I hate muzzle brakes!

[Marshfly]

C’mon guys. Huge difference between a leisurely day at the rifle range with your 6.5 prc and combat. Been there, done that more than once.

Hearing damage is cumulative. A single shot damages. Multiple shots stack damage on top of that damage.

The Meateater podcast with the lady that runs OttoPro is incredibly informative on how this happens, why shooting damages higher frequencies than the shot, etc. Skip to an hour in if you want to skip the Meateater part.

 

[Turkeytider]

After using a can on most of my rifles for the past year, I dont like shooting brakes much anymore either. All my brakes are 90 degree side ports. I dont want to be close to those that have ports that are angled back towards the shooter, regardless if they do mitigate recoil a little better.

That’s me. 90 degree ports mean no shooter concussion. I asked a guy who set up directly next to me how bad the concussion was from my brake. Said it wasn’t bad, but then I have a 24” barrel, which I think makes a difference.

 

[7RemMag]

I used to hate muzzle brakes, and by and large, still do. However, I'm genuinely curious what rifles/cartridges guys are using that hate them so much. My Mark V .280 Ackley came with the factory accubrake and a thread protector and I had every intention of shooting it once and taking it off and never putting it back on. My experience with brakes prior to that had led me to despise them. I shot the rifle with ear protection sighting it in, of course. The rifle has seen more use since then. The muzzle blast is virtually nonexistent, and the noise doesn't seem to be substantially louder than any other rifle I own. Is it that given cartridge is somewhat tame to begin with? Or is the accubrake designed well enough that it doesn't produce an obnoxious muzzle blast and ear shattering sound?

 

[mad_angler]

I have a question...

Everyone seems to admit that brakes are terrible for others on the shooting range. That makes sense since brakes direct the gas and noise to the sides.

BUT... how bad are brakes for the shooter?

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Kind of like all you sheeple that think it's the zombie apocalypse and the world is coming to an end because of muzzlebreaks.

Apparently I hurt your feelings when I said a muzzlebreak didn't have the impact y'all pretend it should have had.

Afterall, this thread is about validation in using suppressors. If it were so right, why the need for a support group and thread rant? You big-issue "internet dudes" have it all figured and out and are right 101% of the time. My bad.

Do yourselves a favor and do some research of your own on the impact that natural frequencies have.

Where was RS at 35 years ago to teach me everything I needed to know about anything because of a bunch of "dudes on the internet" parroting the same narrative; caliber selection, suppressors and "ear pro", bullet design, the hogwash on energy, footwear, scopes, first aid, investing, careers, you name it.

I love RS and the intolerance it has on differing opinions.

But then again, maybe I'm more concussed with brain damage than I realize...

This is all I get for giving you full credit for your self-professed expertise on this subject?

 

[Turkeytider]

I have a question...

Everyone seems to admit that brakes are terrible for others on the shooting range. That makes sense since brakes direct the gas and noise to the sides.

BUT... how bad are brakes for the shooter?

For me, as a sample of one, not bad at all. That is because I have a Hawkins Precision Tank ST 90 degree four port brake . I don’t feel a thing as far as concussion is concerned. Many brakes have their ports angled rearward toward the shooter to varying degrees, thereby imparting concussion to the shooter. As for impact on others, I refuse to set up directly adjacent to another shooter. A minimum of one empty bay between me and shooters on either side is my personal standard. Also, I think it helps that my rifle has a 24” barrel. You see a lot of braked short barreled rifles that are just brutal to everyone, including the shooter. I tried to be very deliberate in selecting a brake, to minimize harm to myself, and have tried to minimize its impact on other shooters who are trying to have a nice day at the range themselves.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Has anyone ever bought a suppressor, decided they liked the brake better, and sold the can?

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

I have a question...

Everyone seems to admit that brakes are terrible for others on the shooting range. That makes sense since brakes direct the gas and noise to the sides.

BUT... how bad are brakes for the shooter?

Depending on the brake...

The shooter may likely cause him/herself permanent hearing damage at some point even when wearing one or more types of hearing protection. For some folks it can cause physical pain.

Folks can do what they want.

 

[huntnful]

All jokes aside, I never did mention it. But when I shot the NRL with my 22CM one day and 7-300 the next day, I was just using the OTTO ear pro. I use them for all my duck hunting and coyote hunting. But never for just range time (I normally use really good foam plugs stuffed to my brain). But it’s pretty crucial to hear the RO’s during the match, so I used the OTTO’s. For 3 days after the day of shooting the 7-300, I absolutely had hearing difficulties and there no doubt I had some hearing loss during those cumulative of 50 rounds or so.

