-
Muzzle brake – benefit only?…
Hi Guys,
reading a lot of muzzle brake orders in the „General Discussion/Tikka Shop open” topic, I was wondering if a muzzle brake is realy the first and only solution for recoil reduction, and if it really does only good things especially for the scope.
Based on simple law of physics, noting tames recoil better than weight. If somebody goes hunting a lot, and walks int he bush carrying the rifle, this is the only argument for me to put a muzzle brake instead of more weight on the rifle, if it comes to recoil reduction. I heard a lot of opinions saying that the muzzle brake reduces recoil a lot, but during the „process” it gives a much increased beating on the scope, based again on physics and muzzle brakes’ working principle.
A heavy rifle without a muzzle brake will give one kick and backwards only, which then smoothly dissipates into the shooters shoulder and body. But with a rather light rifle, as the shot brakes, the rifle starts jumping backwards, giving the scope a first slap. As soon the expanding gas reaches the muzzle brake, hitting its wall will start braking the rifle as it supposed to, but it acts as a second slap ont he scope, in the opposite direction. They come in such a rapid succession, that the shooter doesnt feel it in his shoulder, because the weight of the rifle absorbs the two pulses, resulting in a less felt recoil at the end, but the scope, as being the most sensitive piece of the combo, feels it pretty much like being hit with a hammer from the front side, then immediately from the rear. On a long term, a lot of scopes will not be able to cope with it. Nightforce scopes are rated to cope with acceleration p to 1200 G, but I’m not sure how others are rated?
So are we still really sure muzzle brake is the only way to reduce recoil? I would really appreciate others’ opinions.
Log in to reply.