Putting Brakes on Hunting Rifles
- Thread starter Blueknight99
- Start date
No problem if someone is wearing ear protection (well only a minor problem as no hearing protection is 100% effective).
But Im not going to sit in a blind for hours with muffs on and Im not going to wear them when driving either. Its not comfortable and its not necessary except for that one brief period where most the time I dont have the opportunity to put my muffs on properly. And I hate packing more than the bare minimum out with my.
I can tell you that shooting a braked rifle without ear protection is far and away more painful than bare muzzle. I dont see how thats even a matter of debate. All it takes is a one shot sample of each with no ear protection on.
5 decibels only sounds inconsequential if you dont understand logarithmics and are thinking in linear scales. So yeah, its that bad.
Muzzle Brakes: Sound Test
I thought about these muzzle brake tests for over a year before I started this field test. We all kn...
precisionrifleblog.com
Note these are increases: 100% increase is basically 2x as loud as a bare muzzle.
Last edited:
No problem if someone is wearing ear protection (well only a minor problem as no hearing protection is 100% effective).
But Im not going to sit in a blind for hours with muffs on and Im not going to where them when driving either. Its not comfortable and its not necessary except for that one brief period where most the time I dont have the opportunity to put my muffs on properly.
I can tell you that shooting a braked rifle without ear protection is far and away more painful than bare muzzle. I dont see how thats even a matter of debate. All it takes is a one shot sample of each with no ear protection on.
5 decibels only sounds inconsequential if you dont understand logarithmics and are thinking in linear scales. So yeah, its that bad.
View attachment 7164653Muzzle Brakes: Sound Test
I thought about these muzzle brake tests for over a year before I started this field test. We all kn...
Note these are increases: 100% increase is basically 2x as loud as a bare muzzle.
View attachment 7164647
Good info. So what the problem with legalizing suppressors on a centerfire rifke
No problem if someone is wearing ear protection (well only a minor problem as no hearing protection is 100% effective).
But Im not going to sit in a blind for hours with muffs on and Im not going to wear them when driving either. Its not comfortable and its not necessary except for that one brief period where most the time I dont have the opportunity to put my muffs on properly. And I hate packing more than the bare minimum out with my.
I can tell you that shooting a braked rifle without ear protection is far and away more painful than bare muzzle. I dont see how thats even a matter of debate. All it takes is a one shot sample of each with no ear protection on.
5 decibels only sounds inconsequential if you dont understand logarithmics and are thinking in linear scales. So yeah, its that bad.
View attachment 7164653Muzzle Brakes: Sound Test
I thought about these muzzle brake tests for over a year before I started this field test. We all kn...
Note these are increases: 100% increase is basically 2x as loud as a bare muzzle.
View attachment 7164647
so many people are missing the point. Your fucking your hearing with a normal bare barrel without a brake!
many rifle suppressor mfgs claim of hearing safe, is NOT for more than a very limited exposure.
btw they ran the mic 9” of to the side, about 4” more into the blast zone of brakes than the shooter experiences.
for those of you who have spent a lot of time spotting you know just a couple inches of center of the shooter and the noise levels with a brake drastically increase
LOL....That chart is cute. As it really demonstrates the change in direction of the perceived loudness. For every increase...there must be a decrease. Take that same testing situation, place sound meters in a full 360* circle spaced equally apart. Take your measurements. You'll see the changes, where what is happening and when. Some areas of the circle will decrease....other will increase. Just as your chart depicts....it's just your chart is ONLY referencing one specific point in space.
Take any rifle outside with nothing around. Fire the rifle. Now go into sheltered firing position say like a hotel room. While in the exact center of the room fire the rifle The sound will be "perceivably louder" since the sound will now be "trapped" inside the room.
It's not rocket science, it just takes an understanding of what info people are sharing.....or not sharing.
I'm not saying don't wear hearing pro. By all means WEAR IT. But to give some idea that I'm going to notice a +5db change with a brake isn't always 100% factual. Why??? Cause as your chart above shows.....muzzle brakes made by DIFFERENT companies, using different designs,.....well......OMG....cause different changes in perceived loudness. WOW.
