Printable View
Guys,
Many moons ago I grabbed a barrel in 338RUM that had a factory on/off style brake fitted.
Any idea whether the Savage brakes are caliber specific to any degree?
Considering seeing whether the thread can be matched by my gunsmith and the brake fitted to a 30 cal rifle.
Cheers...
I would imagine the closer the baffles are to the bullet the more effective they are at diverting the gas...not sure how much effectiveness you would lose.
A lot of variables that contribute to the effectiveness of a brake overall (muzzle rise, reduction of felt recoil), and yes- it's generally held that "too generous" a clearance will slightly reduce effectiveness. But an extra thirty thousandths isn't extreme....what you want to do will be fine. Typically, I ream brakes to twenty thousandths or so over bullet diameter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Con
Thread dia/pitch is no problem, provided your .30 cal barrel has sufficient diameter at the muzzle (likely 5/8" or 3/4")
Thread pitch for the adjustable brakes is 9/16" X 28 TPI. Your gunsmith should be able to match the thread, and it should work okay with a .30 cal barrel.
A lot of folks hate brakes but I for one love the adjustable brakes.
Here's an article on disassembly in case you need it and always after shooting keep it clean, lubed and work it back and forth because they can be a bear if it locks up.
http://www.savageshooters.com/conten...ke-Disassembly
The Savage off/on brakes never offered much in recoil reduction from the get go because of the large amount of clearance. Using a .338 caliber brake on a .30 caliber barrel will do nothing more than create a lot of unwanted noise.
If their brake is oversize to begin with, maybe a different story.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharpshooter
But I strongly disagree that a correctly bored brake at .358 will just create "noise" as compared to .328. Just not so.
Have you ever tested any on a recoil fixture?
Have you?
People use 308 brakes on 264 all the time and there was an article it only affected the actual recoil reduction by 2-3 percent.
Here it is.
https://info.americanprecisionarms.c...-6.5-creedmoor
I have the on/off brake on a 7mm Rem Mag (long range hunter) and a 300 WSM (bear hunter). It sure seemed to reduce the recoil plenty on those.
Makes a huge difference on a 111 FYCAK in .270, a 116FLCSAK in 30-06, and a 116 FLSAK in .300RUM too They are sure enough loud but that's what hearing protection is for.Quote:
Originally Posted by want2ride
As a matter of fact I been testing brakes for over 25 years. I have a return to battery rest that rides on Thompson linear ball bearings.....about as simple as it gets. You don't need all that hi tech equipment to see a result, just a tape measure. Taking shots with and without the brake will tell you how much the reduction is. Do the math and it will give you a percentage. 99% of the brakes that are on the market will only yield no more than 40% recoil reduction in the best case scenario. Best case scenario is when a cartridge uses a lot of powder over a light bullet, so with shorter cartridges and heavier bullets the results are less.
Among all the brakes I have tested, the factory Savage on/off brake was about the least effective. With Fed GMM in .308, the results were a dismal 16%. This can be attributed to .040" bullet clearance and the fact the diameter of brake is too small to effectively turn the gas. A video in the dark confirms that the gas exits straight out the muzzle before the bullet does, and does not exit through the ports of the brake. The only thing that the port redirected was the noise.
I also tested the factory brake on the 110 BA .338 Lapua. With 250 gr. loads ( for best case scenario) the result was a whopping 35% reduction in recoil and about 3000% increase in noise. Probably because the clearance was .087". I custom built a brake for that rifle and caliber, and the result was 60% reduction.
My curiosity has been triggered. No pun intended.
So in my neglected mind, this sounds like a considerable amount of recoil is actually the result of gasses escaping at the muzzle acting to direct pressures rearward. And has only little to do with the projectile? Seems we can’t ignore physics here? Been a minute since I’ve taken physics but I would still bet Force = mass x acceleration.
Edit. Figured I would weigh in just a smidge more and ask some questions.
I need to Calculate this out.
SS Using the example above with a ‘free’ recoiling apparatus...Ever ran a calculation to determine your friction coefficient? Seems that a very small change in the force is actually an appreciable recoil reduction? Something along the lines of reducing the rearward propulsion of the firearm by 1% equals a 30% recoil reduction? Those are just WAG numbers as it would be highly dependent on the weight of the firearm and the projectile.
I actually measured the friction from the carriage on the fixture with a trigger pull gauge. With a complete 13 lb. rifle in the fixture, pulling the carriage with the gauge it takes 1 lb of rolling resistance.