I'd like opinions on some of the different muzzle brakes. Which is the the most effective one? I need to reduce the kick, and want to buy right the first time. Since I won't be at a public range with it, and my hearing is already shot, the blast effect dosen't matter.

None..Step down a cal.

Big time +1.

Muzzle brakes on a hunting rifle just suck period. You may have lost your hearing but why ruin the hearing of anyone else hunting with you.

Get a good recoil pad, wear a past pad or add a mercury recoil reducer but don't use a muzzle brake on a hunting rifle............................DJ

Vais. But I hate them all.......

+ 1 on the mercury recoil reducer. Heck put one in the forearm and the buttstock

Like others, I dispise brakes. You may be deaf, but there is still the issue of the muzzle blast dislodging dirt or tree bark or other junk in the field. There are so many good alternatives that I couldn't see resorting to a brake. And yes, nothing wrong with dropping calibers, I've been going through I don't need to get the snot kicked out of me anymore phase and hence getting smaller chamberings.

The best muzzle brakes are the ones that are never installed on a rifle ... (grin)

Suppressors are the best brakes .

"Best" and "Muzzle Brake" don't belong in the same sentence... ever.

I have heard that Vais brakes are slightly more quiet than other brakes. The KDF (with 30 holes) is extremely loud, but reduces recoil quite a lot, too.

It does not matter if your hearing is shot. I always wear ear defenders or plugs when shooting rifles regardless of brake or not. In fact, I have a .22-caliber pistol that is quite noisy, as well as a Ruger 10/22 with a short target barrel. Both are noisy enough for me to wear plugs or ear muffs.

Oh man this makes me feal good as I HATE brakes..
Had to shoot one on a 416 rem the other day SUCKED !!! I thought the guy 4 benches down was going to shoot me...

Yes, they are loud. I never shoot mine under a roof, canopy, and such. Always in the open, and away from other shooters. But in reality all shots from guns, fire crackers, etc. damage one's hearing. A .30-378, or .338-378 can render you deaf in a short period of time, too. One can take the brake off and replace it with a thread protector for hunting, but even so I wear ear plugs or muffs. No worst noise than working with military jet aircraft engines indoors (hangar) such as the F-16. I did that for years, and had to wear ear plugs plus these huge ear muffs (we used to call them Mickey Mouse muffs). Even so I could still hear a crackling sound from the engine running at high RPM. Now, that's real noise

Snotwad,
Since you're in FL and I'm in WA, I feel pretty safe telling you to go ahead with the break. I've had really good luck with David Gentry's version. They're at least LESS obnoxious than some others and reduce recoil quite efectively.

Well.... If ya-gotta-do-it.....

Hollands are the best by far. Had 3 at one time Ultra-lite 284 Win and two light weight Mags, 338 Win and 300 Win. mag.

Darrel Holland makes the best no doubt.. But after ringing my bell a couple of times w/o ear plugs hunting.. I hafta admit, I sent all them guns back to Darrel and had him cut them off and re-crown my barrels..

Will never brake another rifle, ever...

Snotwad,

Of the three types I have used, Holland, Vais and Wby Accubrake (KDF style)the Wby Accubrake is the most effective. I would not worry about noise as they are all to loud to shoot without ear protection.

I have used them on 338/378, 378, 416 Wby and 460 Wby. For some reason shooters in Australia don't jump up and down at the mention of muzzle brakes. Actually, I reckon my hearing would be much better today if I had always used muzzle brakes because they force you to use hearing protection all of the time.I know my neck would be much better

They do vary with calibre. But taking the 378 as example, with the brake on the recoil is far less than a 375 H&H and the rifle just "sits there". The 338/378 is a real pussy cat with the brake on and is about like shooting a heavy barrel 7mm Remington.

You might like to post your question on

www.longrangehunting.com as that forum is full of shooters using muzzle brakes.

Mike

Give me a BRAKE (pun intended).

The question was, what the best muzzle brake was and not how ya'll don't like brakes. I say, it's my gun and I'll brake (another pun there) it if I want to.

1. Brakes work because they they direct some of the gases to the side, upwards, and or rearwards that would otherwise go straight out the barrel. Anything with mass (this would include the bullet and the gases) that goes straight out the barrel with cause a force to be exerted straight back toward the shooter. They therefore can decrease recoil caused by the ejected gases but do nothing for the recoil caused by bullet weight and velocity. Since the noise will follow the direction of the ejected gases, depending on how they're made, the brake will direct noise to the sides and toward the shooter. They don't make the gun more noisy.

2. Brakes that direct the blast only to the sides will reduce recoil. Brakes that direct more gases up than to the sides will reduce recoil and muzzle jump. Brakes like the shark gill brake that direct the gases rearward, will decrease recoil even more.

So which brake is best? That would depend on the application. If I were to shoot a 458 Lott in a handgun, I would probably want a shark gill brake. If I were a real wimp and wanted to tone down the recoil of a 22-250, any kind of brake would be fine.

