AusVarmint

I thought i would post this here rather than on the general section as it is of more interest to me from the target shooting perspective.

What is a definition of a muzzle break?
Is a barrel/muzzle fitted device that reduces recoil but does not vent gas outward or backward still classified as a break and therefore illegal in most competition applications? Just to clarify things, a device that does reduce recoil and is fitted to a barrel that vents gas through the same hole as the bullet exits, is that still classified as a break?

Mercury filled recoil reducers have been available for years, but are they legal in BR/FClass rifles?

Jethro Bodine.

Tony

Sorry, but there is no such thing as a muzzle break.... it is a muzzle "brake"!

I think those mercury filled things are a load of crap. I would like to see the amount of difference there would be between putting one in a rifle, and then in a identical rifle just add weight, same amount as the mercury reducer.

As for a muzzle brake Tony.... if it vents gases from the barrel from anywhere but the actual muzzle hole the bullet exits I guess it is! What are you thinking? Is a suppressor/moderator a muzzle brake? If you made a attachment that held the gases in like a suppressor i.e. a muzzle brake with a covering, but it did not reduce the sound and the bullet gases still exited the same muzzle hole.... where would you be?

What would you be trying to achieve? To shoot a heavy recoiling cartridge in a LG that still passes the 500m Fly rules? I say heavy recoilers for HG's..... unless your big and tuff!... lighter recoiling cartridges for LG's! This is what makes it fun!

Cheers
AI

Tony,

How would I define a muzzle brake ...

They are devices that are fitted to the muzzle of a firearm to redirect propellant gases with the intent of reducing or removing both recoil and barrel jump.

So I would say anything that directs the propellant gases, other than out of the end of the muzzle would be considered a brake.

I have not a lot of experience with the mecury systems but dont think they would be worth the trouble at the end of the day.

Would it be legal in BR ... yes in 600yd and 1k ... no in everything else .. just MHO.

But the best way to findout is to go shoot something at a match, if you do well you will soon find out how far the rules bend, as I would bet a lot of money that the protests will come thick and fast.

Recently i had a conversation with one of the US leading smiths who is in the process of manufacturing a LR 338 something for the military. He is using a stretcher tube and will also have a suppressor fitted. I won't go into details but like AI has indicated, a suppressor does reduce recoil quite substancially. The point is to redirect or reverse the gas flow and cool it dramatically so as to cut gas jetting. There is no way i will extend my barrel length like what a suppressor would, but there is a way to have a recoil reduction without the noise reduction which would make it illegal to use anywhere.
The tubes we already use are perfect for gas accumulation, the trick is to reverse gas flow and contain it for a few milliseconds, let it cool and then exit the the muzzle. The shock wave (sound) is uninterupted. Drilling holes in the barrel anywhere is not an option.

Without doubt there will be objection and without saying it will come under the unfair advantage rule in FClass. But is it legal? The larger the caliber cartridge the more efficient this system becomes. A six mil may have a recoil acceleration reduction of about 10 or maybe 15 percent, but a large 30 cal could have as much as 50 percent.
The reason this has come about is that there is a large objection from many quarters over muzzle brakes due largely to their noise and blast. What i wish to do is have the recoil reduction without the blast.
Now i could have gone and used this system and no-one would have been the wiser until they actually noticed that there was little recoil coming out of my Rednex. I would rather be upfront than be protested against at some upcoming match.

Jethro Bodine.

Tony,

I would rather be upfront than be protested against at some upcoming match.

Now maybe I am a bit thick, but just how do you figure that being upfront will halt the protest brigade???????

Interesting proposal, if it can be made to work in a practical sense. How would this (if at all) effect bag riding characteristics???? or general handling???

cheers
Rinso

A suppressor is one of the most effective ways of reducing recoil.

I have been thinking about this today, and I think it can not be done. For it not to be a muzzle brake, the gases can only come out of the actual barrel muzzle hole. No other/others.

Even if you used the tension barrel air space as the gas catcher, where will it disipate too? Out the muzzle? It would not actually be the barrels muzzle it comes from, but rather a added on attachment that it relieves from.

Also, I am guessing it would be illegal too, if it looks like a supressor..... it will be classed as a suppressor.

It is a very good idea though. If you have a 30" 1.25"OD barrel, 2" tube, that is a lot of space to catch the gas. It is just where this expelled gas releases from is the issue.. it has to come out the actual barrel muzzle hole! Get my drift?

Cheers
AI

hahahah
I know EXACTLY what you are talking about Tony, and I've considered it myself. Who said "barrel tuners" were completely useless on a CF? Bet your arse I'd be calling it a tuner.

I think it does count as a brake, if you are going with an "in the spirit of the rules" type angle. On the other hand, the way a brake is defined in the rules for F class for example, then no, it's not technically a brake. People will whine like little girls, but no, it's not a brake if you follow the rules to the letter.

As for the mercury recoil reduction systems, I was sceptical myself until I actually tried a 300WM in a light gun with one, and without one. They seem to smooth out the recoil quite a bit, and it results in less perceived recoil. You'd have to get out the ole Newton meter to check if actual recoil was reduced, but felt recoil is definitely improved by them.

I was thinking along the same lines, similar in design to the bore evacuator on a tank main gun.

