Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Gunsmithing Muzzle brakes vs. perceived noise

Does a brake actually make the gunshot louder, or is it that the sound is directed in different direction making it seem louder to the shooter?

I believe that the DB rating is going to be the same. The brake redirects the sound more to the sides instead of allowing it to travel forward away from the shooter. I have only been around one gun during hunting season that had a brake and after we were done shooting I came to the conclusion that would be the last gun with a brake I would ever be around. I don't understand the fascination with brakes, unless you are shooting a 50 cal or maybe a 460 weatherby.

Been around muzzle brakes some, never would own one.

I always try to shoot with ear protection, and I definitely notice that the rifles with brakes on them seem louder. I've never shot the same rifle back to back with/without the brake on. I recently put together a 350 legend AR, and the barrel came with a brake on it. Seems excessive to me, and I'm pretty sure I'm going to remove it and install a thread protector. The area where I use that rifle is somewhat close to other houses and I'd prefer to have it as quiet as possible.

They change the direction of the sound, not the total DB. From the shooter's position they're definitely louder so that's all that matters. I use them on some of my prairie dog rifles because they allow you to spot your shots through the scope at 20+ power. I'm always doubled up on hearing protection and after a day of shooting 2-300 rounds you'll start to feel even a 22-250 on the shoulder, the brakes make a long day of shooting a lot more pleasant.

Brakes have their place like everything else. If you shoot a lot you'll come to appreciate them. If you're a one box a year shooter who stuffs the wife's cotton balls in his ears for hearing protection you'll probably hate them. I only have them on a few rifles but they serve a purpose on those rifles and I wouldn't change them.

This. Crow Hunter has it right.

From the shooters perspective and for folks on the shooting line The DB level is defiantly higher with a flash hider or a muzzle brake. Even with good hearing protection I am prone to give up on shooting for the day when one of these clowns sits down on the line with a pile of ammo.

Has a real way of messing things for everyone else on the line IMHO. Suppose we could schedule days of the week or times of the day that various accessories are allowed or discouraged.

We have a new shooting range here on the edge of town. Thought this could be nice. then we have an archery range 6 miles out of town.

Cant have everything perfect though I would like to see this the other way around.

with the brake think of the sound as small sphere at the end of the gun, which grows larger surrounding the shooter and everything close (other shooters). while having no compensator it is more like an every increasing cone, widening towards the point of aim.

in long range shooting and both eyes open, it allows the shooter to "see" the smoke (discharge) emerging from the side of the rifle, which give assurance the shot was not pulled, and is "clean". This confidence allows the shooter to trust the elevation correction, and if its a miss, was probable more attributable to a "bad" wind call. In the proper light sun usually behind and over the shoulder it can also allow the shooter to see the bullet trail.

Nobody would disagree, but Im sure Stick will be along shortly to correct everybody.

As others have posted,
A cartridge only has so much energy.
A break couldnt substantially change that.

It does redirect it.

My 12ga O/U is ported.
Even though it is a low pressure/low blast application,
It is much more noisy. For bystanders. Shooting it,
you don't notice it. Guys waiting to shoot, don't like it.

If your curious about how much.

go to any recoil calculating formula on the net.

run the formula with charge wt, plus projectile wt---- now run it with only projectile wt.,,, the difference is the amount of recoil contributed by the powder. this also correlates to the amount of recoil reduction any
compensator will bring to the rig for that particular load/gun. Of course the pressure makes only a difference in the "noise" dB count, not the recoil. So don't read jet effect/thrust etc. into it.

I am VERY astonished that everybody so far has correctly spelled the word "brake," rather than break.

My Creedmore has a break... it's great...

Normal barrels go bang, barrels with muzzle breaks seem to go BOOOOM!

Over the years i've installed many brakes. I can almost guarentee that, when shooting at the mother of all bucks- you wont notice the noise OR recoil. Several customers have told me this and also that when someone else is shooting their gun- its REALLY LOUD!! This is the same customer that swore that his 300 mag kicked like a 30 30 with the brake on.I try to talk customers out of brakes but suggest a SOFT recoil pad, unlike the hard pads that a lot of guns come with these days. Been there, Done that!Just my 2 cents...Retired Now, Mel

No they didn't. See below..

I can also attest that with a muzzle brake, the down-range noise is LESS.

A couple posts before yours!


Some stupid illiterate, redneck screwed it all up.
Flipping, people can't spell for crap.

On Monday I'm gonna bore sight and zero a CA Mesa in 6.5 Creed. Why it's shipped with a brake attached I dunno, but since it's the first brake I've ever used I'm leaving it on for now.

Interested to see how noisy the Creed is from the 22 inch barrel...

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.

About 25 years ago I built a Mod 7 FS in 243 for my Grandson. Very lightweight, but I put a brake on it as he was 8yrs old. He was uncomfortable with it. I eventually removed the brake and he had no trouble from then on. Found out that the noise bothered him much more than the recoil.
Yes, hearing protection was always used.

