Thread: Muzzle Brake Testing

It would be funny if you could get hold of their brake, test it against yours, and if the result are in your favour posting a video on the web.

Would love to see their green face then

Of course they would argue that the test is flawed because not independently done... You know the music :-)

Originally Posted by Friwi

It would be funny if you could get hold of their brake, test it against yours, and if the result are in your favour posting a video on the web.

Would love to see their green face then

Of course they would argue that the test is flawed because not independently done... You know the music :-)

As previously mentioned I have a large number of muzzle brakes for testing, both factory & after market

During testing I have fired more than 1000 rounds thus far, over half being 338 Lapua Magnum,

I have a reasonable idea how well a brake will perform by looking at it.

Some of the brakes "talked up" on the net etc are very average which is prossibly what Cal was referring to when he said there were some surprising results.

The results will be very interesting, including the noise & point of aim comparisons.

It depends how he scores the brakes the results could be somewhat skewed ?

Like in the scope comparison where if it wasn't FFP it got hammered in one of the tests, severely hurting its overall test score.

Originally Posted by Kiwi Greg

Like in the scope comparison where if it wasn't FFP it got hammered in one of the tests, severely hurting its overall test score.

checks out.

I think the guy mentioned something about patents pending in the comments section. I guess that is why APA got a bit dark on it....... eerily similar is one way of describing it. Their attorney might see it differently though, perhaps? I would suspect that is why the blog owner decided to stay out any conflict.

Well if there is a patent pending, greg you 'd better check this out( I guess you would already have done so?)

By the way ,the guy makes an accurate description of the components he uses, but what about the software program he wrote?
Is there a way of getting it ? Or are there some brainy gigs on the forum to understand and write such program?

It would be great to have such equipment here in NZ

Originally Posted by Friwi

Well if there is a patent pending, greg you 'd better check this out( I guess you would already have done so?)

By the way ,the guy makes an accurate description of the components he uses, but what about the software program he wrote?
Is there a way of getting it ? Or are there some brainy gigs on the forum to understand and write such program?

It would be great to have such equipment here in NZ

There is no patent pending as far as I'm aware, at least there wasn't ages ago ?

Before I made my new rig I looked into the very same system he is using, its doable but at $1500+ & after conflicting advice I was unsure whether it would work.

I chose to spend those dollars on enhancing a visual system I knew worked

I'm revisiting the electronic system with a local company at the moment.

I designed and built my own machine for testing recoil energy pulse/impulse/thrust, but this was about 3 1/2 years ago. It worked out really well to measure the recoil energy of a rifle firing various cartridges, and it is what I used to test changes or improvements when i went through about 20+ prototypes when i developed my own line of original (novel) design muzzle brakes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8dztGWyW2E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsOQWA3-NLY

Have you built something similar to this now Greg? If you can get the friction as low to zero as possible the system works really well.

I looked at using load cells to measure peak force 4 years ago, but the load cells available at the time had very poor response time - great for measuring static loads (or static/constant forces), but very poor at accurately measuring pulse or impulse or spike forces.

I also felt that simply measuring force 'spike' or peak as a means of reference, or for trying to determine the true 'magnitude' of the recoil effect (or thrust) was not really accurate, or could be open to statistical misinterpretation.

I discovered alot of things about muzzle brake design that had obviously been overlooked for the decades that muzzle brakes have been around, and some of these features are in all of my proprietary designs. Hence i went to the trouble over registering/patenting my designs so that a few years down the track no-one could rip my designs, and then turn around and say that i was just copying them ! Or make copies in China and then flood the market here, which would really burn me, especially after investing big $$ in CNC machines to be able to make and sell then at a reasonable price. Not to mention all the R&D time, thousands of dollars worth of ammo, etc. etc.

Originally Posted by Kaimai Views

I think the guy mentioned something about patents pending in the comments section. I guess that is why APA got a bit dark on it....... eerily similar is one way of describing it. Their attorney might see it differently though, perhaps? I would suspect that is why the blog owner decided to stay out any conflict.

Smoke screen.

Pretty hard to patent something that has been in the public arena for years I would imagine ?

I take it as quite a complement to be honest.

These comparisons will open many eyes, it appears that very few people have publicly compared muzzle brakes in the past.