Talk:Muzzle brake

Legality

Yaf, pleaese stop reverting to the previous version. The way I wrote it is neutral and accurate. Your reversion is neither. CynicalMe 07:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are neither accurate nor gramatically correct, nor do they follow the WP:NOT rules governing the avoidance of speculation in articles. Stating a state may do something in the future is not allowed under Wikipedia rules. We must stick to the facts that are verifiable. Yaf 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Back at you. States do NOT 'retain provisions' of the federal ban, they have their own laws which are not the same. CynicalMe 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but for example, California and New York both make statements in their state laws that these laws are in accordance with cited Federal laws. However, this reference is now to a defunct federal law. If this is not retaining provisions, I don't know what is. It is especially an issue with high capacity magazines (holding more than 10 rounds) that must be marked in some states to be for law enforcement use only, but are not required to be marked in current Federal law nor in other states. Needless to say, they are no longer being marked. Yet, this rule, too, existed previously in a Federal law that has now sunset, but to which the state law still points. Yaf 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Linking the two makes it sound as if the state laws no longer apply. In addition, California's law was always more strict than the federal law. Also, I don't know of any state laws which require that mags must be marked LEO. They restrict possession, but there are no marking requirements that I know of, at least not here in CA. CynicalMe 16:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Muzzle Brake v. Flash Suppressor

Unless I am mistaken, the device pictured in photograph 2, "Muzzle brake of the Sig 550 rifle," is actually a "birdcage" style flash suppressor. This device is designed to redirect muzzle flash out of the line of sight of the shooter to prevent temporary blinding in low light shooting conditions. While flash suppressors are often designed to reduce barrel rise, shouldn't it be distinguished from a muzzle brake and a link to the Flash suppressor article be included?

Nope, you're absolutely right. It's a flash suppressor.--Asams10 07:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Muzzle brake vs. recoil compensator

It seems to me that there are two overlapping but basically distinct types of devices that use redirection of propellant gasses to differently effect the recoil characteristics of a firearm. The first is the muzzle brake, which is found on heavily recoiling firearms and is designed primarily to direct propellant gasses out or back, thus reducing the amount of backwards force on the firearm (or artillery, as these are often found there as well). The other is the recoil compensator, which is used on lighter recoiling firearms and directs the gasses mainly upwards, to counter to torque caused by the bore almost universally being above the center of mass of the firearm. The design of these is very different--brakes generally deal with much larger quantities of gas (the gas mass must be a significant fraction of the bullet mass to have a real impact on recoil) and thus have large baffles and lots of ports, generally in all directions. Compensators can be much simpler, like Mag-na-port slots cut in the top of the barrel, since they have much less gas to deal with. Compensators will reduce recoil as well as reducing muzzle jump, as any gas not going forward will reduce the recoil by that much, but compare the 5 grains of powder gas to the 230 grains of bullet in a .45 ACP and it's obvious recoil reduction can't be much--but it can do a lot to keep the muzzle down. There are also hybrids, such as the "Muzzle Tamer" in the T/C Contender barrels. I have one in .45-70, and it's got a significant expansion chamber to trap the expanding gasses, and 10 big ports on top to direct them upwards to help with the muzzle flip. It does a moderate job of taming the rather brutal recoil, and a very good job and keeping the muzzle down.

I think this article would be better if it were organized to address both the recoil reduction and the muzzle control as separate issues, and then note that the same device can do both. While the terms "muzzle brake" and "recoil compensator" are often used interchangeably, if you search on "muzzle brake" you'll find a greater number of symmetric dispersion devices for rifles and artillery, and if you search for "recoil compensator" you'll find more devices designed to address muzzle rise in handguns, SMGs, shotguns, and carbines.

Since I just used this same distinction in the transitional ballistics article, I'd be willing to do the rewrite work if no one has any objections to the proposal. scot 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Integral Muzzle Brake?

I'm new to the wiki, this is my first posted comment, but I've been searching a lot of gun terms and from what I've read on Manufacturer's websites, they're calling a recoil compensator an Integrated or Integral Muzzle Break. While some of you term-junkies might roll your eyes at this, might help people who are actually trying to understand the terms. Here's a rifle from Remington that uses that term: http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/model_700_vtr.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desert4w (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Muzzle brake == Compensator (Aka Recoil Compensator), whether integral or not, it is the same device. Terms like Mag-Na-Port are marketing terms for the same damned thing! --Slamlander (talk) 07:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Integral in this case means it's machined into the barrel itself, rather than being a separate part that is screwed onto a threaded barrel. If you'll look at the closeup, you'll see that the brake consists of three slots milled into the barrel, similar in concept to the Mag-Na-Port process. Compare to the brakes such as the ones offered here, which are threaded on. scot (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Porting means drilling, which is what happens when a barrel is ported. A muzzle brake, whether integral or threaded, is a distinct piece of equipment, as it is "post-barrel". Since both deal with dissipation of propellant gasses, they should be better defined and explained individually in the transitional ballistics article. Consider that the parking brake and the brake pedal on a car achieve the same result, deal with the same forces, but are distinct mechanical systems.Coloneldoctor (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)coloneldoctor

Disadvantages of muzzle breaks.