Using your chart of Sound Level Change and comparing that to the "How much louder.." chart I see the JP Recoil Eliminator @ 101% should be "perceived" as 2x louder than a bare barrel. Do I have that right??
SO we have to ask....How?? Well...considering the other brakes listed lower than 101% in increase (except one JP) are made by different companies....we can say it's all about design.
So muzzle brake DESIGN isn't there to make the "perceived loudness" less.....it's there to control the weapon. Wearing hearing protection changes the "perceived loudness" more than a muzzle brake.....BY DESIGN.
Take any rifle outside with nothing around. Fire the rifle. Now go into sheltered firing position say like a hotel room. While in the exact center of the room fire the rifle The sound will be "perceivably louder" since the sound will now be "trapped" inside the room.
It's not rocket science, it just takes an understanding of what info people are sharing.....or not sharing.
I'm not saying don't wear hearing pro. By all means WEAR IT. But to give some idea that I'm going to notice a +5db change with a brake isn't always 100% factual. Why??? Cause as your chart above shows.....muzzle brakes made by DIFFERENT companies, using different designs,.....well......OMG....cause different changes in perceived loudness. WOW.
Using your chart of Sound Level Change and comparing that to the "How much louder.." chart I see the JP Recoil Eliminator @ 101% should be "perceived" as 2x louder than a bare barrel. Do I have that right??
SO we have to ask....How?? Well...considering the other brakes listed lower than 101% in increase (except one JP) are made by different companies....we can say it's all about design.
So muzzle brake DESIGN isn't there to make the "perceived loudness" less.....it's there to control the weapon. Wearing hearing protection changes the "perceived loudness" more than a muzzle brake.....BY DESIGN.
Ignore the numbers and the real world then. Muzzle brakes on hunting rifles are an excellent idea.
Wearing hearing protection while shooting a braked rifle is what is being talked about here. I do not understand the point you have been trying to make. Shoot a braked rifle without plugs and it will hurt. This is reality, perception be damned.
And if your perception is that brakes aren’t that much louder than a bare muzzle and that everyone wears hearing protection when hunting then you’re fucking retarded.
Remember: "...we end up in strange mix of science and psychology, because loudness is a SUBJECTIVE feeling and can be perceived differently by individuals."
That's partially from your link you posted.
That's partially from your link you posted.
LOL.....HOLY shit.....Listen to the dumb ass. PEOPLE DO wear hearing protection.....It's electronic. LMAO DO you actually live under a rock???
A wise man summed it up nicely early in this thread. Below is his written words of wisdom. I don’t know what more can be added constructively.
As I asked before:
If one shoots with a brake while using hearing protection......what's the problem?????????
If one shoots with a brake while using hearing protection......what's the problem?????????
I put foam plugs in. Not completely unless I have time but they are always in. I hunted most of my life without doing so as most people DO NOT use hearing protection at all while hunting just as @spife7980 said.
@spife7980 @HeavyAssault
I think you both are in agreement and don’t know it. ?
Just arguing from different perspectives.
I think you both are in agreement and don’t know it. ?
Just arguing from different perspectives.
I answered that:
But my issue is that I’ve never met a person that sits in the deer blind with muffs or plugs. Plenty may be the real world but in the world I’ve seen plenty equals zero.
I was making the point that it's a design of the brake that is going to make the biggest effective change when measured by devices. As posted above SOME brakes make less change, compared to others. So the change is going to be perceived differently by different people. To say +5db is going to make a huge difference to me as it does to you is not factually correct. As from the blog: "...we end up in strange mix of science and psychology, because loudness is a SUBJECTIVE feeling and can be perceived differently by individuals."
It’s not the design that’s the biggest factor, that’s the presence of a brake that most contributes to the increase.
I’m not arguing that you may not perceive a sound as being as abusive to you as it does to me. I’m arguing that fact that adding a brake increases the sound to your ear by the same amount of recoil protection that it provides. Which you are too via the design influence. But a 40% increase in sound intensity is not a negligible amount. It’s math, not psychology.
And Ive at least crawled out from under this rock which I use as a roof at least far enough that I hunt with a silencer and am adding more to help where I can.
