I have a new 6.5-300 Wby coming in. It's the first bolt rifle I have had that comes with a brake and, I think, a thread protector in lieu thereof.

I'm tempted not to shoot it with the brake, but would be interested in the thoughts of others who have used them.

I have another 6.5-300 in a different model, and the recoil doesn't seem to bother me.

But what do you all with experience prefer? Less physical impact and more noise with the brake? Or more physical impact and less noise without it?

How does the brake affect the POI or accuracy if at all?

MH,

POI shift with and without a brake depends on the brake and the barrel, but usually doesn't change much, IME. You'll have to check and see how POI compares for your rifle. The benefits of using a brake obviously include reduced recoil, but IMO even more important is that your ability to stay on target through the scope is increased (i.e., you can spot your shot easier). The downside is increased muzzle blast. For a hunting rifle, if you want to use a brake you had better be sure that you and anybody you're with has hearing protection. Once when I was guiding a caribou hunter who had brought a Rifles, Inc. chambered in 7 STW with a radial brake, we got settled on some bulls at about 180 yards and there was a hummock right in front of us. I had the hunter go prone over his pack on the hummock, while I laid beside him watching the bulls through my bino. I told him which bull to shoot and gave him the green light, and all of a sudden my near-side ear was struck by lightning. Well, sort of. He had repositioned and moved backward a bit so that the muzzle of his rifle was even with my head and about 2 feet to the side. I'm sure the blast from that braked 7 STW caused some degree of permanent hearing damage in that ear.

Bottom line, if you're hunting with it and don't plan to be really diligent about hearing protection, I'd run the brake in the off-season when practicing, but would take it off when hunting. Just check POI with and without the brake, and re-zero accordingly.

I've been hunting with braked rifles, even non-magnums, almost exclusively since the late 1980s. I wear comfortable in-the-ear-canal noise-dampening hearing protection all the time. No regrets.

I agree with Jordan above. Being able to stay on target, even to see the reaction on impact (even, sometimes, discerning a clean miss vs. a hit) is well worth the extra noise to me.

Invest in good hearing protection. IMHO, don't worry about the brake.

In my experience, POI may or may not be affected, when replacing the brake with a thread protector, depending on the rifle/load.

My personal preference is to hunt without a brake, even hunting mostly alone.. Sometimes there just isn’t time to get ear protection in.
I occasionally use a brake in the off-season for the range and then swap back and re-zero before the season. POI is always slightly different IME.

Thanks for the comments and advice guys. If I do go with the brake for hunting, I think I would need to get some electronic ear plugs because I always hunt with a brimmed hat and want to be able to hear the squirrels pretending to be big game; so, regular plugs and any type of muffs are out. Does anyone have any recommendations on what ones to get?

At the range, I always wear double hearing protection.

I can’t comment on electronic hearing protection. I use the standard Howard Leight ear plug band while hunting. I usually have time to get them in.

I would recommend a gill brake over a radial brake due to flying dust/debris when shooting from prone in the field IME.

+1

Thanks for the comments. Below is what comes with the rifle. Not good for prone shooting?

Expelling gases are directed straight down into the dirt. It’s just like pointing a blow gun directly at the ground from 9” and giving it a shot of air. Dust, dirt, snow, water, flies everywhere. It’s also enough energy to tear apart a rifle case if you don’t pay attention...

I cannot see running a brake on a hunting rifle.

If shooting long range and you want to watch hits you have three options...smaller gun, heavy gun, or a brake.

The first time I took my .375 RUM to the range I had to quit shooting after only 6 shots because the recoil was so bad. I had a KDF brake installed on it and that tamed it enough to work up a moa load with 300 grain TSX bullets. After my first African hunt with it I also put a recoil reducer in it's stock. The combination reduced the recoil enough that I worked up another moa load with 270 grain bullets. On my second African hunt with that rifle I comfortably shot several animals from prone positions.

Then about 12 years ago when I bought my .300 Weatherby, before I put the first shot through it I had a KDF brake put on it and I also put a recoil reducer in it's stock. It's felt recoil is at or less than my .308 Win in an almost identical rifle. I've since used this rifle on 10 or more hunt without any recoil concerns, even with many prone shots hunting and practicing.

I also have had a 7 mm Rem mag for about 20 years that I've used on many hunts. I do not have a brake on it, and I'm comfortable shooting it off a bench or prone.