There's been noise complaints from a newish housing estate near our range. We've had to monitor and record the sound levels at various points outside the range boundary. During equipment setup we had the chance to do spot readings and one of our guys has a 375H&H with removable brake. No difference to the sound level at distance between with or without brake. Different story for those at the firing line of course.

I think the closest monitoring point was about 500m away.

So the general consensus is that it isn't any loader in any way aside from those who are on the firing line.

I believe so. The redirection of the gases by the brake directs more of the sound back towards the firing line than without.

I think you would experience brake level sound level if you stood off to the side but in the front side of the muzzle of an un-braked firearm, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Wrong: If it is louder on the firing line, it is louder in every way, the decibels don't just disappear. Any reduction depends on what is being braked, how far away one is, their relative position and obstructions. But the sound will still be more noticeable.

Hear a muzzle braked .300 Jarrett and you won't have to be on the firing line to notice.

Well we actually measured it and there was no difference at a distance, but if your opinion is better than fact, power to you bro

It sure as hell isnt perceived with my ear drums split.

What distance and what cartridge,which way was the wind blowing, same elevation, what testing equipment?

Decibels are decibels. I may not hear a piper flying low over your house a block away, a fighter yes.

The statement was it isn’t any louder in anyway other than. Facts are it is louder in every way.

Good question - I don't have all the answers. The range is the Belmont Rifle Range in Brisbane. The new suburb is an extension to Carindale. I don't have details of the test equipment or the testing organisation but it was to the satifaction of the EPA.

There were several test points with the closest being around 500m away from the range boundary. There were several monitors installed in the area for a period of time (a week?), so variable winds and different elevations but otherwise stationary at those points. The range is a public range so everything the public drag down there should've showed up during the testing. 50cal and the various 416 derivatives (416 Cheytac?), and the 338 Lapua are not allowed to be used on this range due to the "danger template" that has been approved for this range.

Our group, Big Game Rifle, has been labelled one of the main offenders for noise, and we have been proven guilty thanks to the testing. Our group shoot once a month and the testing technicians happened to be at site so that we could correlate our bangs with that being measured. We took the opportunity to check the 375 break and break-less, as that had also done with smaller cartidges from the bench (smaller being the 300WM - these are common and often braked in their tactical package). No difference at distance braked or un-braked.

We typically shoot 375H&H, 458WM, 416Rigby, 500NE & 505Gibbs as standard at our shoots, so we made the meters flicker a bit.

I haven't seen the report but have been told by club officials of the findings. Brakes can continue to be used except there are areas on the range where they can't be used but only to limit to noise coming back to the shooters and the main office.

Noise comes from energy and you need more energy to get more noise. Brakes just distribute at the firing line - the net result at distance is the same.

No doubt distance is your friend when it comes to noise and as the distance increase it become more so. Which should be an obvious. Distance is why I can’t hear the piper over your house from mine. What that distance is would be relative to the original decibels.

As far as your energy theory, the energy or noise as you define it, coming out of the muzzle is the same braked or not.

Read on:

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/08/07/muzzle-brakes-sound-test/

At some point you do get far enough away. However, that distance changes with the cartridge. Think.243W
vs .50BMG.

Still interested in your testing equipment.

Addition: question answered, thanks.

Addition 2: I have two gun clubs approximately 5 miles away. When conditions are right you can hear the cadence of them shooting trap.

Funny, I disagreed with battues reasoning earlier.
You have a set amount of energy, it's the distribution...

But then I considered an automotive muffler.
It turns noise energy into heat.

Energy, redistributed.

So, could a brake, allow more sound to be emitted from
the burning gas energy?

Or the fireball when that hot gas hits oxygen?

Suddenly, I know less.

Don't know the meters but they were good ones - the same type that EPA use the data from when they take people to court.

That testing article you linked was done at close range (60 feet) and in 2 positions - to the side and behind where you'd expect the brake to increase the sound level.

We can't compare the results - our testing was at longer distance. The bulk of the test points would have been towards the front and side of the firing line.

The article address the same:


“So you can theoretically use the inverse-square law to scale the sound measurements to whatever distance you’re interested in. In fact, there are calculators designed to do just that.”

You are absolutely correct with regard increased distance eventually negating the issue. However, shooters in relatively closer confines lack the advantage.

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.

show me where the de-celeration vector is (definition of braking), please review your thermodynamics and the basic recoil equation again.

not saying that there isn't an effect, just negligible , and as I said previously the amt. of recoil reduction percentage is a ratio of the powder to ejecta total mass.

in a rifle as an example, the pressure is down to say, around 20k psi and velocity curve is almost flat. On exititing the pressure has dropped considerably more, and that reduced pressure (velocity of particles in gas) now occupies a volume that is around 100 times greater.as the volume, changes according to PV=P'V' before contacting any baffles.

some brakes/breaks, are angles back toward the shooter as in the fifty calibers, but the ration of powder to total ejecta mass is considerably higher than other caliber/powder combinations so is it the increased powder mass or the angles?