That doesn’t change the fact that many people refuse to make the sacrifice that comes with equipping hearing protection. I wish more would take steps to mitigate hearing damage. That’s all I’m advocating for here. We all want people to protect themselves. I say that if you’re going to be engaging in an activity where not equipping hearing protection is common (which it is, no matter your perception) then to not make it worse on yourself with a brake. Because as wade said, which we both liked, one should always wear hearing protection when shooting with a brake.
I’m not arguing that you may not perceive a sound as being as abusive to you as it does to me. I’m arguing that fact that adding a brake increases the sound to your ear by the same amount of recoil protection that it provides. Which you are too via the design influence. But a 40% increase in sound intensity is not a negligible amount. It’s math, not psychology.
And Ive at least crawled out from under this rock which I use as a roof at least far enough that I hunt with a silencer and am adding more to help where I can.
That doesn’t change the fact that many people refuse to make the sacrifice that comes with equipping hearing protection. I wish more would take steps to mitigate hearing damage. That’s all I’m advocating for here. We all want people to protect themselves. I say that if you’re going to be engaging in an activity where not equipping hearing protection is common (which it is, no matter your perception) then to not make it worse on yourself with a brake. Because as wade said, which we both liked, one should always wear hearing protection when shooting with a brake.
I hear you......LOL
That's why I suggest a 360* test that would show you "where and how" the sound intensity is changed from a bare rifle end to using a rifle brake. Not to go deeper but even then brake design will even yield significant changes to the 360* testing results.
That's why I suggest a 360* test that would show you "where and how" the sound intensity is changed from a bare rifle end to using a rifle brake. Not to go deeper but even then brake design will even yield significant changes to the 360* testing results.
I stalk.. I hunt in the West. So the under cover thing like your deer bind or the square range is not in play. All rifles seem far less noisy when NOT in those places.
Not using electronic ear-pro hunting with todays level of comfort, with any big rifle just is not smart.. You can hear better with the amplification, not just animal and wind noises, but your own. Yes it can take a bit of time gaining directional awareness, but it comes with use, especial if the volume is correct.
I can go to the range and shoot x number with a brake on my comp gun, then spin it off and shoot x number.. (I have done this many times when having a load issue) From the shooter position tucked up tight behind the gun they both go boom.. No way is one perceived as much loader than the other. That said, for the guy in the next shooting bay, ya- it can be horrific -- I think to many are blending the experience of shooting next to a braked shooter or standing away from behind dead center..
The mistake we are making here is that somebody thing 150+ DB is ok in any shape or form, then going on to draw the line with a brake..
This is same old hunter talk, "well if I can hit a pie plate at 100 yards", then barely doing so, goes on to sight in his rifle 2" high for his 300 yard shot.. obviously, he didn't use hearing protection or he would have heard the info and known, his 8"+ group is probably 30" with a bit a wind, adrenaline, uncertain distance and rushed timeline @ 300..
If it is not safe to shoot without at least electronic ear-pro, then why do it? If your going to shoot with electronics, then why not use the brake.. if can is NOT available to use in your state.
Okay, I’ll say it.
This thread already belongs in the Legends thread.
As a self-trained listener, I hear you both coming from the same 20% slice and arguing over the last 5%.
While I admire that, and additionally admire your considered and thought out arguments, I also am enjoying the entertainment.
You are together stating that while one definitely should ( scientifically proven ) wear ear protection while hunting in any situation, so many of us have grown up in an environment and time when that wasn’t the case, that it is likely a majority of hunters today do not use hearing protection while hunting.
This thread already belongs in the Legends thread.
As a self-trained listener, I hear you both coming from the same 20% slice and arguing over the last 5%.
While I admire that, and additionally admire your considered and thought out arguments, I also am enjoying the entertainment.
You are together stating that while one definitely should ( scientifically proven ) wear ear protection while hunting in any situation, so many of us have grown up in an environment and time when that wasn’t the case, that it is likely a majority of hunters today do not use hearing protection while hunting.
Shooting bare muzzle and with a brake is night and day from the shooters perspective. I shoot plugged and with muffs and there are some brakes like the MPA that I can’t stand to shoot even like that. Some are less noisy to the shooter but all are much louder to the shooter than none at all. I just sold a Hellfire for this very reason. Not the worst but still uncomfortable even with plugs and muffs. It’s odd that you think differently? Maybe you shoot left handed? ?
well big wade I must not shoot enough to know..
and $ to donuts you are shooting under cover like I mentioned of some sort, like at a range correct?