My ears feel “normal” now. But there’s no way I didn’t lose something based off how they felt the following 3 days.

I’ve had hearing aids since I was 28 years old (I don’t wear them, but I have them), from multiple torn ear drums in both ears, paired with thousands of shotgun rounds in a steel duck tank before I realized how much I’d damaged my hearing.

Now it genuinely HURTS to shoot a moderately loud gun with no ear pro in. I’m ****** basically.

 

[Wolf13]

In California so a suppressor isn’t an option. Dislike brakes, both shooting and hearing them. They are effective, but overall not worth it to me. Have hearing damage from concerts and duck hunting. Took a class some years ago and was the only one without a break. Made me want to leave…

 

[ElGuapo]

Hallelujah!! I thought I was the only person on earth that hated Brakes, considering you can’t buy a rifle now without one.

 

[Randy11]

Is the general consensus that shooting a bare muzzle is much safer than shooting a brake? Or is the main argument suppressed vs. not?

 

[Stinky Coyote]

we're not allowed suppressors in the 51st state so got to use a muzzle brake.
Doesn't really bother me but have definitely rung the ear drums a few times on some quick shots

Lol, us Snow Mexicans don’t ‘got to use a muzzle brake’ up here. We can go without. They are awful, if not dumb af, and zero need for them in this century.

 

[Stinky Coyote]

Hallelujah!! I thought I was the only person on earth that hated Brakes, considering you can’t buy a rifle now without one.

Yeah my sako 90 peak 308 came with a radial or dust cap and I just checked groups between both on day 1 and that was it, brake lives in the box and will not be used by me again.

If you need it even at range only development...time to sell the gun and get something you don’t need one on. So many better choices this century.

 

[Schmo]

Is the general consensus that shooting a bare muzzle is much safer than shooting a brake? Or is the main argument suppressed vs. not?

Shooting suppressed is best of all, but if you can’t do that, then it should be something that is manageable for you with a bare muzzle.

 

[MallardSX2]

All jokes aside, I never did mention it. But when I shot the NRL with my 22CM one day and 7-300 the next day, I was just using the OTTO ear pro. I use them for all my duck hunting and coyote hunting. But never for just range time (I normally use really good foam plugs stuffed to my brain). But it’s pretty crucial to hear the RO’s during the match, so I used the OTTO’s. For 3 days after the day of shooting the 7-300, I absolutely had hearing difficulties and there no doubt I had some hearing loss during those cumulative of 50 rounds or so.

My ears feel “normal” now. But there’s no way I didn’t lose something based off how they felt the following 3 days.

I’ve had hearing aids since I was 28 years old (I don’t wear them, but I have them), from multiple torn ear drums in both ears, paired with thousands of shotgun rounds in a steel duck tank before I realized how much I’d damaged my hearing.

Now it genuinely HURTS to shoot a moderately loud gun with no ear pro in. I’m ****** basically.

I can 100% relate to this exact story.

The damage I have done to my ears over the years shooting shotguns is extensive.

 

[manitou1]

Hearing damage is cumulative. A single shot damages. Multiple shots stack damage on top of that damage.

The Meateater podcast with the lady that runs OttoPro is incredibly informative on how this happens, why shooting damages higher frequencies than the shot, etc. Skip to an hour in if you want to skip the Meateater part.

I don’t think anybody was discounting hearing damage… this subject was traumatic brain injury.

 

[madcalfe]

Lol, us Snow Mexicans don’t ‘got to use a muzzle brake’ up here. We can go without. They are awful, if not dumb af, and zero need for them in this century.

lol true but spotting shots with a 5lb 300wsm is rather difficult lol.
The recoil doesn't bother me but not seeing impacts does

 

[NRA4LIFE]

I never had a firearm with a brake on it until I built 3 AR's before the ban here. And holy bejeebers are those things loud. The 6.5 Grendel sounds like a bomb going off.

 

[Marshfly]

I don’t think anybody was discounting hearing damage… this subject was traumatic brain injury.

Do you honestly think concussive effects aren’t cumulative as well?


They are.

Do you know what decibels measure? Sound PRESSURE levels. Pressure. That pressure doesn’t just hit your ears. It hits everything.

Shoot how you want. Nobody here cares. But arguing it isn’t damaging is nonsense. Pure fiction.