Muzzle brakes

[steveNChunter]

I have never owned a rifle with a muzzle brake. I currently have a Rem 700 .308 build at the gunsmith and one of the things he is doing is threading the muzzle 5/8x24 so I can attach a muzzle brake.

Even though I've never owned one, I have shot beside them at the range and I realize they are LOUD. This rifle will be hunted with mostly and I'll consider investing in one of those hearing enhancement/protection devices to use while I'm hunting.

I of course want the muzzle brake to reduce recoil. The purpose of this thread is to see if anybody knows of any muzzle brakes out there that aren't quite AS loud, and are still effective at reducing recoil.

And before some one else says it, I know a "quiet muzzle brake" is an oxymoron unless you're talking about a suppressor (which I would have to get a class 3 weapons permit to use here in NC). I'm okay with the fact that it's gonna be louder, but I'd like to find a brake that isn't quite as loud as the others.

Anybody have any suggestions?

[dgludwig]

I don't know if they still make them, but Savage used to offer rifles equipped with muzzle brakes that could be turned on or off. Seems like a good answer to those who might want a muzzle brake for bench shooting (when wearing hearing protection is convenient) but not so much for hunting (when wearing hearing protection is not so "convenient").

[green_MTman]

savage still does but only for magnum calibers

[steveNChunter]

That's interesting but I need an aftermarket brake, not a new rifle with a brake

[tobnpr]

Brakes themselves can't serve their primary function without making them "louder"- though it's generally louder to those next to you- and not the shooter.

My 7-08 is equipped with a very effective brake (I can be back on the target quickly enough to spot my hits at 1000 yards without a spotter), and the blast is far more annoying to those next to me. Can't avoid this, as the recoil reduction is because the combustion gases are redirected rearward.

Suggest you consider a suppressor, especially for a hunting application (where legal) for the additional obvious benefit.

Don't own one yet, but well-designed ones are purported to provide 30% or more reduction in felt recoil, in addition to the primary purpose of the reduction of the muzzle signature.

[redline494]

I have a Browning A-bolt in 7mm Rem. Mag. with a factory Boss, and a Browning A-bolt in .300 Win. Mag. with a Mag-na-Port threaded brake. Both effectively reduce recoil and muzzle flip, but neither is quiter than the other.
My Brother in law sits about 150 yards from me in the woods, and he has told me that a number of times he almost had to clean out his britches when I fired.

[steveNChunter]

Suggest you consider a suppressor, especially for a hunting application (where legal) for the additional obvious benefit.

That's exactly what I'd get If I didn't have to go through the expense and long process of getting a Class 3 permit.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by steveNChunter

And before some one else says it, I know a "quiet muzzle brake" is an oxymoron unless you're talking about a suppressor (which I would have to get a class 3 weapons permit to use here in NC).

Originally Posted by steveNChunter

That's exactly what I'd get If I didn't have to go through the expense and long process of getting a Class 3 permit.

There's no such thing as a "Class 3 permit". The term "Class 3" simply refers to a tax that an FFL has to pay in order to deal in Title II firearms.

There's actually no permit at all involved in buying a silencer (or any other NFA firearm). You simply need to register it with the ATF and receive a tax stamp for that specific one. It seems like a complicated process at first, but it's not really that hard, it just takes a while to have it processed. Your dealer should be able to walk you through details of the process; after all, it helps their business to make it easy for you.

[steveNChunter]

I'll check on the rules and regs here in NC, but I have always been told, even by FFL dealers, that a very expensive permit had to be applied for, with a long waiting period before you got it. I've been told it was the same permit that would allow you to legally posess fully automatic weapons. But it's entirely possible I could have gotten some bad information. The laws may also be a little different from state to state.

[JD0x0]

Sounds, to me, that you got some bad info. AFAIK, you've never needed a 'permit' for a suppressor, and it's NOT the same as the paperwork you need to file to posses a fully automatic weapon. AFAIK, your state will either have legal suppressors, or they are banned. If suppressors are legal in your state all you need to do is register with the ATF and pay a $200 tax stamp. Not exactly cheap, but not extremely expensive either. From there, you just need to wait, and it usually takes some time, but apart from waiting, you don't need to do anything, so it really shouldn't be the end of the world for anyone purchasing a suppressor. This 'tax stamp' will act as your 'permit' when you bring your suppressor to the range, or hunting (if it's legal to hunt with a suppressor in your state) If you were ever questioned about your suppressor, the tax stamp is what you'd show the authority to show that it's legal and registered.

