110 BA .338 without a brake?

[PepeLapiu]

Hey guys.
I have my eye on an old style 110 BA, the heavier one at 15 lbs in .338 LM.
I only shot a gun with a brake once, it was a .308 and I absolutely hated it.

With the heavier gun, I plan on getting an XLR Extreme buttstock. And in it, I will fill at least two of the stock cavities with either lead or those mercury recoil devises.
I''ll have to try and see which one helps reduce recoil the most. I guestimate lead in the buffer tube only would weight it down an other 2 lbs or so. And probably 3-4 lbs if 2-3 of the cavities are filled up with lead.

Weight is not an issue as it will be a prone gun to be moved around on my ATV and in my truck.

I would like to shoot the .338 LM without a brake. I never did shoot such a large caliber before. So I don't know what to expect.
What do you guys think? Will the recoil be manageable with the heavier 15 lbs rifle, a scope, bipod, and the stock filled with either lead or those mercury things?

[taylorce1]

Well I there is a great thing called a recoil calculator at handloads.com. I figured in a 20 lbs rifle shooting a 300 grain bullet at 2750 fps with a charge of 98 grains of powder. It kicked back it'll have the recoil of an 8.25 lbs .300 SAUM shooting a 180 grain bullet at 2960 fps, with the recoil velocity of an 7.5 lbs .243 Win shooting a 100 grain bullet at 2960 fps when comparing it to a rifle recoil table. So what does it all mean? It means you're going to have to try it to see if you can tolerate it, because we all handle recoil differently.

If you don't like the noise of a brake, which I agree with maybe it's time for a suppressor.

[PepeLapiu]

Well I there is a great thing called a recoil calculator at handloads.com. I figured in a 20 lbs rifle shooting a 300 grain bullet at 2750 fps with a charge of 98 grains of powder. It kicked back it'll have the recoil of an 8.25 lbs .300 SAUM shooting a 180 grain bullet at 2960 fps, with the recoil velocity of an 7.5 lbs .243 Win shooting a 100 grain bullet at 2960 fps when comparing it to a rifle recoil table. So what does it all mean? It means you're going to have to try it to see if you can tolerate it, because we all handle recoil differently.

If you don't like the noise of a brake, which I agree with maybe it's time for a suppressor.

Suppressors are illegal in Canada. While that wouldn't stop me normally, I plan on shooting it at a gun range until I get beyond 1000 meters with it.
Thanx for the site. I'll check it out. Maybe with a thick recoil pad along with my lead or mercury, and a diffuser on the nose,it might be manageable.

I shoot clay and slugs all the time and those don't bother me. So not sure about this rifle yet.

[PepeLapiu]

Well your link puts a 9.5 lbs 338 Lapua Mag. rifle loaded with 225 gr bullet at 3000 fps at 37.2 ft*lbs of recoil energy with 15.9 fps of recoil velocity. Mind you, if the heavier 110 BA comes in at 20 lbs loaded with glass and stuff, that more than cuts this recoil to half from the numbers here.

Considering your link puts my clay gun 32 ft*lbs of recoil energy. And I can operate tgat gun all day long.

But all these numbers only tell part of the story I think. Because I can tell you for a fact that 1.25 oz of slug recoils a great deal more than 1.25 oz of bird shot.

Best I can do as you say, is to try it. But that gun will become a very expensive paper weight if I am forced to shoot it with a brake on. I imagine it would be ridiculously loud and unpleasant with a brake.

[taylorce1]

Considering your link puts my clay gun 32 ft*lbs of recoil energy. And I can operate tgat gun all day long.

Try laying down and shooting your clay shotgun from the prone. I'm willing to bet you can't shoot it all day from that position. Shooting prone and shooting offhand are two different animals when it comes to allowing your body to absorb recoil.

If your goal is a 1000+ meters, there are plenty of lower recouping rifles that will get there. 6mm & 6.5mm Creedmoor are two that come to mind. If you have to have a magnum 6.5 GAP, 7mm and .300 WSM/Magnums will do it as well.

[CBryars2]

Recoil without brake is pretty steep, just shot my 338 stealth without break to set baseline for suppressor. Got my intention, used a recoil vest to help. Put supressor on and it was night and day, recoil more a push than sharp. Noticably less muzzle rise.

