This is *really* impressive! I clicked to find the answer, but just assumed it'd be a couple of yahoos saying, "Yeah, that felt different", or "naw... felt the same." But this is quantifiable, repeatable, and measurable. _Just superb!_
@Michael Hill Since the length of the arm is unchanging, a reduction in angle is also a reduction in height. You're not wrong... but you're not correct, either.
@Michael Hill Can't see the forest because of all the trees in the way? The rearward energy was reduced, and the GPE was correspondingly reduced as well. The reduction in angle correlates directly to a reduction in GPE. - Whatever their math is, and whether it's accurate or not, you can see for yourself that the gun didn't achieve the same height, which means less rearward energy was exerted. - "Hot garbage"? The video is there for you to see. Put the video on mute if you insist on nit-picking, but like I said, the video is there, and the vertical displacement is reduced with additional 'braking', though it obviously has diminishing returns.
@Michael Hill So put the audio on mute, soak in the video, and be grateful that someone took the time to do this experiment and video-document the results for you.
Was thinking about this when the video started but we'd see more of a difference on the 4,5,6 ports measurements if the weight was doing a significant amount of work?
@@legiongames2400 Indeed, overall added mass is negligible. It would however help stability by weight in front a bit. Free swinging test wouldn’t show much. If they had a sled with a impact meter you might see the result.
Wow, I am really impressed with this video. You have done something not even those gun channels with millions of subscribers and massive budgets would ever do. You built a rig and measured something quantifiably and gave a clear answer. Superb quality.
I’m no engineer, this raised a question for me though. Would the most efficient amount of ports depend on the diameter of the projectile in relation to the amount of gasses behind it? Love videos like these.
Yes and also the design of the both the projectile and the brake, the actual pressure of the gasses at the individual ports, the physical weight of the brake not to mention the material, temperature, cartridge being used, and on and on and on...
Regardless, it is still a solid test to give you a general idea of how the brake would function to reduce recoil. Their setup, though not factoring in EVERYTHING, is an impressive test.
It would depend on a huge number of things. The design of the brake, the spacing/size of each port, and so on. Diameter of the projectile, pressure of the cartridge, length of the barrel firing, specific gunpowder mix. If we assume a sealed barrel (ie not the gun cycling) pretty much everything else will change the results and thus the number of ports. These numbers seem reasonably representative of what I'd expect in the majority of cases with a fairly average muzzle brake design, but with odd designs or odd scenarios we can very easily get an incredibly different result.
@@MrAPCProductions Once the bullet passes the first port the pressure of the gasses affecting the bullet is so small there is more pressure affecting the front of the bullet due to the compression happening since the gasses will always move to equalize with the outside. That is why a shorter vs longer barrel on pistols can make for a shocking change in velocity (More pronounced in rifles obviously)as once that bullet has left the barrel it's no longer getting pushed along gaining speed and merely conserving it's momentum (Minus of course the drag)
@@Jeff4559 Sorry Jeff but PHYSICS gives you a general idea of how the brake would function. It's not that impressive of a test. As Paul mentions, it's a truncated test that gives a very narrow window of results for a single caliber, single charge of gunpowder, and single barrel length.
I'd like to see this done with magnums. they have longer burning powder so that may effect results. e.g. the effect you discovered may happen at 5 ports for a .300 WM
It wouldn't make a difference. Once the ass end of the bullet reaches the first port the gasses are naturally going to expand to equalize with the external pressures of the atmosphere. The extra ports on the breaks is where they get their other name from.. Flash hiders as the ports give the flash of the still burning powder a rear ward angle instead of spitting it out of the barrel in line with you line of site thus during low light situations allowing you to still see down range better (and obscuring your position slightly as well)
@@SilvaDreams Brakes don’t make good Flash Hiders typically. I’m not sure if there is Fire with my .338LM Sako TRG42 (paying attention to different things), but my DD MK18 will let you know what’s up.
Magnums do benefit from 5 port brakes and six port brakes. Nathan with muzzle brakes and more has done a lot of muzzle brake testing using a lot of different calibers. Also the wider the surface area of the brake, the more recoil reduction.
@@SilvaDreams flash hiders don’t send powder rearwards they just have prongs or cages that create turbulence in the gasses coming out of the barrel which allows a cleaner and dimmer burn of powder
The angle does not linearly correlate to the recoil energy. The first degree is a lot easier than the last since gravity counteracts it less. I think the potential energy achieved at the end point is a more accurate estimation (not perfect though) (Potential energy = mass * gravity * height). I calculated the reduction in potential energy from no port to 6 ports to 68%, please correct my drunk math if necessary. Happy new year!
You are correct. Potential energy (vertical distance in this case) would be a better way to express recoil reduction than angular displacement. You can appreciate a little bit more the effect of the first port this way. 1 port energy reduction: 55.0% 2 port energy reduction: 60.5% (5.5% more) 3 port energy reduction: 63.8% (3.3% more) 4 port energy reduction: 67.5% (3.7% more) 5 port energy reduction: 66.8% (0.7% less) 6 port energy reduction: 68.0% (1.3% more)
What you've written is true. But their tests demonstrate the performance of each option relative to the others as long as port design is consistent across all devices.