I shoot pistols, rifles, and shotgun almost every week throughout the year and ALWAYS wear ear protection. I also wear ear protection at least 99% of the time when hunting.

If you need a brake, drop down a caliber...or five. Godawful things.

That was my initial inclination, Jorge. I would not have bought a brake for it, but it just came with one. It, like my Accuguard in the same caliber, will recoil a lot less than my .340 Wby or .375 Wby, which don't bother me. I just am curious to try it out. So, when I am shooting the first few shots from the bore-sighted rifle to get it a bit above the bullseye at 100 yds, I may shoot with the brake. Then, if I'm not liking that, take it off.

One question I don't think was answered, and perhaps there isn't an easy answer, is, aside from changes in POI, can a brake affect accuracy? I assume not, but I don't know what happens with pressure waves when a bullet is exiting at 3,500 fps through something with a bunch of staggered holes. It is probably nothing, but it someone experienced reduced accuracy with a brake, I would be eager to just put it in a drawer or tub somewhere in my garage.

I vote for no brake.

My opinion too, but don’t own anything bigger than a 338 Win mag. I have a couple of 300 Weatherby’s, but only load 150’s for them. None of the above bother me.

I ignore the “magnum” word! A 22 RF magnum certainly doesn’t need a brake......whereas a 460 Weatherby Magnum may need a brake!

It’s a very personal thing.......how comfortable behind the firearm! My personal comfort limit is about 20 rounds from the bench with 60 ft/lbs recoil from a properly fitted rifle with a good recoil pad! I suspect that my limit from an un braked, 10 pound 460 Weatherby may be one shot from the bench!

Personally, I hate a brake! If I must use a brake on my hunting rifle.....I will go to a different cartridge! memtb

Use your brake at the range to piss off guys like Jorge.

I just got a Weatherby Vanguard that came with a brake. I use it at the range while I’m doing load development off the bench. Plan to hunt without the brake, unless I bump into Jorge.

Thanks for the comments Memtb. I should have used the term "hard-recoiling rifle" instead of "magnum," but that was more typing. I meant one with a 90+gr case capacity or so.

I have never had issues with a change in accuracy using a brake only a change in POI. This necessitates re-zeroing if you remove the brake for hunting.

rifle brakes i don`t use one on my hunting rifles that are 257 Weatherby mags this cartridge the recoil is not that bad. i have a muzzle brake on my 338 Lapua that i plan on elk hunting with this fall and that recoil would be nasty without the muzzle brake.i also have a couple of 300 Win Mags. they do not have brakes on them i can still kinda handle them some but the 300 Win Mag. does have plenty recoil. i really don`t like muzzle brakes but brakes do help on big magnum rifles for many of us and as we get older those big magnums seem to have more recoil .

If anything, a brake potentially increases accuracy for two reasons. First, it reduces the recoil that can negatively affect accuracy if not well controlled, and second it results in recoil that is straight back, avoiding muzzle jump that can have a negative impact on accuracy.

It really depends on the brake. If you get one that doesn’t divert gasses in all directions. It can effect barrel whip. It’s rare but it happens.

buck frakes......

If I was given a rifle with a fixed brake, ie not threaded on, I'd pull a page from BS's book and hacksaw the damn thing off.

I shot one bear with one shot with a borrowed rifle wearing a brake. That was plenty for me, ears rang for a week. Made lots of money selling them and installing them though.

The Weatherby is already dang obnoxious as far as noise and blast. I think those two things if increased with a brake would be more likely to induce a flinch than the recoil for me. There are some supposed quiet muzzle brakes but I have not tried them. As for watching the shot it is hard to do with all the dust kicked up by a brake if you are shooting prone.

With the detachable brake and a screw protector you have the best of both worlds. Use the brake with muffs and plugs at the range and then test with out for final zero. The brake not only reduces recoil but you will not get crowded at the bench after you touch off the first round. A form of anti-social distancing.

That.


Only if yer on pavement... But grass/dirt etc., you're gonna get quite a cloud of crap over you...

When I have a customer ask me to install a brake the first thing I ask them is how it will be used......on the bench? On some rest while hunting? Or prone? When I hear anything about 'prone' I suggest a brake with no holes down so as to minimize that issue.. KDF makes a brake they refer to as 'sniper-style' with holes only on the sides and top, but not the bottom.. A good customer that I've built a few rifles for uses his for mostly long-range target shooting and all from a prone position.. He loves those KDF brakes w/o holes on the bottom.. And just two days ago he dropped of his rifle and a new barrel to be installed, and to add the brake to it as well..