Dave you are right, it will be objected to. I was hoping some of the objections may be aired here. Some time ago i made a device that used the gas to counter the torque generated by the bullet spin up. Now gas was redirected but expelled outward from the muzzle but all downrange using the very same principle that Watt used in his first steam (jet) engine. It was in no way a brake, but could have been argued that it may have been. Now there are brakes that are made in such a way to counter the torque, and mine are currently done this way also, so they are a far better option. Just reducing torque was something i was playing around with just for a Fly application. Having used a brake for sometime now, i know what advantage they hold especially when it comes to reduced bag disruption and target acquisition speed. There is no doubt that with a reduced recoil, by either cartridge choice or other means, the whole package is easier to control and shoot well. I have no burning ambition to run any 6 mil ever again, but do want the advantage they hold when it comes to ease of use.

Trev, have a very close look at how a suppressor works and then apply none of it to my system. There is very little difference in what i have now in appearance and there is less forward of the muzzle than a standard brake or even less than your average tuner. If i didn't tell you, you would never know it to be any different to a current stretcher tube setup.

Forget what a suppressor looks like and attaches like, the extra length it gives to a firearm etc. None of that is there. There are no moving parts inside the tube. The barrel is not drilled or vented inside the tube and the tube is not drilled or vented in any way.

I am not going to give too much away, but if it is as i described, like a stretcher tube in appearance like all the others around the country, no large screw on can that extends the barrel length and acts as a gas diffuser and cooler, where the bullet and gas exit the the same hole, is it a brake in the definition of what we know now? And no, with sub sonic ammo it is not a sound moderator where to do so would constrain shock waves from supersonic ammo and as such would be detrimental to accuracy and would ultimately work harden the alloy causing it to fracture. This is not a suppressor, looks nothing like one, but reduces recoil like one.

If it does not moderate sound, does not enhance the blast and cause disturbance to the shooters beside you, does not vent gas in any other direction through its exit hole than what an ordinary barrel does, is it considered a brake or just a recoil device like the mercury ones that i believe have no restrictions of use in many disciplines?

Mick i just saw your post come up. Those mercury devices are claimed to reduce felt or perceived recoil, whatever that means. Mine is an actual final gas jetting reduction that will reduce recoil acceleration and is a measurable quantity by containment volume, gas volume, temperature and humidity. As you probably know the big magnums have a very large percentage of recoil attributed to gas jetting from the muzzle. If it can be intercepted and contained while being cooled at the same time, it reduces muzzle pressure and thus recoil considerably. The kinetic energy of the bullets forward acceleration, and the rifles equal and opposite reaction can not be altered without going to mechanical devices. I have no interest in going to any moving parts or fluid dampers like the mercury devices unless it is in the form of an artillery oil dampened sled. But then it would be a rail issue and would open up another can wouldn't it? And for a LG like i am talking of here, totally impractical from a weight perspective.

Jethro Bodine.

I just deleted it but have seen a mention. This in no way exhibits any fume extraction principles used in artillery or naval guns. They have a very minimal recoil reduction property.

Jethro Bodine

Recirc and disbursement type device? That's the lines I've been thinking along anyway...
Still exits out the muzzle, just slightly later and slower.

Now, I am pretty sure I understand how a stretcher tube works, and the idea about using the space to hold the gas, but how does the gas get into the area and then expell? A nut screws onto the end of the threaded barrel right?

I think if it reduces recoil, it will be classed as a brake as such.

I personally think no brake should not be allowed in LG. This is the idea about LG, smaller calibers/cartridges shooting against each other, or if you are manly enough shoot a heavy kicker, but you pay the price.

You want a big banger.. go a HG!

Rules are rules.... stick to them I think!

Cheers
AI

Ackley Improved wrote:Now, I am pretty sure I understand how a stretcher tube works, and the idea about using the space to hold the gas, but how does the gas get into the area and then expell?

A system of tubes.

People spend their entire time in these sports trying to ride the grey areas of the rule book. It creates innovation.

I say if you can reduce recoil without fitting a muzzle brake, go for it.

Mick there are no tubes fitted anywhere apart from the actual stretcher tube itself. But you're on the ball on how it works. Containment and delay, the same way a suppressor does it. Extra tubes that create a maze not to dissimilar from very advanced oil filtration are certainly on my adgenda to increase efficiency.

personally think no brake should not be allowed in LG. This is the idea about LG, smaller calibers/cartridges shooting against each other, or if you are manly enough shoot a heavy kicker, but you pay the price.

Trev this view is exactly why i am doing this. The advantage is heavily in favour with the smaller calibers when it comes to Fly. If i can come up with a system that balances things out but does not breach the rule on muzzle breaks, the big cals will leave the little ones in their wake, or blast . By having the no brake rule in the Fly, it discriminates to a certain extent against those like me that have a different view on what works at long range. Handling is the issue that holds the LG and big kickers back, so between stock configurations and RRDs, i want to even things out. Notice i did not say "brake".

Jethro Bodine.

Tony Z wrote:Mick there are no tubes fitted anywhere apart from the actual stretcher tube itself. But you're on the ball on how it works. Containment and delay, the same way a suppressor does it. Extra tubes that create a maze not to dissimilar from very advanced oil filtration are certainly on my adgenda to increase efficiency.

The "System of tubes" comment was a piss take on that US senator describing the internet.

I understand how this would work. It is very much along the lines I was thinking. Can very easily reduce torque and recoil, gasses still exit the muzzle and aren't redirected backward or sideward.

Careful with these ideas Tony, you might get a touch of the crazy, start building rimfires and speaking in riddles.