An addition of a decibel reading and maybe a doppler radar would help felt concussion and standard ammo deviation as well as velocity differences. I agree with some the pendulum may not be ideal but you are getting consistent data and gathering information is the key part to build a comparable data chart. Great job and keep it up, results whether good or bad are successful as long as something can be learned from it.
I wonder if the change in the weight distribution going above 4 ports could account for the slight increase. As the length of the brake gets longer it may change the swing character of the system. The increased weight should increase the inertia resistance but what wins out. That's what the smart guys are paid for.
you could try mounting the rifle on a sled and measure the way it travels after a shot. no problem with swinging or something like that and it simulates the rifle hitting the shoulder.
I think the pendulum arc is a great idea to measure recoil energy. The motion of a pendulum is a well understood system mathematically in terms of energy (just about every mechanical or aerospace engineering student has seen the equation of the motion of a pendulum developed). So the change in energy observed through a measurement of the angular average angular velocity and maximum height achieved, with an appropriate estimate of the moment of inertia due to the rifle+aluminum bar. Very simple, effective setup!
Great video! Don’t forget, the size of the ports, the distance of the ports from each other, and the angle of the ports (facing straight, Forward, or backwards) all can affect the recoil. A well designed 2 port can be much more effective than a poorly designed 6 port.
REALLY appreciate the direct to the point no fluff efficiently edited sharing of results and information. Wish more TH-cam videos sharing experimentation and results would use this format
What caliber was used and how would different calibers affect the results? There's a massive difference in the amount of gas between 6BR, Creedmoor, and a 338 Lapua
That was my thought as well. Was the ammo used stock or custom, factory or hand loads? Too may variables here to make a quantified estimate. Also cold vs hot barrel and weights of each muzzle break.
Largely there wouldn't be a drastic change as most of the recoil is from the mass of the bullet being forced down the barrel (Every action has an equal and opposite reaction -Newton) So yes there would be a change between calibers but there would also be a change depending on the weight of the bullet and the powder load and the barrel length as more powder means more gases to expand rapidly and the longer the barrel the more time it has to be accelerated and thus more energy is transferred back. Once there is an way for the gases to equalize with the outside atmosphere they rapidly expand to do just that which is why there is essentially little to no change past a single port but functionally it does work better for it's other task which is to diffuse to the burning gasses off to the sides thus it's other name of "flash hider"
Really love how you take the time and effort to take down quantifiable data not just your "shoulder feel" first time watcher and will definitely be coming back for more videos
I tried to do a curve fit of the muzzle break performance data. While it turns out that the model is actually really sensitive to the weight of the break (which we were not given AFAIK)... depending on my assumption of break weights, I'm finding that each additional port strips off something like 45-60% (best guess: 55%) of the remaining gas. Except the first, which is somewhat more effective than it "should" be: regardless of any reasonable manipulation of the model's free parameters, it reduces the gas momentum by about 75%.
I agree to a extent I use Max of 4 ports up to 300 win mag anything that I run more powder in and larger then 30 Cal bullet I bump up to 5 and on the 375/408 &416/50bmg 6 port flat closed top and bottom 90 degree ports tanker style brake
That is the baby of my mind since almost 10 years ago...and now i lived enough to see this in action,next factor to consider is...along the port count,also see the size of the ports,like " bigger ports means better? " Take the average of 4 ports and try to test 4 larger ports,why am i pointing this ? The side wall of the ports for me means "more deflection surface=better",try that as a next to keep-in-sight-factor,and thank you for this video (and the subject also),on my heart
Awesome video! Like everyone else is saying, this video was very professional and gave numbers instead of just personal opinion. Keep up the great work!
@@MDTTAC I would think theoretically a brake operates like a hydraulic piston pushing the bullet pressure is in force per surface area and the first break effectively triples the surface area, the second reduces the pressure of the center channel by 9 and the third is 27.
As a professional who has been in this business a long time the number of ports depends on the powder capacity of your cartridge. If your using 308win case cartridges 3 ports, 30-06 or 270win(which are not identical case that are necked to different calibers, they are two different case designs) 4 port, 7mm mag, 300wsm 4 port, when you get up to 300win capacity or larger 5 port. Also if the brake diameter is bigger diameter than the muzzle its more effective as well since generally the main chamber through the brake is bigger when they are. You can not take one cartridge and run through different number of ports because it becomes counter productive.
After shooting 2 years in ELR 33XC and one year with 375 Cheytac the T5 Termiknator is the best so far.Id like to tyry the Warrior 35 Beast Tuner Brake. Great video
For all the AR breakers out there...If you gotta put a noisy break on a 5.56 gun to help with recoil , maybe push ups or bench press would help you more.
The way I see it, if I am putting consecutive shots into an enemy I will want as little recoil so I can keep that grouping as low as possible with the least amount of time between each shot. I see where you are coming from, but even on the 5.56 there is a practical application with reducing recoil
i could be wrong, but i think the amount of energy needed to deflect a certain number of degrees increases as you get higher and higher. so for example it would take more energy to go from 50-55 than it would to go from 40-45. my point being i think the recoil reduction going from no brake to single port is more significant than youre giving it credit for. i wonder if measuring actual force on the butt would yield different percentage changes. either way, im still surprised how effecting just one port is.
