a twig or rustle a leaf right before I need to shoot. If you re-read my post I did not admonish the use of a brake. I suggested that they not be used for hunting. You don't feel recoil when shooting at big game anyway so why use it while hunting?

When I'm standing behind my hunter who is using an unbraked rifle, I can hardly tell the rifle was shot any more then he did. My hearing does not suffer for the follow uptracking the same way. The absolute massive difference with a muzzle brake is 100% completely different in that I have felt as if I was going to be knocked backward on more then one occasion. After which all I can hear is a whistle and distant muffled sounds, sometimes for hours.

It's awefully easy for you to say I should use hearing protection on every hunters shot. I agree that is a good choice. However you also clearly have no idea what hunting in the African Bush is like. We may walk several yards during a stalk and prepare to shoot only to have to move a few more feet and setup again. This move and re-setup happens dozens if not hundreds of times during the stalks of various species. The responsibility of the PH is to make certain that the best trophy is taken from a group, and the bullets path is clear behind the intended game, as is the path between the shooter and the game. It may include assiting with a rest of some sort whether it be holding shooting sticks or resting it another way. The brief moments of "shoot don't shoot" and move again provide no real ability to pack around earplugs and headphones. In this situation the slightest whisper is a high risk of spooking game, and the low volume communication between hunter and PH is a very high risk as well. Any hearing protection which would reduce this type of low whisper communication could not be used.

On as many shots as possible when game is very close I will plug my ears with my fingers at the shot. Some longer shots require the use of field glasses to assess the impact and judge the reaction to the shot or watch the games reaction and direction of departure. Why exactly is a muzzle brake needed while hunting? The hunters I have in RSA typically shoot 6-12 animals in ten days. That is about 8-15 shots over a ten day period. Is that pounding too much for you? One shot a day average? I can say with authority that one muzzle braked shot a day is much more then a PH can tolerate and live with effectively. Try a season or 5 with these types of guns, at this frequency!

As far as your assessment of real men accepting noise with guns and with fireworks. I'm not following that logic at all. Maybe as a "real man" you should just deal with recoil!

I have never heard a single fireworks presentation that comes even remotely close to the blast of a muzzle brake! Regarding the shooting ranges, are you aware that across the country there is a move afoot against brakes? They are being limited to specific shooting lanes at some ranges and are being boxed in like smokers at an airport? I have had several Emails recently regarding shooting ranges that either no longer accept brakes on the range or only allow them by asking permission from the other shooters who are also there.

They have become a serious issue and will end up being isolated by the majority in a few more years as they become more popular. Anyone who is near a standard discharge of a rifle and a muzzle brake rifle would have to be a complete idiot or some how mentally impared not to recognize the difference. Its cl;early obvious form a great distance!

Just a few weeks ago I was sighing in a rifle for a friend of mine with Bursitis in his shoulder. The fellow next to me was shooting a thin barreled rifle. I had empty 338 cases on the bench next to me. After his first shot the concussion and blast I could feel in my face knocked all the cases off my bench 8 feet away. He apologised and agreed to move or wait til we were finished. He was shooting a 270 with a muzzle brake! How sick is that?

Although I've not shot anything bigger than the .416s (excl the .458 Win), I see no reason for a brake on any of 'em and don't want to be near anyone else using one.
Subjectively, there is a huge increase in the decibels for both the shooter and the guy off his shoulder and aesthetically, in my opinion, they look out of place on any sporting arm.

George

Texas Hunter--no, not you. Prospector was arguing that "rude" was an inappropriate term for muzzle brakes.

I think it fits muzzle brakes, and his posts, quite well.

I think you said it best yourself:



You're either [bleep] stirring, or ignorant. Maybe a combination of both.

I've touched off one or two rounds myself, both braked and unbraked. For anyone to claim that brakes are "not that much louder" is completely full of crap or dillusional. Neither of those scenarios are a recipe for a meaningful debate. There are so many things wrong with your two posts that it's not much worth wasting time to tear them apart.

I got the Answer products brake and pad on my 375 H&H. Ok I'm a woosie but to sugest its not louder is the words of a nitwit. Simple mindless chatter.

I have twice fired it without hearing protection and the second time my right ear had a ringing sound for two days.

Reduce recoil? HELL YES! But to suggest it doent increase the noise to unacceptable levels is the words of a moron. Ok maybe a deaf moron. But it's silly jibber jabber from someone that talks the talk and doesnt walk the walk.

I call B.S.

Tex