the brake vs. break controversy, has been pretty interesting the last 30 years, initially I think the original use was compensator, as in Cutts compensator on Thompson Subs.
Not saying which is correct, but from a discussion point of view.
the formula for calculating recoil does not use pressure in its calculation.
in the vector analysis of the forces, there is no negative vector that would suggest any type of braking. the amount of recoil reduction is due to less ejecta bearing against the dia. of the end of the muzzle.
had this discussion with the folks at JP in connection with their "Sail" type brake, and their position is that a "jet thrust" is produced and the larger baffles capture this.
My reply was show me the math.
recoil is independent of pressure,
however there is a substantial "break" in the direction of the escaping gases.
No.
There is no "controversy" about brake vs break for muzzle devices, only people who can spell and people who can't or don't care. The use of the word brake is to arrest, restrict, delay, retard, etc, just like brakes on a car. There are just as many people who talk about their car's breaks, and it's just as incorrect in that application too.
You don't seem to understand how a brake works, or vector analysis. Powder gas has both mass and velocity; that gas impinging against the baffles of the brake (calculate the perpendicular surface area if you want, that's what counts) is what causes a forward acting force that partially counteracts recoil. It's a fairly simple concept, and effectiveness of a brake is directly proportional to the amount of powder used; i.e. it's more effective with a light bullet and lots of powder than it is with a heavy bullet and smaller powder charge.
