To Brake or Not to Brake?

[flyinsquirel]

Everything Justin says is true, but I still don't like breaks.

I try to use plugs at every shot, but sometimes I don't have time to get them in. It's those times that I don't want a break. I'll admit, a break can help greatly in seeing impact if that's what you're looking for.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Never used a break but the added level of the blast sound hasn't kept me away, I have always heard they blow dust and dirt everywhere. So that would be my concern but not sure it is even a real concern.

That is a very real concern. That is why I only buy brakes that don't have holes in the bottom.

I personally don't know anyone who shoots long distance regularly, and doesn't use brakes. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages imo.

 

[COlineman78]

I have both a true brake on my Rem 700 5R .308 and a Weatherby Accubrake (more of a port than a brake) on my Weatherby Lazermark .300WBY. The added volume is no more than that of a 20" barrel vs a 24". In your case, I would prefer the ported style of the Weatherby Accubrake for the weight aspects on a superlight rifle. An extra 1-2" of swiss cheese metal isn't going to weigh much. The only downside as dotman eluded to is that when firing prone it will spray up a little snow and/or dirt. Not enough to block your vision but it can be distracting.

.308:

.300 Wby

 

[tenth1]

I just got the suppressor cause I wanted too. Yes looking at numbers it is a lot of weight when one is counting o.z. in lightweight carry rifles.

Admittedly, I have not measured the decibels with and with out brakes (and a I suspect that there is more to the equation including percussion). However, without any argument, they are louder. Anyone that has been at a shooting range or have both varieties to compare will testify.

As for wearing hearing protection in both circumstances, yes it is a good idea. It is also a good idea to not try to invoke more damage.

Next time at the range I will bring the meter.

 

[AK Troutbum]

Well obviously no doubt, breaks equal increased noise but the barrel whip and felt recoil is also greatly reduced. I had one installed on my .300 wsm, so my 12-year-old could use it on a goat hunt this last year and, although I had always been opposed to breaks, I'm kind of sold on them now. Groups have tightened up considerably and it didn't add a whole lot of weight or length to the rifle. I started using ear protection for the first time, in the field, about two years ago and although it's probably a little too late for me it's not too late for my son, so noise is no longer a factor. Also, with the ports being off of the sides, there is no muzzle blast with dirt and debris flying up into your face.

my sons group, off the bench, at 100 yards.

 

[Sam Millard]

I guess I don't really get the "I don't like brakes because of noise" comments that always pop up in these kind of threads. Rifles will damage your hearing whether they have a brake installed or not. If you guys care about your hearing, you will always use hearing protection when shooting.

Thanks, Justin! My thoughts exactly. A big reason guys bitch about brakes being loud is because they're standing to the side of the shooter. It doesn't matter much if you're behind them, either. You have to be low, and directly behind the brake. The shooter gets the least perceived amount of noise because of position. I absolutely hate being next to a brake, but I sure like being behind them shooting! ALL gunfire is damaging to your hearing.

 

[bobhunts]

Went to the NRA shooting range in Salida Colorado last November and did some shooting. My buddy told me afterwards that everyone was looking at me after my shots because I was so damn loud! I was shooting a rem 7mm mag with a Holland radial brake and I could not hear the percieved noise they where hearing. Guess it pays to be behind the gun. When I shot my non braked .300 Weatherby no looks? Too bad I didn't bring the .300 RUM with the side discharge brake. I like the brakes but not on all of my rifles. Kind of where I will be hunting. I do now always use hearing protection. Got some good ones that are comfy.

 

[mtswampfox]

Had a remington sendero 25-06 done for the muzzle flip. When shooting prairie dogs , like to watch them blow up. Always felt the extra noise was a good thing, less noise going downrange confusing my prey. Did it work? Never shot that rifle without the brake so nothing to compare it to but it would hold on site pretty well.

 

[Laelkhunter]

I haven't seen anyone mention the fact that with lighter rifles, and heavier recoil the punishment the scope takes could be significant. If you have a brake that reduces the recoil, that is much less recoil that the scope is subjected to. Even the highest quality scope could last longer without being slammed every time you pull the trigger.
How many times have you read a post where someone's groups have opened up unexpectedly, and the first thought is that it could be the scope can't hold it's zero?
The main negative with the brake is the noise or muzzle blast. I always use ear protection when shooting at the range, and Walker's game ears when hunting. I like the brake, and prefer to have it on my .340 Weatherby than not.

 

[GKPrice]

I know it's a little more involved & 'old skool' but have you considered having the barrel drilled (magnaported) at 11 o'clock & 1 o'clock to mitigate the rise?
I'm considering this very thing with my .280 ackley for the exact same reason.

One really doesn't need to calculate "where" to place the MagNaPorting cuts because that is what "MagNaPorting" does ... and it works quite well in that respect - I sent one of my 338 Win Mags to them and their work was great - changed the personality of the recoil very noticably