Great test .. thanks. It is true that the first port in most brakes do the most work. In the brakes I offer I tune the internal dimensions to balance the pressure across all baffles. This makes the brake more effective as it distributes the pressure across all baffles.
Great testing, Great video, Thank you fer sharing great info. Couple years ago I requested one or two more ports from my brake mfg. & he said no need, 4 is all that's needed, so I took his word for it, Thanks to you guys - now I am certain to not question anymore.👍
Dudes! Nice review. Your pivot point needs to be below rifle center of gravity not above. This will help you measure muzzle rise as well. Engineer out.
Thanks for the testing and evaluation. I was just looking at a pinned and welded brake so that I could conceivably lower the barrel length without going SBR. Recently found a 3.8"-3.9" brake so that I could use a 12"-12.5" barrel for an AK. Since the 7.62x39 seems to like shorter barrel lengths without drastically affecting muzzle velocities.
I’ve been experimenting with my Christensen arms 338 Lapua (has mini set screws in the brake). I’ve been taking one at a time to see if I notice a difference. I blame the shooter (me, lol) not the rifle. You gained a subscriber today. Thank you. 😁
Interesting video. Nice to finally see someone trying to quantify it. I would have loved to see the estimated error of your findings. Some points though: -The initial angle if the gun seems important to me, because the gravity always acts downward and thus was not the same for each tested run. -The weight of the brakes and thus the gun seemed not to be the same for each test, and thus again the gravitational force was not the same and thus the angle might be off. Easy solutions for those would be to stick a weight to the shaft to balance it out. The results of the 5 brake test run seems off. Usually in experimental testing, if a value of several runs seems off, while the std deviation is plausible, there's a systematic error, eg. a error in the test setup odr the test itself.
I think this experiment was pretty well executed. I’d like to see them use that equipment to measure the best brake for different calibers and case capacities. A 6.5 CM may benefit from a brake differently than a .358 Norma Magnum.
You just got a new subscriber. I'm a bit of a data junkie. I love the info and this was a beautifully conducted experiment. Looking forward to anything else you do. I'm just babbling at this point, but keep up the good work guys
That's excellent! I'd love to see a revisit to this, where you test muzzle velocity as well. Maybe the bullet velocity is acting as a confounding variable in your testing.
Thank you for doing this kind of testing. Most of us don't have the resources/environment to run these setups. I just want to point out that while this method is useful to determine if there is greater or less recoil momentum/energy stepping from 1 port to 2 ports, etc, those calculations are not correct for determining a "fair" quantitative comparison of the recoil reduction. Measurement of angular displacement of this pendulum system does not have a proportional relationship to either momentum or kinetic energy of the system. In a frictionless environment, it would be appropriate to do a comparison of "change in height of the center of mass of the system" and that measurement should have a proportional relationship to recoil energy. The conclusions you make (regarding how many ports are worth having) are valuable and I appreciate this video, I just felt the need to clarify why the metrics used are not "fair" to the physics involved.
Thank you for the feedback. The goal here was to demonstrate the difference in how they perform in a simple to understand way. But keep up the great work!
The rhodesian army had a good muzzle modification On their fn 7.62.FN Rifles In the olden days The halbek device pushed the muzzle down. Which was useful because i had a bruised cheek after a lot of shooting without it. I shoot left-hand and it caters for us south paws and right hand
That was actually really interesting. I'm glad you guys made a video of this testing. Would also be curious to see a suppressor on there as well compared to the brakes
size and shape of the ports is aslo important. the further from the muzzle the less energy that it gets to use to dissipate and therefore you can choke it up a bit to get more pressure also change the angling to facilitate that. ultradyne has a this to a certain extent.
Saw an interesting video on this subject a while back. It used high speed just to look at harmonics in the barrel. And those big brakes can make the barrel do crazy stuff.
Very interesting video, I am trying to design my own muzzle brake and youtube came to help. However, I think that using angles as a measure of recoil makes your scale non-linear. One degree close to a vertical position does not increase the gun's potential energy as much as one degree when the arm is horizontal. Nevertheless, the sequence of the brakes remains the same, and this video is still very good! Good work!
One thing to consider for future tests like these, as the angle increases, the more the mass of the rifle is being effective by the downward acceleration of gravity against the tangent of the rifle's path of travel. This means that a 10% increase in angle the rifle travels cannot be equated to 10% more force (recoil) exerted by the rifle. In simpler words, the higher the angle the harder it gets to achieve a higher angle so the relationship isn't linear. Still good for comparative results however, nice work.
This is cool to me seeing the data behind how effective brakes are. I was personally very skeptical of brakes until I got my 30 06 bolt action with 24 in barrel that came with a tacticool tank break on the front with 8 small ports on each side and 10 top and bottom, looks drilled with a 3/16 or a bit smaller. It spits a bit of fire but has less felt recoil than my 16 in 5.56 gas operated ar 15.
The "stand off distance" to the next baffle needs to increase as you go forwards, because the gas pressure is lower and does not spread sideways as much as the first port. Starting without a brake would have been interesting. The pendulum test causes the moment of inertia to increase with longer brakes. Probably more than a linear sled recoil measurement system with direct inertia added for longer brakes.