A heavier rifle will reduce felt recoil for you as well. Using lighter, more solidly constructed bullets (like the Barnes X) will also reduce the felt recoil. The other thing is to use the fastest burning powder that will safely give you the velocity you are looking for.

The three main things that affect recoil are rifle weight, bullet weight, and powder charge weight -- velocity is the fourth, but assuming you want to keep the velocity the same, those three will be a help to you.

I loaded my wife's 30-06 with a starting load of IMR3031 and some 150 partitions for about 2800 fps. It's a real joy for her to shoot, and it kills real well.

Snotwad,

I have had 4 rifles with brakes. I really don't care much for them, but they do reduce recoil. My 1st was a KDF on a .338 Win. It was effective, but I traded it for a M-700 Classic in .350 Mag and never looked back. My 2nd was integral brake made by an obscure gunsmith on a 458 Win. Mag. The last two were made by Answer . The Answer brake has three chambers whereas the others have only one. And believe me, IT WORKED! It made a 7.5 lb .375 H&H recoil like a .30-06. I am not particularly sensitive to recoil, so I abondoned the concept of a brake. But at least I'm openminded enough to give a fair assessment.

But in answer to your question, I believe that the ANSWER system is the best and most effective.

Grasshopper

I agree the Answer is/was a very good brake, but I think they are now out of business. At least the last time I stopped by the shop it was locked up. The brake offered by Williams Gun Sight a mile down the road looks very familiar though.

A smith by the name of Bruce McCarthy (sp?) in Waterford Mi is also claimed by some of the shooters I know to make one of the best (FLINT & FRIZZEN). I don`t know, never fired a rifle with one of his brakes on it.

Not a big fan of Muzzle Brakes but the best one's I have used are the V-port by Natan Dagley of Straight shooters gunsmithing and the Defensive Edge brake by Shawn Carlock.

Are you Deaf or just kidding because you are dead wrong. Heck you can feel the difference much less hear it.
If you doubt it find someone with a removeable brake the difference is enormous.............................DJ

Here's a bit of info on some of the best brakes, functionally. Got to warn you, They aren't so easy to look at.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=183594&fpart=1

In reality a brake does not make the gun-blast noisier; what it does is to port lots of the same noise straight to the sides all the way around. The rest of the noise continues forward out the muzzle.

The same thing happens when shooting a ported large caliber handgun, except that not as much noise come out the sides and top since it does not have approximately 30 small holes all the way around the barrel's end like a KDF brake does. However, with handguns that have short barrels, sometimes the noise coming out the ports could be closer to the shooter's ears than some rifles with long barrels. This is not always the case, just sometimes (depending on barrel and shooter's arm length).

If one shoots a ported handgun indoors, the noise is reflected back to the shooter not only from the front wall, but from the roof or sides (from whichever direction the ports face). If it's a braked rifle being fired indoors, the noise reflected toward the shooter will be from the roof, walls, floor, and also from the front wall. If the same rifle is shot in a canyon that has high walls (gun pointed in a parallel direction to the walls), the noise going straight-up dissipates as much as the noise coming out the muzzle, but the noise out the sides and the ground will be reflected toward the shooter. Not only that, but the noise reflected from the canyon wall closest to the shooter will hit that side of the shooter's head (ear) with greater force.

I shoot a .454 Casull that has been Magna-Ported, and believe me when I tell you that it's loud. I can say the same for a Winchester shotgun I have. It has a pistol grip instead of stock, and the barrel is 18" long. Since I have to shoot this shotgun with the pistol grip almost resting on my stomach, the blast out the muzzle is quite high.

Does anybody here shoots big handguns like the .454 and larger that are ported? How about .45-caliber pistols that are ported?

Yea like in reality blowing a trumpet isn't any louder than blowing the same amount of air through a straight tube.

Cut the pseudo-scientific BS, Muzzle brakes aren't just a little noisier they are a heck of a lot noisier.

I have a 475 Ruger that's ported and yes it's loud. So is my 500 S&W. So is every gun that I've ever shot with a muzzle brake. Several of which I've fired with and without the muzzle brakes installed, they were of all a heck of a lot "noisier" with the muzzle brakes installed.

Oh and not only do muzzle brakes suck because they are so stinkin noisy, they suck because they are ugly as heck on a hunting rifle.......................DJ

Muzzle brakes suck soooo bad.

This fact is not true of all brakes. I have two identical Rifles Inc., Strata's, each in 300WBY. All-up weight is 6lbs each, with scope. One rifle uses Lex's "Slim Brake II", with typical holes around the full barrel circumference. It has a miserable concussion wave that overwhelms my nose with burned powder and a fierce noise.