Have repeated this a time or two...

According to Mule Deer, who doesn’t make stuff up, even doubled up on hearing protection, because of the way sound reaches the innards of your ears the level of noise with some braked rifles is high enough to damage your ears, and jorgeI’s too if he happens to be nearby, say at the next bench. Your rifle, your ears, your business, but have some consideration for the rest of us if you go that way.

Mine does not have a brake. Never missed it. Kicks less than a 7mm rem mag to me

Have one rifle with a brake - Accumark 30/378. I enjoy shooting the rifle from the bench because of the brake but do agree 100% in double ear protection and consideration for those around you. Last summer I set off two car alarms on the first shot - kinda funny but just tells you the noise and concussion coming out of the barrel. If I shoot at a public range I will always get away from others and notify those around me - unless some one plops down right beside me and starts in hammering me with their braked whatever - then it's the boys with the toys get out their tape measures to see who has the biggest... My brake serves a purpose for me but understand why others don't want them or be around them.

Mine doesn't have a brake either - 7 mag or maybe some 300 win mags are pretty good comparisons to me.

No brakes for me.

I have one rifle with more than one hole in the barrel a Marlin Guide Gun, nasty horrible noise far worse than the recoil. If I fired the rifle more than once or twice a year I’d saw the end off the barrel to get rid of the holes.

I had a 7mm REM Mag in a A-Bolt with the BOSS, went to the non-ported BOSS ASAP. That rifle has since been sold.

Like Jordan (probably only a year or two apart in time and a few miles in space) I had a magna-ported .300 WSM fired by a hunter I was guiding before I could plug my ear and after they had shifted a bit. The ear rung for days and I’m sure there was hearing loss incurred.

Had another hunter I was guiding with a braked rifle shooting prone on a big slab of granite even with my ears plugged (I developed the skill of plugging both ears with my little fingers whilst holding my binoculars) the noise and concussion were nasty.

I will not put a brake on a rifle and like Tinman stated above would saw it off if a braked rifle came to me.

In my opinion If a person “needs” a brake on a hunting rifle go down the recoil scale or spend more time in the gym. Target rifles could be a different situation.

Just my opinion.

I have one rifle with a brake, that I sometimes use. It's a 375 H&H AI. The brake helps when I'm shooting quite a bit.

I bought a 700 280 mountain rifle, a brake was cut into the barrel. It was the worst shooting Remington that I've ever had. I replaced the barrel with a take off and now it sub MOA all the time.

A 6.5 300 probably won't kick that bad, but a brake should work wonders as a good bit of the recoil would be the expelled gases.

I would try it both ways. If the POI doesn't change much, working up loads with the brake on would make sense, I suppose. I wouldn't hunt with a brake unless I had electronic ear protection. I shot that 375 H&H AI once without protection and my ears rang for a while. I'd bet I lost some hearing that day.

Amen brother. Loathsome things.

Do that and make sure you take the brake OFF before you go hunting and let us know when you get back from your hunt.

Due to a replaced sholder and pain before that I put a brake on my .06.Searching for ear protection I found most electronic muffs only reduce noise about 30 BD. So you can still get hearing damage at 70-80 DB . I use the muffs and plugs when hunitng if I am sitting and only the muffs while still hunting.

A Magnaport would be ideal as it does not spray blast and gasses out the bottom towards the ground and because the gas releases forward top and sideways, holds the barrel down for a more controllable recoil. It has a very pronounced benefit on a 26" .340 so I certainly would consider it for this hot 6.5. The other thing is that it does not raise muzzle blast in that I never noticed any change on 2 rifles I had done during testing for an article. (I paid for the Magnaport as Joe Citizen and am not endorsed)

I think I've decided against trying the brake for now. I just picked up the rifle and scoped it. It's 10lbs-15oz. And, when I take it to the range tomorrow, I'll put a 1lb bipod on it for the range work. I just don't think I need to reduce the recoil of the 6.5-300 in that package at the expense of all of the blast and noise.

I have 10% additional hearing loss in my Left Ear vs Right Ear due to one pull of the trigger on a braked rifle while shooting off the hood of a truck. I have shot other braked rifles since that incident. However, only one was mine. And it went down the road. I will work on stock fit, recoil pad, rifle weight, barrel contour, shooting technique, hearing protection, scope and scope mounts to mitigate recoil. Not a brake.