The point is and was you need hearing protection.. it's all loud.. period.
I shoot a crap load of matches and I sure can't find anyone who say's omg that's an APA or that's a Hellfire.. and I hunt a a lot with a tripod.. Brakes are very much a tool that helps..
I was picking on you at the end. I shoot plenty as well under, in, and around all sorts of things but that has nothing to do with it. I would wager that anybody who has shot a rifle with and without a brake would say there is a noticeable difference between the two. Some obnoxiously so. Of course how much is subjective and that was covered already in this thread.
Whether guys use them or not doesn’t matter to me. I shoot with one every now and again as well. It either has to be a flat brake or a 360 degree ported brake as they aren’t quite so bad. If I competed I would use one for sure. I just think it was kinda silly for you to say that you can’t notice the difference. Bad ears from all that shooting with a brake I suppose. ?
To anyone saying a 5db increase in sound is not noticable... thats probably due to increased hearing loss over other people.
Sadly i have been around when someone decided that shooting their rifle with a vias radial brake, and no hearing protection. It was so aggressively loud, in that he was in pain for a very long time afterwards.. ie days not minutes.
I grew up hunting without using hearing protection, and given that all of the electronic ones we have tried out for range use suck in the wind.. we continue to not use them.
That said, my father and i will not take anybody out that uses a brake for hunting. So absolutely unnecessary to be in need of a brake.
I work in an industry where that +5db is the difference between single and double hearing protection.
Sadly i have been around when someone decided that shooting their rifle with a vias radial brake, and no hearing protection. It was so aggressively loud, in that he was in pain for a very long time afterwards.. ie days not minutes.
I grew up hunting without using hearing protection, and given that all of the electronic ones we have tried out for range use suck in the wind.. we continue to not use them.
That said, my father and i will not take anybody out that uses a brake for hunting. So absolutely unnecessary to be in need of a brake.
I work in an industry where that +5db is the difference between single and double hearing protection.
The brake will help with staying on target and not losing sight picture for follow on shots but if money is no object and you can wait the months it's going to take for the tax stamp by all means get a suppressor, might not do you much good this year though. Is a rifle with brake louder than a rifle without? Yes it is, but if you're thinking the herd won't move on after the first shot brake, or suppressor, or no brake, or no suppressor, you'll be thoroughly disappointed. Ear plugs whether you shoot with brake, suppressor, or without should be a no brainer, hearing loss doesn't just stop from happening because it's hunting. I'd love to hear my grandkids more some day than have that trophy buck on the wall, Uncle Sam already took care of a lot of that hearing with lots of fireworks.
Last edited:
What I am saying is that are both fucking loud too loud. Because I am protected to some degree with high end ear pro, when not under cover, there is no way am experience something 2x or greater once protected as the article makes it seem.
Krazy-Jim sure a brake is an issue to a guide who is often exactly in the brakes blast zone.thats another topic..
btw I was the one who said 5db is not insignificant.
@Krazy_jim I’m with you. In Oct 2016 I had a big mule deer pop up less than 100 yards from me and I popped off 2 shots with my 6.5 SAUM with Vias brake, without ear pro. my ears rang for days and my right ear still rings to this day. i now use a suppressor and plugs while hunting and muffs when at the range.
1. Silly US gun laws.
2. Much of all hunting is done with the help of dogs here. They object to using ear plugs. Besides, hearing the moose approach through the bushes is easier without ear plugs.
@Diver160651 not calling you out for the 5db comment. So no worries there.
Its the other guy who says
"I'm not saying don't wear hearing pro. By all means WEAR IT. But to give some idea that I'm going to notice a +5db change with a brake isn't always 100% factual."
Thats what bothers me.
I admit 100% i dont wear hearing protection while hunting. Where we hunt it is almost always windy and i dont know of many electronic muffs that will filter out the wind well enough to hear small things happening.
I have heard the thump of a mule deer bouncing away below the edge of a coulee. Can't see it, but could make out the sound of it happening.