[steveNChunter]

If suppressors are legal in your state all you need to do is register with the ATF and pay a $200 tax stamp

Did a little Googling, and it's pretty much like you said. A few forms, fingerprints, mug shot, county Sheriff's signature, $200 dollar tax stamp, and you're ready to own a suppressor. Judging by my few minutes of searching, the entry level price for one is about $500. Bringing the total to at least $700 just to get you in the suppressor game.

That's not a whole lot less than I have in this whole build, so I doubt I'll go that route. I'll probably end up with about a $75 muzzle brake and be done with it.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by steveNChunter

I'll check on the rules and regs here in NC, but I have always been told, even by FFL dealers, that a very expensive permit had to be applied for, with a long waiting period before you got it. I've been told it was the same permit that would allow you to legally posess fully automatic weapons. But it's entirely possible I could have gotten some bad information. The laws may also be a little different from state to state.

You've been told that because it's a very popular myth: The "you need a Class 3 license to own a suppressor [or any other NFA item]" is one of the biggest myths there is about NFA firearms.

That myth comes from the type of tax an FFL has to pay in order to deal in NFA (Title II) firearms, it's called a Special Occupational Tax (SOT). Most FFLs that have SOTs have Class 3 SOTs which allow them to deal in NFA firearms. But many have a Class 2 SOT instead, which allows them to manufacture and deal in NFA firearms. So not only is there no such thing as a "Class 3 license", but a dealer doesn't even need to have a Class 3 SOT to sell NFA firearms; they can have a Class 2 SOT instead.

I'm not surprised you heard that myth, but I'm surprised you heard that myth from FFL dealers; any dealer with an SOT would probably not be spreading that myth around. My guess is you simply misunderstood the process when they explained it to you. Substitute the word "tax stamp" with "permit" and your quote above is fairly accurate: It is kind of expensive ($200), there's no "waiting period" but it can take around 10 months to process, and you need the same tax stamp for full-auto weapons that you need for silencers.

I worked at an 07/02 FFL/SOT for a few years and it was often difficult to explain to customers that they weren't applying for a permit; that $200 tax stamp is a one-time-deal for that specific NFA item that has to be paid every time you buy one. Even if you own 10 silencers, it's still the same process to get your 11th one as it was to get your first.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by JD0x0

it's NOT the same as the paperwork you need to file to posses a fully automatic weapon.

It's actually the exact same paperwork and the exact same process. The only difference is that you can't buy a machine gun that was made after 1986; thanks to the Hughes Amendment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act, the ATF's machine gun registry was closed in 1986, so anything made after than can only be owned by law enforcement or dealers.

Also, some states ban certain NFA items but not others. For example, here in WA we can have silencers, AOWs, and now SBRs, but SBSs and machine guns are banned.

[Erno86]

May I suggest checking out the LaRue A2 flash hider for 308. I'm not sure that it doesn't carry any bottom slots. So make sure it has no bottom slots for muzzle brake management. For hunting or target shooting...I prefer my Howard Leight amplified camouflage hearing muffs; that I bought from Cabela's.

For LaRue support call: 512-259-1585

http://www.laruetactical.com/a2-flash-hider-308

[eldermike]

I sometimes hunt with a rifle that has a BOSS on it. It might just be me but I don't hear hunting shots in the same way as I do target shots. I know my ears don't know the difference but I don't notice the noise very much when I am shooting at an animal.

[pturner67]

Take a look at the LANTAC Dragon Muzzle Brake DGN762B. I have the 556B and it functions very nicely.

[tdoyka]

all muzzle brakes are loud. i personally would not use one.
but, theres always a but, since i am disabled from a stroke, i am going to get a bellms brake for my encore. i plan on using a 444 marlin 21" mgm heavy factory barrel with a bellms muzzle brake that will keep her on the bpods, hey i only use one hand. i have an encore in 16 1/4" mgm heavy barrel in 6.5creedmoor and 20 vartarg with rifle stocks and they don't kick, the marlin probably will.

[pturner67]

tdoyka, you are right. The Lantac Dragon is VERY loud. As much as I like the functionality, I'm considering removing it.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

First, thank you for calling it a brake, not a "break".

Second, you're asking the right *question* - is there one less loud than the others?

Third, I don't know the answer, but I've heard it *alleged* that there are effective brakes which are not actual loudeners, but I didn't get any specifics of make/model when I read that allegation.

Finally, in my experience, they make a rifle *much* louder and they are thus about the last thing in the world you'd want on a hunting rifle (or for that matter, ANY rifle which doesn't absolutely need it; meaning anything short of a .338 lapua or bigger).