Really great video. Would be interesting seeing how it affects guns with shorter barrels and smaller calibers. I think the larger the caliber, the larger the difference in recoil would be.
I dont know if this guy is an engineer but i am studying mechanical engineering and as soon as i saw the test area i knew this man was the real deal, he could have done it better with some more precision and improvements, yeah, but this is so much more practical, still is scientifical and cheaper.
Nice beginning to the test. Now cover the area of each port face, it's angle, caliber difference, and muzzle blast. For example....is a single chamber 4" wide with a rear cut angle going to be worth more the a 1" with 4 ports and 90° walls. And will a 5.56 need less then a .338?
An issue with comparing the difference in angle: the energy difference between 0 and 1 degrees is not the same as the difference between 89 and 90 degrees. You're effectively converting recoil energy into potential energy, but the rifles potential energy is not linear. Since you know the length of the pendulum and the weight of the rifle I believe you could convert your measurements to actual units of energy instead of pure angle.
You can also increase the angle of the ports, relative to the face of the barrel, the farther your ports gets from the barrel, this would allow the lower pressure gasses of ports past the first few to have an easier time pushing back onto the break. This should increase the breaks efficiency by a hair.
Great video, all tests are repeatable which is not often found on gun channels. Reminds me of a Charpy impact test. If I could make a suggestion for a follow-up video: I'd like to see the same rifle on this setup fired with various suppressors to compare how the recoil is affected/unaffected vs brakes.
Barrel length and/or a magnum would probably make use of then 6 port with the higher muzzle blast energy. Would be cool for you guys to do say a .223 vs a 300PRC (of same barrel length) or something in 1 video. Awesome video guys
Yeah, very cool to see. I would be interested in what the test caliber was and a test on a different gun of the same caliber as well as a test of the same gun with a different caliber. Just curious to see how that plays out. 👍🇺🇲
This is *really* impressive! I clicked to find the answer, but just assumed it'd be a couple of yahoos saying, "Yeah, that felt different", or "naw... felt the same." But this is quantifiable, repeatable, and measurable. _Just superb!_
Welp, at the end of the day it all comes down to what the Yahoo thinks. LOL
Yea, it actually took me a few days before watching this. They should have put the setup in the thumbnail to get more views.
@Michael Hill Since the length of the arm is unchanging, a reduction in angle is also a reduction in height. You're not wrong... but you're not correct, either.
@Michael Hill Can't see the forest because of all the trees in the way? The rearward energy was reduced, and the GPE was correspondingly reduced as well. The reduction in angle correlates directly to a reduction in GPE.
-
Whatever their math is, and whether it's accurate or not, you can see for yourself that the gun didn't achieve the same height, which means less rearward energy was exerted.
-
"Hot garbage"? The video is there for you to see. Put the video on mute if you insist on nit-picking, but like I said, the video is there, and the vertical displacement is reduced with additional 'braking', though it obviously has diminishing returns.
@Michael Hill So put the audio on mute, soak in the video, and be grateful that someone took the time to do this experiment and video-document the results for you.
Hmmm Im interested in shorter barrels… also was this normalized for the weight change?
That was my next question. Wondering if the small incremental reduction was actually because of the mass of the device.
That's not what the data would suggest
th-cam.com/video/Xqfb7IA9gA8/w-d-xo.html
This guy; always science thinking
Was thinking about this when the video started but we'd see more of a difference on the 4,5,6 ports measurements if the weight was doing a significant amount of work?
@@legiongames2400 Indeed, overall added mass is negligible. It would however help stability by weight in front a bit. Free swinging test wouldn’t show much. If they had a sled with a impact meter you might see the result.
Wow, I am really impressed with this video. You have done something not even those gun channels with millions of subscribers and massive budgets would ever do. You built a rig and measured something quantifiably and gave a clear answer. Superb quality.
Thank you so much for the kind words!
That doesn't quantify ANYTHING!
It does tho you angry elf@@drtmi8789
I’m no engineer, this raised a question for me though. Would the most efficient amount of ports depend on the diameter of the projectile in relation to the amount of gasses behind it? Love videos like these.
Yes and also the design of the both the projectile and the brake, the actual pressure of the gasses at the individual ports, the physical weight of the brake not to mention the material, temperature, cartridge being used, and on and on and on...
Regardless, it is still a solid test to give you a general idea of how the brake would function to reduce recoil. Their setup, though not factoring in EVERYTHING, is an impressive test.
It would depend on a huge number of things. The design of the brake, the spacing/size of each port, and so on. Diameter of the projectile, pressure of the cartridge, length of the barrel firing, specific gunpowder mix. If we assume a sealed barrel (ie not the gun cycling) pretty much everything else will change the results and thus the number of ports. These numbers seem reasonably representative of what I'd expect in the majority of cases with a fairly average muzzle brake design, but with odd designs or odd scenarios we can very easily get an incredibly different result.
