Printable View
How much does a good muzzle brake reduce recoil? Used to shoot .243 a lot, before an injury made it risky due to recoil.
A 7/08 with a brake, would it be less recoil than the sporter barrel .243 or about the same? The .243 is tearing me up.
Is braked .243 recoil like a .223, and what is recoil with a .223 with brake?
Gonna have to do something if I'm going to be able to shoot much in larger caliber.
Is it a range rifle or a hunting rifle? If you only use it for the range you could look at adding some weight and a better recoil pad to the stock. You may also want to look into a shoulder pad like many shotgun shooters where over their coats.
Lighter, slower loads will produce less recoil as well.
Generally speaking about 40% - 50%. My muzzle braked .308 kicks like a .223 or less when I use 110gr bullets. Bullet weight is a big part of the recoil equation. 168gr bullet generates about 30% more recoil than a 110gr in .308, so try shooting a lighter bullet for target shooting. Honestly, I have never heard anyone describe a .243 as a hard kicker, and I thought the same about my 11 lb .308 until I started putting 30+ 175gr bullets downrange in an hour.
http://www.handloads.com/calc/recoil.asp
Shoulder is ok with recoil but not the neck and head. Had always shot the .243/.308 in the past, head injury prevents it now. Can't afford recoil due to that.
If the brake drops it significantly, that might get me by staying with the .243, set up to load for it. Never shot a brake on any rifle, didn't have any idea of reduction.
Just putting together a very light centerfire to play around with from the bench but won't get me by in deer season.
Thanks for the link.
Love my 10 series as listed in my sig. Factory braked, and extremely tame.
If I was setting up a rifle for target shooting and a major concern was recoil - LIGHT would not be in my mind at all, until I started choosing bullets to shoot.
Put some weight in the stock, if you are starting from scratch, get a bull contour barrel, and choose light for caliber bullets. Then, since you are loading your own, stay near starting load levels. Look into Hodgdon's H4895 youth load webpage. That powder can safely be reduced really low. Your gun will only know if the combination is accurate or not however.
Might I suggest you scroll down the page on the attached website and watch the 7 Dakota being shot. http://www.centershotrifles.com/sales/ There is so little recoil the shooter can watch the bullet print on the paper. For the cartridges you mention I suppose zero recoil and zero back blast too the shooter would be the order.
Very sorry to hear of this type of debilitation. As everyone has indicated, limbsaver type recoil pad. Full bull barrels and heavy stocks should also reduce the recoil on the 243 a lot.
Neal
If these ideas don't work for you then you may want to look into getting a barrel in something a 6mm BR Norma with 85gr to 95gr bullets.
One of our local smiths build stocks for hunting. Went yesterday and he suggested the brake, and changing the pitch slightly on the butt of the stock to drop slightly off the cheek.
Maybe a 7 or 8 twist .223, legal here for deer, could probably load heavier grain bullets? Don't push shots out past 200yrds for deer.
Install a C&H mercury recoil reducer in the stock. I have one in my .243 and it helps.
The Muscle brake with ports on the top from centershot rifles will help the most.
Charlie
check out the jp enterprise muzzle brakes I have one on my 300 rum and it now recoils less than a 12 pound 308
I have this one JP Tactical Compensators - Large Profile JPTRE-5.58S.875
watch the one on recoil
http://www.jprifles.com/4.1.php
http://www.jprifles.com/instructions...n%20Guide1.pdf
Quote:
A cartridge like the .243 Winchester has so much gas recoil, being such a hot cartridge
compared to its relatively lightweight projectile, that it becomes virtually recoilless with a good,
efficient compensator like the JP Recoil Eliminator. The average reduction of recoil experienced
with our Tactical Compensators and Recoil Eliminators is about 70%, but you may see more or
less given your particular circumstances.
Mmmm. I loved shooting this gun. It really surprised me how much the brake tamed it down. I was expecting alot more recoil.... But it is freakin LOUD!!!....LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by viper9696
Have you considered a suppressor?
You get the recoil reduction of a brake AND greatly reduced muzzle blast.
Of these three brakes mentioned, is any one of them less loud while offering the recoil reduction? They are all priced about the same. Don't know which design the smith mentioned to me last week, he says it might lighten by 25-30%.
Am loading light with slow burning powder and will most likely replace the barrel with something heavier than a sporter, like a magnum taper.
Am about to get a .20 vartarg up and shooting next week, that will be a light bench gun with little recoil to deal with.
