Swarovski1 Posted December 29, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2013 We will see brown dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdt Posted December 30, 2013 Report Share Posted December 30, 2013 the new titanium muzzle brake and the new silencer from third eye are the dogs boll$%cks fitted them to my 308 remi ltr they take all the bark out of the 20 inch barrel,the quality and price take some beating and Craigs service is first class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotch_egg Posted December 31, 2013 Report Share Posted December 31, 2013 We will see brown dog I know who my money is on...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronin Posted December 31, 2013 Report Share Posted December 31, 2013 We will see brown dog You have no idea,,,,, A lifetimes experience in "large calibre munition deliverance" and you challenge it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarovski1 Posted December 31, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 31, 2013 You maybe right brown dog as I sent laurie and baldie a pm about it and no challenge to date..............! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagged 77 Posted December 31, 2013 Report Share Posted December 31, 2013 You maybe right brown dog as I sent laurie and baldie a pm about it and no challenge to date..............!Write to Mythbusters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradders Posted December 31, 2013 Report Share Posted December 31, 2013 the new titanium muzzle brake and the new silencer from third eye are the dogs boll$%cks fitted them to my 308 remi ltr they take all the bark out of the 20 inch barrel,the quality and price take some beating and Craigs service is first class That's an evolution of my brake BTW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdt Posted December 31, 2013 Report Share Posted December 31, 2013 As I understand only available directly from your self or evo ,either way a very well designed and made tactical brake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradders Posted January 1, 2014 Report Share Posted January 1, 2014 As I understand only available directly from your self or evo ,either way a very well designed and made tactical brake Thanks Going back a bit, I can't say I'm entirely convinced about the exit hole size argument, because as I see it, the gas will expand in every direction it can as soon as it leaved the muzzle, and isn't necessarily going to follow the bullet. Besides, if you wanted the first and second ports of perform equally, then the bore hole between them would have to be huge, and this would actually reduce the performance of the brake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted January 1, 2014 Report Share Posted January 1, 2014 This is worth a read. A chap called Ray Bertalotto did some extensive experiments: http://rvbprecision.com/shooting/adventures-with-muzzle-brakes.html "Best accuracy and effectiveness of the brake was obtained with .020″ over bullet diameter. There was no measurable reduction in recoil between .005 and .020. Measurable change in recoil happened at .040″ over bullet diameter. Any exit hole over .040 and the brake began to lose effectiveness rapidly." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swarovski1 Posted January 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Nice one sherlock, that would explains why my 30 cal brake doest tame my 6.5 06 too good then assuming the 30 cal hole is more than 40 fow bigger than my 6.5 bullet, I will check and report back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jungle_re Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 the new titanium muzzle brake and the new silencer from third eye are the dogs boll$%cks fitted them to my 308 remi ltr they take all the bark out of the 20 inch barrel,the quality and price take some beating and Craigs service is first class Tease you hot to put some pics of the paired mod also!!! Pretty please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 This is worth a read. A chap called Ray Bertalotto did some extensive experiments: http://rvbprecision.com/shooting/adventures-with-muzzle-brakes.html "Best accuracy and effectiveness of the brake was obtained with .020″ over bullet diameter. There was no measurable reduction in recoil between .005 and .020. Measurable change in recoil happened at .040″ over bullet diameter. Any exit hole over .040 and the brake began to lose effectiveness rapidly." Before you set poor old Swaro away chasing his tale with his new 'certainty' from this chaps garage science.....I can't determine from that what design type the chap playing with.....nor what variables he changed.....nor controlled.....I also didn't find the presentation and analysis of his results to show his extensive spread of data to support such certain conclusions. ...........reads to me as a bloke playing in his garage with cylindrical tube designs with radial holes and finding what he expected to find.........don't think he was playing with deflector plate designs. I did spot that he mentions the JP 'tank' brake as the most effective recoil reducer...but appears to conduct no experiments with it to test his conclusion. The brake that looks like a tank brake is the most effective