@@MrAPCProductions Once the bullet passes the first port the pressure of the gasses affecting the bullet is so small there is more pressure affecting the front of the bullet due to the compression happening since the gasses will always move to equalize with the outside. That is why a shorter vs longer barrel on pistols can make for a shocking change in velocity (More pronounced in rifles obviously)as once that bullet has left the barrel it's no longer getting pushed along gaining speed and merely conserving it's momentum (Minus of course the drag)
@@Jeff4559 Sorry Jeff but PHYSICS gives you a general idea of how the brake would function. It's not that impressive of a test. As Paul mentions, it's a truncated test that gives a very narrow window of results for a single caliber, single charge of gunpowder, and single barrel length.
I'd like to see this done with magnums. they have longer burning powder so that may effect results. e.g. the effect you discovered may happen at 5 ports for a .300 WM
That would be a great idea for our next video!
It wouldn't make a difference. Once the ass end of the bullet reaches the first port the gasses are naturally going to expand to equalize with the external pressures of the atmosphere. The extra ports on the breaks is where they get their other name from.. Flash hiders as the ports give the flash of the still burning powder a rear ward angle instead of spitting it out of the barrel in line with you line of site thus during low light situations allowing you to still see down range better (and obscuring your position slightly as well)
@@SilvaDreams Brakes don’t make good Flash Hiders typically. I’m not sure if there is Fire with my .338LM Sako TRG42 (paying attention to different things), but my DD MK18 will let you know what’s up.
Magnums do benefit from 5 port brakes and six port brakes. Nathan with muzzle brakes and more has done a lot of muzzle brake testing using a lot of different calibers. Also the wider the surface area of the brake, the more recoil reduction.
@@SilvaDreams flash hiders don’t send powder rearwards they just have prongs or cages that create turbulence in the gasses coming out of the barrel which allows a cleaner and dimmer burn of powder
The angle does not linearly correlate to the recoil energy. The first degree is a lot easier than the last since gravity counteracts it less.
I think the potential energy achieved at the end point is a more accurate estimation (not perfect though) (Potential energy = mass * gravity * height).
I calculated the reduction in potential energy from no port to 6 ports to 68%, please correct my drunk math if necessary. Happy new year!
You are correct. Potential energy (vertical distance in this case) would be a better way to express recoil reduction than angular displacement. You can appreciate a little bit more the effect of the first port this way.
1 port energy reduction: 55.0%
2 port energy reduction: 60.5% (5.5% more)
3 port energy reduction: 63.8% (3.3% more)
4 port energy reduction: 67.5% (3.7% more)
5 port energy reduction: 66.8% (0.7% less)
6 port energy reduction: 68.0% (1.3% more)
What you've written is true. But their tests demonstrate the performance of each option relative to the others as long as port design is consistent across all devices.
Correct, they would want to use the Sine of the angle reduction to convert the values into a linear scale.
@@dereklaroque172 Almost. You need to use the integral of the Sine.
Was looking to see if others thought the same, was pleasantly surprised.
No BS, just testing and data. Very well put together video!
An addition of a decibel reading and maybe a doppler radar would help felt concussion and standard ammo deviation as well as velocity differences. I agree with some the pendulum may not be ideal but you are getting consistent data and gathering information is the key part to build a comparable data chart. Great job and keep it up, results whether good or bad are successful as long as something can be learned from it.
Thank you so much for the kind words!
I wonder if the change in the weight distribution going above 4 ports could account for the slight increase. As the length of the brake gets longer it may change the swing character of the system. The increased weight should increase the inertia resistance but what wins out. That's what the smart guys are paid for.
That's what I was thinking too. Could the extra weight at the front change the balance point of the gun and affect the pendulum characteristics.
you could try mounting the rifle on a sled and measure the way it travels after a shot. no problem with swinging or something like that and it simulates the rifle hitting the shoulder.
@@johndeere2799
100% 👍
I think the pendulum arc is a great idea to measure recoil energy. The motion of a pendulum is a well understood system mathematically in terms of energy (just about every mechanical or aerospace engineering student has seen the equation of the motion of a pendulum developed). So the change in energy observed through a measurement of the angular average angular velocity and maximum height achieved, with an appropriate estimate of the moment of inertia due to the rifle+aluminum bar. Very simple, effective setup!
If it did significantly affect the swing, we would be seeing a larger angle the bigger the brake, so to an extent it kinda cancels itself out
Love the fact that the video is not an advertisement of their products ! Hat off
Great video! Don’t forget, the size of the ports, the distance of the ports from each other, and the angle of the ports (facing straight, Forward, or backwards) all can affect the recoil. A well designed 2 port can be much more effective than a poorly designed 6 port.
REALLY appreciate the direct to the point no fluff efficiently edited sharing of results and information. Wish more TH-cam videos sharing experimentation and results would use this format
Absolutely, others would have easily stretched this into a 15 even 20 minute video.
What caliber was used and how would different calibers affect the results? There's a massive difference in the amount of gas between 6BR, Creedmoor, and a 338 Lapua
That was my thought as well. Was the ammo used stock or custom, factory or hand loads? Too may variables here to make a quantified estimate. Also cold vs hot barrel and weights of each muzzle break.