On the second rifle I threw away the slim brake and installed another brake that Ron Spomer wrote about maybe 4 or 5 years ago from BP Technologies. It is very different. 3 major ports out the top; none out the sides and bottom. Very funky shaped expansion chambers. Entirely gone is the concussive wave and dramatically less is the sound signature. I seemed to recall that Spomer rather liked this brake. You might try this link. http://www.bp-tec.com/ They have some interesting downloadable videos of their brake in action. The manufacturer claims to do a lot of military and tactical work for law enforcement. I met a representative at a trade show who "claimed" the sound signature of their brake is reduced by 2db, both at the shooter position and to the sides. I don't know if this is BS since the bark of a 300 WBY is pretty loud in every event. But the sound is MUCH more tolerable, at least, with the BP-Tecbrake than Lex's original.

As for comments that brakes are ugly, the one thing I like about the BP-Tec "bulb" is that it adds an ounce or two at the muzzle and definitely improved the way this very light rifle hangs for offhand shooting.

Better to avoid a brake whenever possible, however.

It seems that I have offend you, but that was not my intention.

What I said is that the noise coming out the brake, all the way around and to the sides, is closer to the shooter's ears, therefore louder to the shooter or to bystanders to the sides of the shooter. But brakes do not increase the amount of noise from the blast. If a barrel of any rifle is shortened, that brings the noise blast from the shot closer to the shooter's ears, regardless of brake or not.

The reason why we think a non-braked rifle is not as loud is because most of the sound is being directed away from the shooter, but it's extremely loud within a few feet in front of the muzzle. A brake is just bringing the same amount of sound closer to you, just like a speaker pointed at you. Turn the speaker around 180 degrees, and the noise seems to be quieter.

True. Some brakes are louder than others. The one I mentioned above has 30 holes all the way around, therefore noisier than most.

A friend of mine has a very old BSA .30-06 rifle that has ports in a similar fashion as yours. It's still loud, but much quieter that a brake such as one with holes all the way around.

I agree about avoiding the use of muzzle brakes whenever possible. There are ways to reduce recoil other than using brakes, but hearing protection should always be used when shooting.

This is a nice article about brakes:
http://calivc.com/forums/MUZZLE-BRAKES-101-TRUTH-VS-MYTH-POSITIVE-VS-NEGA-t1772.html

The Weatherby Accubrake is hands down best. You can screw it off and throw it in the lake.

The most effective brake I've used was the artillery style one from JP Industries. It is heavy, bulky, ugly (unless you are one of the "tactical" crowd who have a warped view of beauty), and kind of a pain to install, but it really works. It also didn't seem as loud as the KDF style brakes. I put this one on a heavy 300 Win Mag and it seemed to recoil about the same as my 6BR "F" class rifle. In other words, not much.
As far as the desirability of any sort of brake goes; I have been making and installing brakes for over 20 years and I have never had one on one of my own rifles. I'm not a fan. GD

Ray, No offence was taken and I hope I have not given any.

But I do think you are simply wrong. I think that there is much more to the volumn of sound generated than it simply being a fixed amount coming out of the muzzle and it being directed in whichever direction. Assuming that it is (or isn't) for that matter is Psuedo-Scientific BS.

There is a lot more to sound than energy equations, I do know that you can pluck the string on one guitar with the same force as another but certain guitars are much louder than others the same size. Sound isn't all about energy equations.

But all Science or Pseudo-Science for that matter doesn't matter a whiff to me because I define noisy on a gun as what hits my ears and those next to me, and muzzle brakes are completely obviously in the noiser category.....................DJ

That was a good read, thanks.

That article was written by a guy who manufactures and installs muzzle brakes. It's factually wrong on most of his major points and is extremely misleading.

-Test have been done with decible meters placed where a shooters ears would be, rifles with muzzle brakes usually read substantially higher on the DB meters.
-The barrel whip that affects accuracy while the bullet is in the barrel. Muzzle brakes don't take effect until after the bullet departs the barrel! His entire premise about muzzle brakes effecting barrel whip is a crock of BS. They have no more effect on Barrel whip than a weight placed on the barrel at the same place (note that the BOSS system comes with and without the muzzle brake i.e. the BOSS CR, it works the same with either).
-Muzzle brakes do damage you hearing faster than regular rifles do. The DB scale is exponential, i.e. a few more DB's is much louder and will damage your hearing MUCH faster. - I've consulted with MD's about this.

Once again, read the article if you want but it's mostly a bunch of BS from a guy who's trying to sell muzzle brakes.......................DJ

The original post asked for input on which worked best as he wanted to do it right the first time...he's not worried about noise or asthetics or macho BS about how YOU don't need one...Try the Weatherby Accubrake along with either a decellerator or limbsaver pad & that should help out a LOT. You need not worry about the hearing issue as long as you wear protection while shooting at the bench. Hunting is a different story as you'll only be exposed to a shot or two...tt

A couple points. It's fair for folks to opine about breaks in general, as many of us have tried them and found that we don't like them.

As to hearing damage, hearing protection reduces the intensity of the sound, but when you are starting out at over 140 decibels, and only dropping the sound at most 30 db, you are still at a damaging level of noise at 110 db.

A long way of saying, even with hearing protection you can stilld damage your hearing, and increasing the intensity of the muzzle blast is not a good thing.