In reference to this statement

"Measurements indicate that on a rifle a muzzle brake adds 5 to 10 dB to the normal noise level"

This statement is incorrect. Although there is an increase in the db level directed towards the shooter the overall db level is constant.The equipment referred to in the previous paragragh actually supports and proves this. When the db level is measured from all directions the level is the same. Muzzle brakes simply redirect the sound waves, usually in the direction of the shooter and those around him/her. Perhaps this is what you are saying?

I have used and experimented with angle of the holes in a muzzle to varying degrees towards and away from the shooters position. I have found that the futher away from the shooter the holes are angled the less effective the brake works, and the less the shooter perceives the db. The closer to the shooter the holes are angled the more effective the brake works, and the more db is perceived. Some people also make the mistake of thinking the muzzle blast/ over preasure caused by the shot is part of the db level. This overpreasure, as I'm sure you know, is a completely different matter. Again, when the db level is measured from all directions the level is the same.

Guns are loud. With or without the muzzle brake the db level of any firearm can cause permanent hearing damage. One should always use some type of hearing protection.

Thanks. J.L. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.21.241 (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Recoil is a subjective concept.

Recoil is a subjective concept.

Crap! There is nothing subjective about recoil from whatever firearm. It is purely an objective matter of Conservation of Energy: Equal and Opposite Reactions.

When this section says One shooter may perceive it as pain, ..., that shooter has forgotten the most fundamental concept of shooting: Hold the weapon very firmly but not forcefully, and never slackly. A slack grip on the weapon will produce pain when it is propelled backwards into your hand/wrist or shoulder at high speed. So let's lose this rubbish. 122.200.166.36 (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ported shotgun pic?

Howdy. Just a quick question. If it would be of interest, I can create and upload a picture of a ported (Pro-Port) shotgun. The only reason I ask first is because there doesn't appear to be one currently, but we do have a decent amount of photographs already. Thanks.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Venting direction

The first two paragraphs contain a number of unsourced assertions about changing velocity of the escaping gases, assertions which are dubious at best. As far as I understand the editor is talking about how muzzle brakes or compensators reduce movement of the barrel because of the energy needed to "alter the velocity" of the gas. Perhaps he/she means the angular movement of the muzzle rise, which does need some energy but that energy must be unimportant. A bullet and the gas that leaves the barrel move by thousands of feet per second but a muzzle rise is something like feet per second. Adding a few more inches of travel for the gases will make no perceptible difference. Any difference in recoil or muzzle rise from a compensator is for other reasons, like the added mass and changed centre of mass.

As for preventing twist, I don't follow his/her reasoning at all, unless perhaps that he/she has the mistaken conception that the jets of gas directed to the sides act like rods that move with the barrel and the angular momentum is what decreases twist. I thought about removing the paragraphs, but perhaps there's a concept in there that's just not explained clearly. Sjö (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I am completely at a loss to figure out what the twisting content means. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Muzzle brake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929024448/http://www.stiguns.com/USPress/gungames/limcat.html to http://www.stiguns.com/USPress/gungames/limcat.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20131219041345/http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/KIES_Blast_Master_Linear_Compensator_p/kies-blst%20mstr22.htm to http://www.joeboboutfitters.com/KIES_Blast_Master_Linear_Compensator_p/kies-blst%20mstr22.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080704124046/http://jprifles.com/instructions/Website%20Shipping%20Instructions/RE%20Selection%20Guide1.pdf to http://www.jprifles.com/instructions/Website%20Shipping%20Instructions/RE%20Selection%20Guide1.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lima-wiederladetechnik.de/PDF/Finnish-Government-Silencer-Summary.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090328141932/http://lima-wiederladetechnik.de/Schalldaempfer/Schalldaempfer.htm to http://www.lima-wiederladetechnik.de/Schalldaempfer/Schalldaempfer.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020435/http://www.lima-wiederladetechnik.de/Englisch/Muzzle-Brake.htm to http://www.lima-wiederladetechnik.de/Englisch/Muzzle-Brake.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411111759/http://www.rvbprecision.com/articles/10/adventures-with-muzzle-brakes to http://www.rvbprecision.com/articles/10/adventures-with-muzzle-brakes
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208152215/http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_c-models.htm to http://www.glock.com/english/pistols_c-models.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Feedback

Was its role just to reduce the recoil or also to reduce the dust cloud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.38.242 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Primarily to reduce recoil/muzzle rise - but reducing dust cloud is also useful. Some actually increase dust cloud. (Hohum ^@) 10:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)