Largely there wouldn't be a drastic change as most of the recoil is from the mass of the bullet being forced down the barrel (Every action has an equal and opposite reaction -Newton)
So yes there would be a change between calibers but there would also be a change depending on the weight of the bullet and the powder load and the barrel length as more powder means more gases to expand rapidly and the longer the barrel the more time it has to be accelerated and thus more energy is transferred back.
Once there is an way for the gases to equalize with the outside atmosphere they rapidly expand to do just that which is why there is essentially little to no change past a single port but functionally it does work better for it's other task which is to diffuse to the burning gasses off to the sides thus it's other name of "flash hider"
I like the no BS, straight to it videos. Good work fellas!
Really love how you take the time and effort to take down quantifiable data not just your "shoulder feel" first time watcher and will definitely be coming back for more videos
I tried to do a curve fit of the muzzle break performance data. While it turns out that the model is actually really sensitive to the weight of the break (which we were not given AFAIK)... depending on my assumption of break weights, I'm finding that each additional port strips off something like 45-60% (best guess: 55%) of the remaining gas.
Except the first, which is somewhat more effective than it "should" be: regardless of any reasonable manipulation of the model's free parameters, it reduces the gas momentum by about 75%.
This is absolutely the best test procedure of recoil testing I've seen. Great job guys.
Love that you attacked this quantifiabley, was expecting shoulder fire and your word!
Great vid
Would be very interesting to see the same test with different cartridges. The more powder burned, the more effective more ports become.
MDT as always is great. Thak you guys for your job.
Excellent video and I love how in such a short time you gave us all the details on how you did it and the results, phenomenal.
Thank you and we will make sure to keep this kind of content coming
I agree to a extent I use Max of 4 ports up to 300 win mag anything that I run more powder in and larger then 30 Cal bullet I bump up to 5 and on the 375/408 &416/50bmg 6 port flat closed top and bottom 90 degree ports tanker style brake
This is the coolest testing rig I've seen. Very clever setup!
I was looking at a different chassis company but decided to look at MDT because of your videos.
Nice! We are very happy you enjoyed it and it helped out!
MDT RULES!
@@MDTTAC Thank you. I love the educational content, the analysis, etc.
Well done.
That is the baby of my mind since almost 10 years ago...and now i lived enough to see this in action,next factor to consider is...along the port count,also see the size of the ports,like " bigger ports means better? " Take the average of 4 ports and try to test 4 larger ports,why am i pointing this ? The side wall of the ports for me means "more deflection surface=better",try that as a next to keep-in-sight-factor,and thank you for this video (and the subject also),on my heart
this is a really well designed experiment to find an answer to a question that not many people ask. very cool and helpful!
Awesome video! Like everyone else is saying, this video was very professional and gave numbers instead of just personal opinion. Keep up the great work!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
THIS is the kind of science I want to see! Hope to see more, maybe with different port designs!
I wonder if changing port sizes for all but the first port would help optimize the brake for weight
It changes things that is for sure.
@@MDTTAC I would think theoretically a brake operates like a hydraulic piston pushing the bullet pressure is in force per surface area and the first break effectively triples the surface area, the second reduces the pressure of the center channel by 9 and the third is 27.
That’s kinda what was thinking as well, just instead one large port, I wonder what the results would be haha.
As a professional who has been in this business a long time the number of ports depends on the powder capacity of your cartridge. If your using 308win case cartridges 3 ports, 30-06 or 270win(which are not identical case that are necked to different calibers, they are two different case designs) 4 port, 7mm mag, 300wsm 4 port, when you get up to 300win capacity or larger 5 port. Also if the brake diameter is bigger diameter than the muzzle its more effective as well since generally the main chamber through the brake is bigger when they are. You can not take one cartridge and run through different number of ports because it becomes counter productive.
Saw the weight video and glad to see you guys listened to the comments about brakes
REALLY EXCELLENT JOB on this test, extremely scientific, WELL DONE!!
After shooting 2 years in ELR 33XC and one year with 375 Cheytac the T5 Termiknator is the best so far.Id like to tyry the Warrior 35 Beast Tuner Brake. Great video
NIcely done Ryan and MDT Team. Great Videos and I like how you do them.
This is truly QUALITY CONTENT. Kudos to the team!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
Another excellent video from the MDT Team
Thank you so much for the kind words.
I love actual science and well designed experiments! This was superb, really great content. Loved your barrel burning out video as well.
Thank you so much!
For all the AR breakers out there...If you gotta put a noisy break on a 5.56 gun to help with recoil , maybe push ups or bench press would help you more.
The way I see it, if I am putting consecutive shots into an enemy I will want as little recoil so I can keep that grouping as low as possible with the least amount of time between each shot. I see where you are coming from, but even on the 5.56 there is a practical application with reducing recoil
Wow! The whole testing contraption is amazing.
i could be wrong, but i think the amount of energy needed to deflect a certain number of degrees increases as you get higher and higher. so for example it would take more energy to go from 50-55 than it would to go from 40-45. my point being i think the recoil reduction going from no brake to single port is more significant than youre giving it credit for. i wonder if measuring actual force on the butt would yield different percentage changes. either way, im still surprised how effecting just one port is.