I love brakes in the right situation, like to go without them in other situations...........for example if I am coyote hunting I would never take a braked rifle because I don't wear hearing protection. when I am hunting prairie dogs or rock chucks most of my rifles are braked because I love spotting my own shot and it is not possible with a gun bigger than a 223 and hearing protection is always on................Big Game is a different story, depends on the situation, If I know it's going to be a really long shot I will take a braked rifle, If not I will take un braked rifle.........this is why a man needs many rifles to choose from !!!!!!!!!

Thanks for the comments BoatAnchor. I shot my rifle for the first time today, and didn't use the brake. Perhaps when I'm older, I might consider using one. But the 6.5-300 just doesn't kick hard enough in the rifle to bother me. If I wasn't worried about the extra length, I might consider a can. Don't they reduce both recoil and noise? If so, that would be nice, but it also seems like a lot of trouble. Without the brake, I still has able to see through the scope the huge ball of flame coming out of the end of the barrel each time I pulled the trigger.

Buy a can
Don’t look back

If you light one off with a brake, you best have ear protection on. You done fuucked up if you don’t. I jumped a pig one day, hit him on the run with a 300 Win mag with a brake. My ears rang for days, sold it, won’t have one now.

Shot once w a brake W no protection at an elk
Gun shop clerk said it was no big deal once in a while when hunting
That was 1995, my ears are still ringing
Almost never shot a center fire again until I got a can 20y later

+1....

Our 340 Weatherby magnum is not braked. That tells you all you need to know. If brakes were more of a blessing than a curse it would have one

I had a KDF varmint brake made up for my .338 Win Mag when I got it shortened to 23". I also got a muzzle cap. The brake did reduce recoil. subjectively it seemed similar to a .270 with 130 gr bullets.

I only used the brake a few times. They are obnoxiously loud and the blast on a covered range does not make friends. Hunting with one, everyone in the party has to have ear protection on at all times or they risk damage.

The brake is in my reloading die box and will stay there until I sell it or pass. A Decelerator pad and a McMillan stock were also added and seemed to help with the effect of recoil a lot.

Not a fan of brakes for hunting, don't like the brakes others use at the range. Had my papers and other items cleared off my bench by another persons brake, had to ask him to move to the end of the line where no one else was near. Have also had hot particles down my neck from a ported Marlin 45-70 shooting two benches away. Called a cease fire on that one.

My only braked rifle is my Ruger Scout 308 with 16.1" barrel. Really drops the recoil, so I understand the attraction. Side vented. Not nearly as obnoxious as a big magnum with a brake. But still louder than unbraked.

Well, I'm building a 338 RUM. It will have a Fat Bastard brake.

Rifle fire causes irreversible hearing damage with or without a brake. I hunt solo and use both hearing protection and a brake. No issues.

I hate them,,I've been blasted to many times!!

I agree. I use brakes on both of my centerfire hunting rifles and am able to see the reaction on impact. I wear electronic ear muffs, so noise is not a factor. However, I hunt exclusively from tree stands, so I don't see any disadvantages in using a brake. I have heard that they are rough on scopes, due to the way rifle recoil is affected but don't know that for sure, as I only use my hunting rifles during deer season.

Hate being next to them at the range, would never be able to bring myself around to subjecting others to the blast and puff. Would never use them out hunting. I try and use ear muffs when I'm out hunting but don't always get a chance to put them on.

I always us hearing protection when at the range,but hunting I don't.I've had a hearing test recently and it checked out good,so I guess all the years of shooting hasn't hurt them too bad.More damage has been done by diesel engines that gave me tinnitus than a few gun blast when hunting. I recently bought a rifle that has a no name break on it.I shot it on a hunt without hearing protection and I really didn't notice it to be offensively load or any different than my non braked rifle.I can say one thing about it,this has to be the best recoil reducing brake I've ever shot.It's on my 300 Win Mag and I feel really nothing.It's like shooting a really small caliber rifle.

Mine feels like a 30-06 kick. I do not have a MB on it.

Putting a can on a WBY is like putting 20" rims on a corvette.

i am not a person who uses a brake on my hunting rifles except for my 338 Lapua that`s when i draw the line and i put a brake on this rifle.