recoil reducer............hmmm Think about it; defence ordnance companies spend millions on real science to bring their products to market; and something that looks like one of those products gives the greatest recoil reduction on a rifle. But notice he mentions how unpleasant it is to use. I said it before, but total system efficiency over around 30% becomes unpleasant/damaging to the user. A hugely well designed brake (eg JP enterprises) will be extremely tolerant of exit hole size, infact, it may be too efficient (if the blast overpressure stops you using it). Whereas a less 'intrinsically' efficient design will need closer tolerancing to reach the 30% system efficiency...perhaps this applies to brakes of the cylindrical vais-type? There's more to this than a bloke in his garage with a hacksaw Google M777 if you want to see state of the art muzzle brake design derived from science to tame the recoil on the lightest 155mm gun made. It's design balances maximum recoil reduction with minimum damage to the detachment. Notice how -contrary to many commercial rifle designs - the deflectors angle forwards. - it's about gas deflection, not venturis. Overall then, if we accept 30%, as the optimum efficiency for a fitted brake - there are infinite ways of reaching that figure. A 100% design that loses 70% due to the loose tolerancing Or a 40% design that loses only 25% due to tight tolerancing .........and either of those options, or any in-between, would be totally fit for purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonhunter Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Guys I kept quiet on this thread because I did not want to be a party pooper and there are so many full time professionals here However can I like to point out that NOBODY in the uk has actually measure the efficiency of brakes they made or methodically demonstarte how their design came about.... In the last 9 years I have purchased 11 brakes from different firms and they all claim to be the so call dogs broccoli They all work to a certain degree but how efficiently This clearance THING is also another myth that's been doing the rounds on the Internet My hunting buddy in Germany actually design brakes for howitzers for the German army and he laughed at what I hightened to him Please please I stress again I am NOT trying to start an argument here or to demonstrate how much I know I am just a regular punter who wants to know what I am buying - I know nothing More than an average punter That's all Here is a link to lutz's page about brake design and the mathematics behind it Before somebody wants to slag him off He is a physicist by training He has been a consultant to lapua for many projects I hunted with him only a month ago with the lapua boys in Finland and he does design brakes for artillery Have fun and get your maths books out http://lutzmoeller.net/Bremse/Rueckstossbremse.php Here is a photo when I took him for a tour of Bisley this summer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuggy Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 I think that Bartelloto's tests were all on the Vais pepper pot style. Nothing wrong with a cut and try approach, but Brown Dog is correct: the military brakes are designed using Computational Fluid Dynamics software code. IIRC the best artillery muzzle brakes achieve around 40% efficiency. Better figures are possible, but like he says, these start to become very dangerous for the gun crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonhunter Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 When you guys have finished with the mathematics of lutz's designs on brake I will share a video of a quantitative brake test by another friend of mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagged 77 Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Always thought this was quite entertaining. I've not shot one of their brakes but I have shot the standard R700 MLR .338 they're using - basically a 700 Police in 338. It kicked hard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonhunter Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Again has it been quantitatively been compared and tested ? It's just impressive That's all Btw brown dog 70+ % reduction is entirely possible with brakes only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagged 77 Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Again has it been quantitatively been compared and tested ? It's just impressive That's all Btw brown dog 70+ % reduction is entirely possible with brakes only I haven't got a clue and quite frankly I don't really care, I just found it to be an entertaining demonstration. I'll leave you to argue numbers I'd rather shoot and find out what works for me first hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonhunter Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Happy new year my friend No arguments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagged 77 Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Happy new year my friend No arguments No, no arguments here either, happy New Year to you too (now back at work and holidays seem like a distant memory already!