[bearcatrp]

Mine kicks pretty good with a brake. No way would I shoot mine without one.

[PepeLapiu]

Mine kicks pretty good with a brake. No way would I shoot mine without one.

How heavy is your gun with scope and all the goodies attached?

[bearcatrp]

How heavy is your gun with scope and all the goodies attached?

Rifle, Burris XTR II 4-20x50, bipod, and full mag is around 15 lbs. Next time I have it upstairs to clean, will get on the scale but think I am pretty close.

[PepeLapiu]

Rifle, Burris XTR II 4-20x50, bipod, and full mag is around 15 lbs. Next time I have it upstairs to clean, will get on the scale but think I am pretty close.

Well my planned set-up will be somewhat different than your.
The older version of the 110BA I plan on buying goes on the scale at almost 16 pounds with nothing on it. So once I add the goodies (scope, bipod, and heavier XLR buttshock) I expect the gun to tip the scale at over 20 pounds or more. If I find the recoil still too hard to handle I just might pour some lead in the XLR stock buffer tube to add an other 3-4 pounds.

We are now talking about a possibly 25 lbs gun. So the felt recoil should be substantially reduced when compared to your much lighter rig.

Also I have considered the muzzle rise.

So the buttshock will be raised as high as it can go so the gun recoils more straight back into my shoulder. Kind of like an AR recoils if you will. But I think the .338 LM probably kicks slightly more than a .223. :D

To accommodate the higher stock, I will likely need a higher scope mount. That will need to be considered when I have the gun in hand.

So you found the recoil without the brake intolerable? Or still tolerable but just more harsh than with the brake?

[bearcatrp]

Never took mine off since it kicks enough the way it is. Your weight may help but you won't know until you try it. Sent you a PM.

[PepeLapiu]

And than there is always this:
https://mesatactical.com/products/en...ffer-mil-spec/
But that wouldn't allow me to get the planned XLT Extreme buttstock. So no added weight in the buffer tube and no really cool looking fully adjustable buttstock.

I don't know which would be more effective. A 3-4 lbs lead weight added to the gun or this recoil buffer tube. It better work very well because it's rather expensive.

[PepeLapiu]

And than there is this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2UOqutsTn5U

I think the recoil absorbing buffer tube and this recoil absorbing stock together would likely make that 20 pound gun really tame.

I'm sold!

I'm going for the old style 110 BA without a brake.
If that is too much recoil, I'll get a buffer tube and a stock as previously linked.

[Zero333]

If the rifle weights around 20 lbs I could shoot it all day with out a brake.

I have a 17 lb 300winmag I could not stand shooting with a brake (huge concussion blast gave me headache, and I'm sure folk around me had a headache too). The brake was a bit too efficient in my opinion. The rifle didn't even move with it on.

After I took the brake off, it kicked, but not enough to be unpleasant.

Shooting 240smk at 2,750 fps out of it. Might not be as powerful as a 338 LM, but the comparison is worth mentioning.

One more small detail.... The rifle has a LIMBSAVER recoil pad. By far the best recoil pad I've ever used.

[PepeLapiu]

If the rifle weights around 20 lbs I could shoot it all day with out a brake.

Well the gun might actually end up weighting more than 20 lbs, especially if I pour lead in the XLR stock cavities.
Than the recoil absorbing buffer tube I could fit on which I know works very well on shotguns.
Than there is the 1 inch butt pad upgrade for the XLR buttstock.
Than there is also the GL-SHOCK Fab Defense stock if all else fails.
So I think it won't be as bad as I previously though.

I have a 17 lb 300winmag I could not stand shooting with a brake (huge concussion blast gave me headache, and I'm sure folk around me had a headache too).

I know exactly what you mean. Now imagine how much louder and more powerful the concussion would be on a .338 LM gun.

To me, the loudness of the gun creates the illusion that the gun recoils more than it actually does. I shot a .308 with a brake and I felt like it recoils more than a .308 without brake. I know tgat's not logical but how loud it was made me feel that way.

[yobuck]

There could be a long discussion regarding noise level and brakes.
Test have shown the decibel level is not increased, and in some cases decreased with the addition of a brake.

