Muzzle Brakes: Recoil Reduction Results Summary
之前的链接
![]() ![]()
The graphic below shows the amount of recoil force over time for each rifle, which was directly measured at the butt of the rifle. Each line represents almost 1000 data points, which were recorded in about 1/100th of a second.
The graphic shows recoil signatures for the rifles with a bare muzzle (i.e. rifle without any muzzle device), as well as the recoil signature for the muzzle brake that did the best job at reducing recoil for each of the rifles.
Cartridge | | Average Impulse (lbf·s) | Average Peak Force (lbf) | Bare
Muzzle | Best
Brake | % Diff | Bare
Muzzle | Best
Brake | % Diff | 6XC | 16.2 | 3.80 | 2.56 | 33% | 655 | 455 | 31% | 6.5 Creedmoor | 14.1 | 4.42 | 2.64 | 40% | 880 | 476 | 46% | 308 Win | 6.2 | 4.61 | 3.01 | 35% | 1034 | 490 | 53% | 300 Norma Mag | 15.7 | 8.62 | 4.88 | 43% | 1452 | 739 | 49% |
Results & Overall Ratings for Individual Brakes
On my rating system, if a brake were to have an average recoil reduction of 15% or less, it would receive a rating of 0. That seems like the bare minimum into this game. On the upper-end, if a brake reduced recoil by an average of 44% or more, which only the top 2 brakes did, it received a full 10.0 rating. I devised several methods for ratings, but this seemed the most objective and fair. With this rating system, none of the numbers are based on where a brake ranked relative to the others tested. A muzzle brakes rating is entirely based on its own performance. Here is another visualization of the overall ratings, including a photo of each brake. This allows you to see which designs are more effective when it comes to recoil reduction, and spot some common characteristics among the top performers. Pros & Cons of Angled Baffles
Here is a breakdown of how much the top muzzle brakes are angled back toward the shooter (0° indicates the baffles are perpendicular to the bullet path). There seems to be a strong correlation between the angle and overall rank. However, in the section on muzzle devices from Dr. Carlucci’s textbook, Ballistics: Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition, he reminds us “Best design practice is to divert gases to the sides of the weapon, because rearward diversion could affect an exposed gun crew.” During my tests, a manufacturer sent me a prototype of a muzzle brake with 45° baffles back toward the shooter. It provided outstanding recoil reduction (better than anything shown here), but while testing that brake, a friend helping me with the tests caught some shrapnel in his side. It penetrated 2 shirts and caused a wound deep enough to see flesh. I told the manufacturer I wouldn’t write about it, because I didn’t think it was safe. They were concerned as well, and haven’t release that prototype for sale. The other downside of angled port designs is increased concussion/blast. All of the muzzle brakes are loud, but diverting gases rearward can increase the pressure shock wave at or near the shooter’s position. Some shooters would rather deal with the extra recoil than the increased concussion from that shock wave. So that is another thing to keep in mind. The sound test should give us insight into the pressure difference at the shooter’s position for each brake, so stay tuned for that. There are clearly downsides to rearward deflection of gases, but it also has a measurable influence on recoil reduction. I don’t want to present this as “right or wrong.” It’s up to each shooter to strike the right balance for their application. I’m just trying to give a balanced and responsible presentation of all the facts to help you make an informed decision. Next UpIn the next post, I’ll cover the results related to how well each muzzle brake helps you stay on target. David Tubb, one of the most accomplished rifle shooters in history, helped me develop this part of the field test. David believes this is the most important aspect of muzzle brake, and much more important than recoil reduction. So stay tuned!
| 
发表于 2015-7-4 16:57
收藏
提升卡
变色卡
千斤顶
发表于 2015-7-4 17:59
楼主
。 像specwar的音量可是只有30p1的几分之一，对气体的抑制效果也可能更好。