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Btw brown dog 70+ % reduction is entirely possible with brakes only umm, I know . In theory there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is: What one reaches is a practical limit. When you need double hearing protection and your sinuses still drip; it's been breached. My memory brings up 30% as 'comfort' unshielded. 40% someone listed earlier is a figure for 'shielded' (ie there's metal such as a turret wall between you and the brake - but people may still be outside or around the turret on occasion) Your pal's brakes have holes so big he is essentially creating deflection plates with the front edges of the holes (my idea is supported by some of the shadographs of his brakes showing a slight rearward deflection of the gases); and I suspect that's why he'll be finding tolerancing to be especially non-critical on his pepperpots. -- thought his pic showing an FG42 to be a dodgy choice of a pepperpot 'proof' - blimey we'd only recently discovered shaped charges back when that was invented and bakelite was still exciting. (I couldn't see much maths on his site - some stuff about momentum, essentially m x v = m x v and some formulae to work out an assumed gas velocity to plug into that; I think I must have missed the main meat - just take your charge weight; assume it's all turned to gas, assume a gas velocity post-shot exit and work out the effect if its momentum if removed or reduced from the overall recoil picture) I can't think of any non-Soviet examples of modern (post-war) military ordnance with pepperpot brakes (but we'd all agree that the aesthetic demands of sporting use makes them appealing to many sporting purposes). No doubt someone will correct me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbal Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 I haven't got a clue and quite frankly I don't really care, I just found it to be an entertaining demonstration. I'll leave you to argue numbers I'd rather shoot and find out what works for me first hand. Fair enough-actually 'with brake' was measured at ten inches,which is quantitative,and 'without' at ...errr,more than ten inches. Impressive indeed. I'd use both hands without the brake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagged 77 Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 Fair enough-actually 'with brake' was measured at ten inches,which is quantitative,and 'without' at ...errr,more than ten inches. Impressive indeed. I'd use both hands without the brake! I've shot that particular rifle with the standard Remmy vias style brake and then with the one pictured in one of my earlier posts. It made quite a difference in felt recoil. The noise and assault on your sinuses was noticeably greater too. I've got a video somewhere of me firing my Rangemaster 50 - several feet over to the side of the rifle (in line or just slightly behind the brake) is my stanly toolbox with flip lid (doubles as my ammo / range box!). The blast from the muzzle from several feet away flips open the lid it's that powerful. To give an idea of the pressure wave, you can sit in your car 30 yards from the firing point, when a 50 goes off it makes the car jump (and usually the occupant too...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brown dog Posted January 2, 2014 Report Share Posted January 2, 2014 umm, I know . In theory there's no difference between theory and practice; in practice there is: What one reaches is a practical limit. When you need double hearing protection and your sinuses still drip; it's been breached. My memory brings up 30% as 'comfort' unshielded. 40% someone listed earlier is a figure for 'shielded' (ie there's metal such as a turret wall between you and the brake - but people may still be outside or around the turret on occasion) Your pal's brakes have holes so big he is essentially creating deflection plates with the front edges of the holes (my idea is supported by some of the shadographs of his brakes showing a slight rearward deflection of the gases); and I suspect that's why he'll be finding tolerancing to be especially non-critical on his pepperpots. -- thought his pic showing an FG42 to be a dodgy choice of a pepperpot 'proof' - blimey we'd only recently discovered shaped charges back when that was invented and bakelite was still exciting. (I couldn't see much maths on his site - some stuff about momentum, essentially m x v = m x v and some formulae to work out an assumed gas velocity to plug into that; I think I must have missed the main meat - just take your charge weight; assume it's all turned to gas, assume a gas velocity post-shot exit and work out the effect if its momentum if removed or reduced from the overall recoil picture) I can't think of any non-Soviet examples of modern (post-war) military ordnance with pepperpot brakes (but we'd all agree that the aesthetic demands of sporting use makes them appealing to many sporting purposes). No doubt someone will correct me I've just re-read that, and some of the other posts. I've realised one of the words people are tripping over is 'efficiency'. I think there's an assumption that 'most efficient' is the same as ' best'. A Toyota Prius engine is very very efficient. However, it would be chuff all use powering a Challenger tank. 'High efficiency' and 'best suited to purpose' are not the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.