[kraigwy]

It seems to me the louder the brake, the more effective.

Maybe I'm all wet but that's how it seems to work for me.

What I do know:

1: Brakes reduce Recoil
2: You don't notice recoil while hunting
3: To be proficient with any firearm you need to shoot it A LOT
4: I don't wear hearing protection while I hunt.

So taking those four points in consideration, I want a brake on my rifle (some of them) so I can practice a lot without dealing with recoil. At home or on the range I do wear ear protection so loud brakes don't bother me.

When I go hunting I do wear protection and I don't want the addition of the extra noise blasting my ears.

So I use the brake while shooting at home or at the range and I take it off when I'm hunting. You don't shoot that much when hunting and while shooting at game you don't even notice the recoil.

Right now I only have brakes on my 375 H&H and 300 Win. Mag. Don't really need them on my 270 & 257 Roberts.

I am so impressed with how much fun the brake makes my 375 to shoot, I'm going to put one on my 416 Rigby which isn't fun to shoot it its present condition.

This of course is based on my experience with brakes and hunting.

If its legal in your state, and you don't mind jumping through hoops with the Feds, you might think about a suppressor.

[Unlicensed Dremel]

I like all this kraig:

What I do know:

1: Brakes reduce Recoil
2: You don't notice recoil while hunting
3: To be proficient with any firearm you need to shoot it A LOT
4: I don't wear hearing protection while I hunt.

So taking those four points in consideration, I want a brake on my rifle (some of them) so I can practice a lot without dealing with recoil. At home or on the range I do wear ear protection so loud brakes don't bother me.

When I go hunting I do wear protection and I don't want the addition of the extra noise blasting my ears.

So I use the brake while shooting at home or at the range and I take it off when I'm hunting. You don't shoot that much when hunting and while shooting at game you don't even notice the recoil.

But feel like it's important to note, for those who may not know: Once you're done practicing with brake, and take brake off, before you go out to the hunting field, you have to take a few shots without brake to verify zero since the POI does usually change some. With that caveat, I agree wholeheartedly. We tend to forget how valuable and precious our hearing is - you've got to preserve it if you don't want a lot of grief throughout old age (do you want to be able to converse with your grandkids and great-grandkids?)

Oh, and if, instead of brake, you run with a lead sled type device to accomplish same (more pleasant, flinch-free practice), the exact same principle applies - the POI changes, so you always have to shoot a few off bags at the end of the range session, and adjust sights. Note that lead sleds put additional wear and tear on stocks, whereas brakes do not. The less weight you put on the sled, the better - put the least amount of weight on that is necessary to make it reasonably comfortable, so that the entire lead sled unit can move some, even if only 1/8th or 1/4th", to reduce stock wear and tear, and reduce POI change.

[kraigwy]

I've never had an impact change by removing the brake, or putting it back on.

However I do see an impact change between using a lead slid and field positions (using a sling in prone, setting and knelling.

If the brake is of proper design, and fits the rifle, you shouldn't have any change in zeros.

But it never hurts to check.

[Sierra280]

Just because it's threaded doesn't mean you MUST put a brake on it. As others have said, I'd go with a nice suppressor.

Also, will you need a brake on this rifle? 308 isn't so bad on recoil. It's funny your rifle is a Remington 700 308, my shooting buddy and I just conducted our own practical test. His rifle : r700 308 VTR (triangular 22" barrel with muzzle brake). My rifle: r700 308 sps-v (26" varmint barrel, no brake); both scoped with 1pc rails, no slings or bi-pods attached. We each shot (off the bench) a 168gr Nosler Custom Comp factory load through each rifle; then a 175gr Nosler Custom Comp factory load through each rifle. Neither of us could feel any difference in recoil what so ever between the two guns, probably due to the weight difference, but there was no question his VTR was WAY louder.

[James K]

The OP said he wasn't interested in a suppressor ("silencer") only in a muzzle brake, which is not the same thing and requires no applications or tax payment. However, I don't recommend hearing protection (muffs, earplugs) while hunting. In the open air, the noise, even with a brake, will not be that great and if the hearing is blocked, the hunter might not hear a shout that would warn of danger, or a command from a game warden.

Jim

[steveNChunter]

I kinda like the idea of shooting the rifle with the brake when practicing, and without the brake while hunting. I'd just leave the scope set to be zeroed without the brake on it, assuming there is even a change In POI.

That seems like a better solution to me because I figure a 16" barrel .308 w/ a brake will be absolutely deafening without any hearing protection.