Etoh - you're making a very simple concept way too complicated. I already explained it for you, it is not any more complex than that.

A muzzle brake works the same way as the sail on a sailboat. Mass and speed of the air (wind) against the area of the sail.

Had a guy show up at the range with some sort of AK variant, with a muzzle brake, and start doing mag dumps.

I can take a few rounds without issue, but when somebody starts blasting mag after mag from a braked barrel, I get annoyed.

Sorry but your explanation is inadequate. the sail is affected by a continual stream of force, called thrust, there is no thrust component in this model

as you show no negative vector how about a negative scalar in the model. (decrease in gun recoil velocity) any amount is solely do to a subtraction of the ejecta amount.

any effect on baffles is do to (in most cases) the supersonic shock wave front hitting it, and while it has an impulse their is no thrust component. Thats why they are "louder" on the sides.

Take the case of "porting" recoil reduction with no baffles. MagnaPorting, shotgun porting, any baffle is the rear of the bullet or wad. And in particular when the ports are on the top of the barrel.

Do flash suppressors work with a solid bottom as muzzle breaks (intentional use), yes, by re-directing the gas/ejecta they change the torque moment, and effect muzzle flip, but no baffles are involved, simply an arithmetic subtraction of some of the ejecta.

In most cases adding front wt. on the end of the barrel has more effect than "relying on gas re-direction (breaking)"

Calculating the recoil in a shot fired is straight forward, and the wt. of the powder is added to the projectile wt.

subtracting the powder wt. gives the value the powder adds to this and the theoretical upper limit that can be used in any given caliber/bullet/powder combination

higher ratios of powder to projectile give the impression that this combination makes the compensator work more "efficient". This concept doesn't even include the gun weight, how can it be an across board comparison?

ex. 45 acp powder contribution 5/230 or .02% gun wt around 2lb

50 cal 250/800 around 30% gun wt. around 30 lbs

The science of it all notwithstanding, when a clown sits down next to me with a braked magnum (or even a braked 6.5 CM) I pack up and leave if I can't move to a bench far away from him. Aside from the re-directed noise, the re-directed concussive blast is also un-nerving- especially when I'm trying to work up loads for a light rifle and cringing while waiting for the next bench-clearing blast of hot gasses. My last encounter was with a clown shooting a braked Ruger tacticool chassis rifle of some sort in 6.5 CM that confirmed my take on the whole business. (And he wasn't hitting squat with it anyway.)

Use of brakes is entirely a guy's own business, his well earned right- up until he makes a nuisance of himself with it at a crowded range. It's no different than the kid with a loud hot rod, or an un-muffled Harley, who revs his engine needlessly in a quite residential neighborhood on a Sunday evening- inconsiderate at best.

Shaking my head Etoh. You're so focused on trying to be smart, you've missed some basic points and confused yourself on a very basic concept. This just ain't that hard.

your making it too simple, (confusing impulse and thrust) I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. (scratching head)

Did you act on impulse and thrust your head somewhere it doesn't belong?

We can agree that you're one of the only people I know of who refuses to understand how a muzzle brake works or why it's called a brake, not a break.

at least I'll can change my mind just show me the math

your cranialrectomorphism is so ingrained you cant change.

the we ( got a turd in your pocket) cant even acknowledge the term came about because others didn't agree with term brake.

Muzzle blast directed through a typical brake absolutely produces a louder report than without. Much in the same way breath blown through a whistle or horn is louder than even the most vigorous exhale expended directly to the atmosphere.

YES SIR!

No, it didn't. The only reason people call it a break is poor spelling, except for you. Nobody else is that confused.

A brake does not work by "jet thrust" - you're hung up on that and making a simple thing seem complicated. The truly laughable part is you don't seem to have any personal experience shooting a braked rifle or pistol to know how well they can work, you're just arguing based on your theories that you're convinced are more correct than reality.

How could you possibly know out of all the gun forums, and posts, and other people using spelling of break, that you are the only perfect speller? You Maroon.

Never said it worked by jet thrust, idiot, you are the one saying that, you still cant get it through that old head the difference between an impulse (shock wave) and continued push (thrust)

you never even read an earlier post why I liked compensators, fool

Guns Iam using with compensators.

Sako TRG 42 308
Sako TRG 44 300 Win Mag.
FN McMillan A5 300 short mag.
Ruger RPR 6.5
Ruger RPR 5.56
Troy AR 15 5.56
GAP Gladius 6.5
Ruger Pro Hunter 6.5
Clark Pin Gun
Mod. 41. S&W 22lr 7 in.
STI
to name some.

You can rant and rave all you want, but Im done with this thread.

Bingo. If the Internet has taught me one thing it's that people are more ignorant than I had previously thought. (That or people just don't give a hoot about spelling anymore.)

Come on guys - brake it up