Does a suppressor require a license?
Thanks Everyone.
I am not sure if Jim has published the following data before me or not. His wife is an audiologist and has some very expensive sound measuring equipment. Jim used the 260 Remington rifle as a base test, minus a brake and measured the decibel sound to the shooter at 119. He then took his 7 RUM with muscle brake which holds twice the powder of the 260 Rem and registered a 121. decibel to the shooter reading.
Neal
yes it is a $200 Fed tax stamp, FBI background check , your local police chiefs signature and about 6 month wait the last I checked.Quote:
Does a suppressor require a license?
A muzzle brake does not (necessarily) make a gun produce more decibels of noise. I does change the direction of the sound waves and produces [higher frequency sound] which is not readable as more db's on a standard meter. Yes they do hurt the ears more of people around the gun due to this... ;)
My 116 in 7mm mag used to really be a pain to shoot, light weight and belted magnum cases are not a good mix, I had a brake put on it and now it has less felt recoil with full power 160 grain loads than my 7-08 with 140 gr loads. Yes it is loud, but I just use my ear plugs from work while hunting, they are light weyght plastic that clamp around my neck, when I see a critter I just pop them in and then shoot.
Mike
A $200 tax stamp is required, along with some paperwork. The hardest part it the wait. Mine have been going through in 90-100 days. I would suggest doing your first transfer through someone like www.major-malfunction.comQuote:
Originally Posted by appleseed
check your state rules also, Minnesota says no way in heck can you have one.Quote:
Originally Posted by jhurst
From the AAC silencer website:
Contrary to popular belief, silencers are and always have been legal to own under federal law. At this time, the following states allow private ownership of silencers: AL, AR, AK, AZ, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MS, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, WV, and WY. Of the fourteen states that do not allow civilian ownership, CA, IA, MA, MO, and MI allow Class 3 dealers and Class 2 manufacturers to possess silencers.
I own my suppressors through a Revocable Living Trust (made using Quicken Willmaker, pre-2010). With a trust you do not need the LEO signoff, fingerprint cards, or photograph. The cost is the same, $200 to BATFE. The Trustee of the Trust can use the suppressors, and so can co-Trustees when allowed by the Trust language. It's a way to allow a friend or family member to use the suppressor without you there. With a revocable trust you can add or sell items from the Trust, and ownership is by the Trust.
It certainly does. You have to register it just like a full- auto firearm or a "sawed off" shotgun or rifle. All of these are covered by the National firearms Act of 1934Quote:
Originally Posted by appleseed
Here is a pistol chambered in 338x300 wsm shooting a 250 accubond. this is with the muscle brake from centershot rifles...
http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/c...h_DSCF5495.jpg
The trick is that you can own the suppressor, but not necessarily use it. That's the way the law is here in Washington. Sure you can pay your money and jump through all of the hoops, you just can't actually use the suppressor on a weapon. Nobody understands this, but that's just the way it is here.Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe3
Andrew
yorketransport,
Washington State is the only State that has a law like that. It seems awfully dumb doesn't it? I know people in WA who own suppressors and drive to Oregon or Idaho to shoot their weapons with their suppressors. Others shoot clandestinely in WA State with suppressors in remote places where they wouldn't get caught. People who live there need to get someone in their legislature onboard and change the State law to allow shooting too in the State with their suppressor. After all, it's a safety issue, since it preserves hearing. Do it for the children! ;)
Now I'm just mad! I thought that there had to be other states with similar laws. >:( I've still come awfully close to getting a suppressor then making the trek out of state to use it. Because I would never use it in the garage, with 22 subsonics and a bullet trap. :-X ;)
Andrew
Muzzle brake efficiency and effectiveness are determined by three factors:
1. Capture ratio - how much propellant gas is diverted vs. that which follows the bullet
2. Muzzle pressure - the remaining propellant gas pressure at bullet exit that is available for the muzzle brake to act upon. The higher the pressure, the more work the brake can accomplish.
3. Design efficiency - how well the muzzle brake handles the gas flow
Generally, the smaller diameter and lighter the projectile and the larger the propellant mass, the more effective the brake can be. When muzzle brakes are very efficient, it causes other problems. The propellant energy can be redirected but not eliminated. If they are efficient, they are very loud. The pressure region shifts from the muzzle to produce large lobes beside and behind the brake. This could even be dangerous to shooters on either side.
Very good info, thank you!