Which comes to the point of " no deer is worth being deaf" which is very true. I dont just shoot any deer, many years i havent taken one.
Its the other guy who says
"I'm not saying don't wear hearing pro. By all means WEAR IT. But to give some idea that I'm going to notice a +5db change with a brake isn't always 100% factual."
Thats what bothers me.
I admit 100% i dont wear hearing protection while hunting. Where we hunt it is almost always windy and i dont know of many electronic muffs that will filter out the wind well enough to hear small things happening.
I have heard the thump of a mule deer bouncing away below the edge of a coulee. Can't see it, but could make out the sound of it happening.
Which comes to the point of " no deer is worth being deaf" which is very true. I dont just shoot any deer, many years i havent taken one.
Silly is not exactly what I'd call them, irrational yes. Have yet to see someone grab a suppressor by itself and shoot someone with just the suppressor, yet they are regulated as a firearm since the ATF technically does not have the authority to regulate non-firearms leave aside what the constitution says about regulating firearms. Question is how much longer will you keep hearing the moose approach if you keep shooting without plugs?
For example when taking two sources of the noise: Let's use two rifles same make, same series....two different calibers. One 30-06, one 7mm. When fired the 30-06 makes 160db, the 7mm makes 165db. Then we do that same firing using two different rifles and calibers....every time it's measured at a +5db between the two fired rifles. You will not be able to identify the +5db 100% accurately every single time during every single testing sample. You will say "Damn that's loud."
As measured by a meter...not by you walking around going...."Hey guys there's a +5db change in the noise here. Time to double up hearing protection."
For what it's worth:
Perception
Sound studies tell us time and again that a 3dBA increase in sound level is barely noticeable to the human ear. In fact, you have to raise a sound level by 5dBA before most listeners report a noticeable or significant change. Further, it takes a 10dBA increase before the average listener hears “double the sound.” That’s a far cry from 3dB.
As measured by a meter...not by you walking around going...."Hey guys there's a +5db change in the noise here. Time to double up hearing protection."
For what it's worth:
Perception
Sound studies tell us time and again that a 3dBA increase in sound level is barely noticeable to the human ear. In fact, you have to raise a sound level by 5dBA before most listeners report a noticeable or significant change. Further, it takes a 10dBA increase before the average listener hears “double the sound.” That’s a far cry from 3dB.
I don’t know why you are still arguing. And using examples at the low and safe level of hearing to describe dB differences is a misleading argument. Sound dB increases are not linear in nature, they are logarithmic. Here’s a chart, similar to most, except indicating safe non-protected exposure time at various sound levels. Once you hit 130 dB, it’s less than one second. And, for every 3 dB increases that safe exposure time is cut in half.
That’s probably what you’re arguing against without knowing.
So the whole argument is about how many nanoseconds difference it takes before you’ve permanently damaged your hearing?
I can comfortably say that I do in fact notice the difference. From pump alley to the compressor house is very noticeable.
One would hurt my ears with no ear pro, the other wouldnt.
Sure i may not be able to know the exact increase with my ears, but can tell there is a difference.
@Krazy_jim That's my point exactly. You don't know the exact increase, you just know from the "perception" of your own hearing. For a situation like that a meter is always going to be used LONG before a personal reaction to noise levels to know the exact noise readings.
@lash Once you start going to the higher end of that table ( firearms show at 140+)...your ears will hurt long before you 100% know every time you are exposed to +5db changes. Many testing reports show a 12ga, 30-06, and .45ACP read at levels within +5db of each other as measured at the barrel. Can you say 100%/90%/80% when you experience a +5db change from a weapon??? I doubt it.
As before many people report one huge factor is individual perception. Sure use whatever meter you want.....people will still look at the meter and say "Wow ...I didn't realize it was that loud."
The test link/blog post above shows a reading of sound level to the side of 162.7db. Put on a OPS muzzle brake and the reading is 166.7db. That's only a 50% increase....in perception.
As from the blog and a link he provides:
Perceived volume or loudness of sound, is a complex phenomenon, not entirely understood by experts. One widely-agreed method of assessing loudness is by measuring SPL with a sound pressure level meter, which is the sound pressure level in decibels (dB).
Avoid using the psychoacoustical terms loudness perception and volume.