Great test .. thanks. It is true that the first port in most brakes do the most work. In the brakes I offer I tune the internal dimensions to balance the pressure across all baffles. This makes the brake more effective as it distributes the pressure across all baffles.
Great testing, Great video, Thank you fer sharing great info. Couple years ago I requested one or two more ports from my brake mfg. & he said no need, 4 is all that's needed, so I took his word for it, Thanks to you guys - now I am certain to not question anymore.👍
Thank you so much!
Taylor series graph ... 1000 ports will be better than 500 ... but there will be a number at which b>a → c
I have a 5.56 16" barrel and slapped on midwest ind. 2 chamber break and the thing shoots like a .22 cal ,so beautiful!!
One of the best Presentation about firearms experimental i have ever seen in a long time. good job.
Dudes! Nice review. Your pivot point needs to be below rifle center of gravity not above. This will help you measure muzzle rise as well. Engineer out.
Thanks for the research. That's was super informative.
Thanks for the testing and evaluation. I was just looking at a pinned and welded brake so that I could conceivably lower the barrel length without going SBR. Recently found a 3.8"-3.9" brake so that I could use a 12"-12.5" barrel for an AK. Since the 7.62x39 seems to like shorter barrel lengths without drastically affecting muzzle velocities.
this is Science i always want to see more gun channels.
Excellent work.
Guys I LOVE your methods here very experimentally sound and based on the scientific method, Removal of external variables and all. Well done fellahs!
Excellent science and engineering!!! Solid repeatable execution of hypothesis measurement.
Thanks for doing the test and sharing the results. Always have been interested in this test.
Great methodology and the video was not excessively long. Fukken subbed
Lol, came for the thumbnail and stayed for the science. Well done, great video.
Thank you and we are glad you enjoyed it
nice seeing quality scientific research in 2021, amazing work guys, quality work by noting results and comparing data average!
Thank you so much for the kind words.
I’ve been experimenting with my Christensen arms 338 Lapua (has mini set screws in the brake). I’ve been taking one at a time to see if I notice a difference. I blame the shooter (me, lol) not the rifle. You gained a subscriber today.
Thank you. 😁
Interesting video. Nice to finally see someone trying to quantify it.
I would have loved to see the estimated error of your findings.
Some points though:
-The initial angle if the gun seems important to me, because the gravity always acts downward and thus was not the same for each tested run.
-The weight of the brakes and thus the gun seemed not to be the same for each test, and thus again the gravitational force was not the same and thus the angle might be off.
Easy solutions for those would be to stick a weight to the shaft to balance it out.
The results of the 5 brake test run seems off. Usually in experimental testing, if a value of several runs seems off, while the std deviation is plausible, there's a systematic error, eg. a error in the test setup odr the test itself.
Thank you so much for the feedback. We did consider your ideas, but they proved to be of little effect.
Well, this got way more scientific than I expected. Nice job guys 👍
Would love to know if a cartridge with greater volume, such as 338 Lapua, would benefit from the 5th and 6th port.
It would likely benefit in that case, but for right now we focused mostly on short action rounds. Come 2022, that may be a different story.
@@MDTTAC If the video is only relative to short action smaller cartridges you should have mentioned that in the description....
@@ktaktargets5669 Thank you for the feedback!
I think this experiment was pretty well executed. I’d like to see them use that equipment to measure the best brake for different calibers and case capacities. A 6.5 CM may benefit from a brake differently than a .358 Norma Magnum.
That was cool. Guess i know why Jerry Miculek runs a nice brake now.
You just got a new subscriber. I'm a bit of a data junkie. I love the info and this was a beautifully conducted experiment. Looking forward to anything else you do. I'm just babbling at this point, but keep up the good work guys
I love the rig you came up with. Big props.
My Ak-74 style break for my milled receiver 7.62x39 AKM-47 cuts the recoil by about 50%… Amazing how well it works.
That's excellent! I'd love to see a revisit to this, where you test muzzle velocity as well. Maybe the bullet velocity is acting as a confounding variable in your testing.
I'm not even remotely interested in PRS... but I love this channel for the cool stuff you guys make videos on!
Thank you for doing this kind of testing. Most of us don't have the resources/environment to run these setups. I just want to point out that while this method is useful to determine if there is greater or less recoil momentum/energy stepping from 1 port to 2 ports, etc, those calculations are not correct for determining a "fair" quantitative comparison of the recoil reduction. Measurement of angular displacement of this pendulum system does not have a proportional relationship to either momentum or kinetic energy of the system. In a frictionless environment, it would be appropriate to do a comparison of "change in height of the center of mass of the system" and that measurement should have a proportional relationship to recoil energy. The conclusions you make (regarding how many ports are worth having) are valuable and I appreciate this video, I just felt the need to clarify why the metrics used are not "fair" to the physics involved.
Thank you for the feedback. The goal here was to demonstrate the difference in how they perform in a simple to understand way. But keep up the great work!
The rhodesian army had a good muzzle modification
On their fn 7.62.FN Rifles
In the olden days
The halbek device pushed the muzzle down. Which was useful because i had a bruised cheek after a lot of shooting without it. I shoot left-hand and it caters for us south paws and right hand
Rearward angled ports are the key. Makes a big difference in my rifles.
That was actually really interesting. I'm glad you guys made a video of this testing. Would also be curious to see a suppressor on there as well compared to the brakes
Hopefully we do that one here soon!
Good stuff. Thanks! Final conclusion is limited by relatively low sample size, but the trends are there.
size and shape of the ports is aslo important. the further from the muzzle the less energy that it gets to use to dissipate and therefore you can choke it up a bit to get more pressure also change the angling to facilitate that. ultradyne has a this to a certain extent.
I have a Surefire 2 port brake on my 308 rifle plus a heavy buffer and makes it a wonderful gun to shoot.
Saw an interesting video on this subject a while back. It used high speed just to look at harmonics in the barrel. And those big brakes can make the barrel do crazy stuff.
That was a great visual experiment. I'd love to see this repeated for different calibers and barrel lengths.
Very interesting video, I am trying to design my own muzzle brake and youtube came to help. However, I think that using angles as a measure of recoil makes your scale non-linear. One degree close to a vertical position does not increase the gun's potential energy as much as one degree when the arm is horizontal. Nevertheless, the sequence of the brakes remains the same, and this video is still very good! Good work!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
The weight is going to have an effect with the heavy multi ports too on this set up so you’ll see results even if it has nothing to do with the gas
One thing to consider for future tests like these, as the angle increases, the more the mass of the rifle is being effective by the downward acceleration of gravity against the tangent of the rifle's path of travel. This means that a 10% increase in angle the rifle travels cannot be equated to 10% more force (recoil) exerted by the rifle. In simpler words, the higher the angle the harder it gets to achieve a higher angle so the relationship isn't linear. Still good for comparative results however, nice work.
Thank you!
Quite impressed with the experimental apparatus, good work 👍
I would say the 2 port would be plenty, good recoil reduction with minimal weight gain. I'd be interested to see dB readings between them.
yes my Muzzle brake works great on bca 762x39 upper you almost feel nothing
but the concussion is where it hurts
Excellent work guys. You answered my question in a very scientific manner. Thanks!
Thank you MDT for great accessories and great service. Y'all rock!
Thanks for watching!
What the heck? This video has some great production value and very very nice editing!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
This is cool to me seeing the data behind how effective brakes are. I was personally very skeptical of brakes until I got my 30 06 bolt action with 24 in barrel that came with a tacticool tank break on the front with 8 small ports on each side and 10 top and bottom, looks drilled with a 3/16 or a bit smaller. It spits a bit of fire but has less felt recoil than my 16 in 5.56 gas operated ar 15.
I am digging the research you all do. Great work!
Good job and to say that the difference could be in the equipment error. Very informative from my view
Thank you so much!
Love your methodology. I'd love to see someone do this to different breaks and other muzzle devices across other platforms
Maybe sometime soon!
The "stand off distance" to the next baffle needs to increase as you go forwards, because the gas pressure is lower and does not spread sideways as much as the first port.
Starting without a brake would have been interesting.
The pendulum test causes the moment of inertia to increase with longer brakes. Probably more than a linear sled recoil measurement system with direct inertia added for longer brakes.
Really great video. Would be interesting seeing how it affects guns with shorter barrels and smaller calibers. I think the larger the caliber, the larger the difference in recoil would be.
Interesting. Appears even a single would be sufficient if wanting to keep overall length short for hunting. Thanks for that.
I dont know if this guy is an engineer but i am studying mechanical engineering and as soon as i saw the test area i knew this man was the real deal, he could have done it better with some more precision and improvements, yeah, but this is so much more practical, still is scientifical and cheaper.
Nice beginning to the test. Now cover the area of each port face, it's angle, caliber difference, and muzzle blast. For example....is a single chamber 4" wide with a rear cut angle going to be worth more the a 1" with 4 ports and 90° walls. And will a 5.56 need less then a .338?
An issue with comparing the difference in angle: the energy difference between 0 and 1 degrees is not the same as the difference between 89 and 90 degrees.
You're effectively converting recoil energy into potential energy, but the rifles potential energy is not linear.
Since you know the length of the pendulum and the weight of the rifle I believe you could convert your measurements to actual units of energy instead of pure angle.
You can also increase the angle of the ports, relative to the face of the barrel, the farther your ports gets from the barrel, this would allow the lower pressure gasses of ports past the first few to have an easier time pushing back onto the break. This should increase the breaks efficiency by a hair.
Great video, all tests are repeatable which is not often found on gun channels. Reminds me of a Charpy impact test. If I could make a suggestion for a follow-up video: I'd like to see the same rifle on this setup fired with various suppressors to compare how the recoil is affected/unaffected vs brakes.
very well conducted testing and a clean and repeatable testing setup! i wish more youtube vids hat such an approach. very nice
Great scientific test, you earned my subscription.
Barrel length and/or a magnum would probably make use of then 6 port with the higher muzzle blast energy. Would be cool for you guys to do say a .223 vs a 300PRC (of same barrel length) or something in 1 video. Awesome video guys
Possible idea for the next video!
Yeah, very cool to see. I would be interested in what the test caliber was and a test on a different gun of the same caliber as well as a test of the same gun with a different caliber. Just curious to see how that plays out. 👍🇺🇲