Jump to content

muzzle brakes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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

We will see brown dog

 

 

You have no idea,,,,,

 

 

A lifetimes experience in "large calibre munition deliverance" and you challenge it

 

 

:lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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 :rolleyes:

 

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

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

 

68cad7a69982e4ad537ec311a612d71a_zpsda4a

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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. :lol::)

 

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. :lol::) (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 :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

 

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. :lol::)

 

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. :lol::) (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 :lol:

 

 

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


blackrifle.png

jr_firearms_200.gif

valkyrie 200.jpg

tab 200.jpg

Northallerton NSAC shooting.jpg

RifleMags_200x100.jpg

dolphin button4 (200x100).jpg

CASEPREP_FINAL_YELLOW_hi_res__200_.jpg

rovicom200.jpg

Lumensmini.png

CALTON MOOR RANGE (2) (200x135).jpg

bradley1 200.jpg

IMG-20230320-WA0011.jpg

NVstore200.jpg



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy