Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire muzzle brakes vs velocity

Was told by a gunsmith the other day that installing a muzzle brake on a rifle actually increases velocity. Always thought it was the other way around. Any thoughts on this??

Dude is smoking crack.
Velocity is lost going down the barrel and exiting the barrel.
A fugging brake or comp brake directs exiting gas for either less recoil or barrel flip or a combo of both. it dont give a bullet a boost in the ass.......


Brake or comp brake can change poi and group size
Either positively or negatively

All depends on what works in what combo....

Where's Ringman?

We have had a few rifles gain a few fps . They will somtimes change the point of impact.

It's like gaining horse power in your truck by folding out the tow mirrors. Works every time.

Klienguenther discovered an average of twelve feet per second increase by installing a brake.

That's like adding a quarter inch to the length of the barrel. Since not all gas goes out the sides of the brake, some still pushes on the bullet, that makes sense.

A brake will not decrease muzzle velocity unless barrel length is reduced before installing the brake. Or unless the brake is milled into the end of the existing barrel.

A 24 inch barrel with a two inch brake added to the end will shoot at least as fast as it did before the brake was installed. It is still effectively a 24 inch barrel.

Yessir. Saw it first hand with my 300 RUM. My preferred load with RL-22 and a 180 grain Nosler was faster once I had a brake installed. Same load, same chronograph, same rifle range, etc, etc. I was told by the gunsmith that it would likely happen and he was correct. Nothing outlandish,but significant enough to notice. It wasn’t a one time thing...the load was chronographed several times before and after installation.

Theoretically it could by breaking the pressure wave ....problem is it is so minimal it won't be noticed...I did some testing years ago and couldn't come up with any difference

what I have tested and notice 6 to 10 fps average increase on gun from 223 to 338-416 rigby

A then local gunsmith - well recognized for manufacturing accurate barrels - made three for me over a period of eight years. We talked more than once about muzzle brakes - the type machined into the barrel (not the extension type) - and he had thoroughly tested the matter. He related that there might be a slight loss in velocity with such a brake, but that it always would reduce the accuracy.. For that reason, he would not cut a brake into a barrel with his name on it. He is long gone now - I miss him.

Yeah, the 270 needs all the help it can get.

Apparently he never tried something with a KEEPER. They electron discharge machined six ports in my Freedom Arms .454 and nine ports in my .Weatherby Mark V 340 Weatherby. Many times I fired five 260 grainers running 1,925 feet per second from the .454 into 1 15/16" at 100 yards. The .340 normally ran 3/4" for three Nosler 210 Partitions running 3,212 feet per second.

unless your using an Oehler the clock speeds on run of the mill chronos aren't fast enough to give solid statistics, maybe if you where using some of the new Doplar stuff. But I guess we can pray.

the plural of anecdotal is not data


the pressure curve vs. barrel length peaks somewhere in the first six inches depending on powder/caliber/barrel then falls off exponentially . the bullet still gains velocity. if the pressure curve was flat the velocity would be constant Try it yourself, get some piezoelectric stuff and get to it.

The initial air in barrel in front of the bullet is compressed and as it leaves the barrel and the bullet enters the comp. a brief negative pressure occurs.

statistical data isn't there.

Lessee... All common micro controllers will clock at 20 MHz or better and we'll concede four clock cycles per machine cycle. So that gets us to a precision of 1/5e6 0r 200 nanoseconds per tick. Assume a velocity of 3,200 fps and a screen spacing of 1 foot. So you get 1/3,200 = 3.125 microsecond between the screens. Now it is in the nature of digital systems to be accurate, all things being equal, to plus or minus one tick or 200 nanoseconds here. Or 312.3 to 312.7 microseconds. Or 3197.953 to 3202,049 fps or ±4.096 fps. Or if 16MHz clock speed if your cronograph is old, ±5.12 fps. Dividd by 3 for a 3 foot screen spacing. Remember that's worst case, the mean is still 3200 fps so it depends on sample size.

Typical crystal specifications are tolerance ±10 ppm. Somebody else can work that out.

If the data wasn't statistically valid, the statistics would demonstrate this.

Thank you very informative.

and assuming "ceteris paribus"

I should have been clearer, meaning,, across the board all compensator, load , and barrel combinations are going to give the same results.

An analogy whats the best way to clean a barrel.

Anybody catch my error? I used clock cycle, 200ns, to calculate precision instead of machine cycle which would be 2ms. 4 clock cycles per machine cycle or tick Multiply by 4 so with a 20 MHz clock it would be ±16.384 fps or ±20.475 fps at 16 MHz. The mean is still 3200 fps

----------------------------------------

No, was right the first time - it's called overthinking the problem - I did divide by 4 in getting the machine cycle time.