[PepeLapiu]

There could be a long discussion regarding noise level and brakes.
Test have shown the decibel level is not increased, and in some cases decreased with the addition of a brake.

I find it hard to believe.
I think the brake just redirects the noise towards the shooter while probably making it a bit less noisy if you are downrange.
I really would like to see a study that shows a brake to make it less noisy from a shooter's perspective.

From the target's perspective hearing comfort is the least of your problems.

[FW Conch]

The noise issue can and should be dealt with.

With a break, I think the concussion is the bigger problem.

But I would rather put up with both than risk a detached retina! :-((

[PepeLapiu]

The noise issue can and should be dealt with.

With a break, I think the concussion is the bigger problem.

But I would rather put up with both than risk a detached retina! :-((

I don't get it. Are you saying recoil without a brake could cause detached retina? Or with a brake?

[taylorce1]

I still say if you're that worried about recoil go to a smaller cartridge.

[PepeLapiu]

I still say if you're that worried about recoil go to a smaller cartridge.

Well I WAS worried. Not because I'm scared of the recoil but because I just don't know what to expect.

But now I am confident that with one of those recoil buffer tubes, and a decent butt pad I can probably manage it

If that's not sufficient, I can always add the Fab Defense GL-SHOCK buttstock or add some weight to the XLR stock by pouring lead into it.

The gun will get on the scare at over 20 lbs after scope, high rings, bipod, and bubble have been added. So how bad can it be?

I also saw a guy at the range once wearing a floatation vest. I'm guessing that was for recoil. That can be a last resort option. But I'd rather not be walking around the range with a bright red flotation devise on me.

[JASmith]

I have seen what are called shrouded brakes. The shroud directs the reduced velocity gas forward and acts as a blast shield for the shooter.

Since they don't reduce the overall sound intensity, they are allowed in California.

Would they be legal in Canada?

[PepeLapiu]

I have seen what are called shrouded brakes. The shroud directs the reduced velocity gas forward and acts as a blast shield for the shooter.

Since they don't reduce the overall sound intensity, they are allowed in California.

Would they be legal in Canada?

That's interesting and worth the try. Here's what I found :
https://www.toolsforliberty.com/prod...e-muzzle-brake
It certainly is worth trying.
Thanx.

When I'm done with that gun I have the feeling it will be a ***** cat even the wife won't be scared to try.
I'm pretty sure if it's legal in Communist Cali it's also legal here in Communist Canada.

[FW Conch]

My question would be, is this product as effective as an unshrouded brake? I believe the purpose of the brake is reduce recoil by diverting the gas out/and or back. It seems a shroud would lessen the breaks ability to do this?

Yes, a round like a 338 Lapua could cause a detached retina, if the recoil is not controlled. Every 338 Lapua rifle I have seen has had a muzzle break. Old eye cells like mine get weaker with age, and are subject to damage from concussions produced from heavy recoiling rifles. Of course, the more weight that is added to the rifle, the less the problem. And good recoil pads also help. Even when shooting My 06 or 270 from the bench, I add the slip on Limbsaver, because what didn't bother Me 30 years ago, I definitely feel now.

[PepeLapiu]

My question would be, is this product as effective as an unshrouded brake? I believe the purpose of the brake is reduce recoil by diverting the gas out/and or back. It seems a shroud would lessen the breaks ability to do this?

I believe you are correct. I don't think this thing would be as effective as a regular brake. I will be conducting some tests when I do get it.
But think of it this way. Imagine 10 gal/min of water coming out of a garden hose. The pressure would be extreme and you'd have to hold on to the hose pretty firmly as it would push back a bit.
Now imagine the same 10 gal/min of water coming out of a fire hose. Suddenly the pressure is relieved a great deal. And you can pretty much hold the hose with a limp hand.
I'm thinking this thing would work in a similar manner. Now you have the same amount of heated pressurized gas coming out of a much larger aperture (1.5" maybe?) instead of a 0.338" size hole.
So it would be acting more like a diffuser than a brake.
Of course you wouldn't have the counter action to recoil directing gasses backwards. I'll just have to try it. Under 100$ it's one of the cheapest large bore brakes out there.

And maybe it might actually make it less noisy for the shooter. I don't know. I'll just have to try it.