This subjective sound-sensation is not clearly measurable without ambiguity.
The term "loudness" or "volume" is a problem because it belongs to psycho- acoustics and this personal feeling is not correct definable.
Loudness as a psychological correlate of physical strength (amplitude) is also affected by parameters other than sound pressure, including frequency, bandwidth, spectral composition, information content, time structure, and the duration of exposure of the sound signal. The same sound will not create the same loudness perception by all individuals (people).
@lash Once you start going to the higher end of that table ( firearms show at 140+)...your ears will hurt long before you 100% know every time you are exposed to +5db changes. Many testing reports show a 12ga, 30-06, and .45ACP read at levels within +5db of each other as measured at the barrel. Can you say 100%/90%/80% when you experience a +5db change from a weapon??? I doubt it.
As before many people report one huge factor is individual perception. Sure use whatever meter you want.....people will still look at the meter and say "Wow ...I didn't realize it was that loud."
The test link/blog post above shows a reading of sound level to the side of 162.7db. Put on a OPS muzzle brake and the reading is 166.7db. That's only a 50% increase....in perception.
As from the blog and a link he provides:
Perceived volume or loudness of sound, is a complex phenomenon, not entirely understood by experts. One widely-agreed method of assessing loudness is by measuring SPL with a sound pressure level meter, which is the sound pressure level in decibels (dB).
Avoid using the psychoacoustical terms loudness perception and volume.
This subjective sound-sensation is not clearly measurable without ambiguity.
The term "loudness" or "volume" is a problem because it belongs to psycho- acoustics and this personal feeling is not correct definable.
Loudness as a psychological correlate of physical strength (amplitude) is also affected by parameters other than sound pressure, including frequency, bandwidth, spectral composition, information content, time structure, and the duration of exposure of the sound signal. The same sound will not create the same loudness perception by all individuals (people).
A suppressor will reduce the noise enough to keep the hunter hearing for longer, when a small number of shots are fired in an environment that muffles the sound too.
Using modern electronic hearing protection, in addition, is obviously even better.
Random photo from the interwebs:
I had a guy getting ready for a hunt setup with his 300 Wby magnum with a brake on it next to me. I have the same rifle in 7mm Wby Mag without the brake. I had hearing protection on. I literally was deaf in one ear for about 90 minutes. I didnt realize it until I left the range and took the protection off. My ears were fucked up for 3 days. I can only imagine the damage it did. Ive shot that rifle in the field without protection even and its not anywhere near as bad as the one with the brake with protection on! This is from a guy that grew up hunting with a 308 and certainly some shots every year without any hearing protection and id didnt bother me at the time. Its just not worth it. I suppress everything now. Wish I had started that decades earlier. If my hunting guns have a break it only to mount the can. I fall asleep with a radio or tv in so I dont have to listen to my ears ring.
You are illustrating my point. Many are judging the differences from experiencing the muzzle blast from another persons brake, especially when under cover like at the range.
This is not what the shooter experiences when tucked up tight horizontaly centered up behind the barrel. Move 6” outside that zone with an APA or Hellfire and you’ll notice a much loader event, 9” more and by 2-3’ you get smacked in the head. Under the low roof at some of the ranges the entire event feels more violent.
You can ask the other guys, not just me that shoot thousand of rounds yearly and burn out barrels at the PRS and NRL matches. Ask guys that spend enormous time spotting or teaching a ton of precision rifle, we know where not to stand.. we’ve all had to be in the wrong place. No doubt that’s sucks. But that is NOT the same dynamic the shooter experiences, and yes, some brakes like the Insite I showed earlier do not put the blast cone back as steep.
If I was a guide who might have inexperienced shooters/hunters I’d be arguing against muzzle brakes too. The guide is your eyes so seeing your impact is not as much of a premium as if your shooting solo.. again that’s a different argument.
sure cans would be great but that’s not available to everyone.
I think again we have different types of hunters.. the idea that your going to jump an animal at short range is one type, the other like we often see in Western states like Wyoming, CO and California offer far more setup time with the increased range. From glassing, ranging to dropping the gun into a tripod... With distance comes time, so there is the opportunity to pop a plug in, not doing so is lazy.
Last edited:
