Muzzle brakes on the firing line

[people]

even with acquit hearing protection just the concussion from a brake disturbs my concentration. don't want one beside me. i either move or leave. would never own a gun with one. as for supressors. i feel they should be as available as rifles. believe they would be much more popular than brakes.

You need to concentrate more.

 

[dkhunt14]

There is at least one other reason besides "personal comfort" why brakes and/or suppressors are not allowed in F-Class matches. They offer a benefit in the form of recoil attenuation, which can be an advantage, even if a small one, to the shooters that are using them. I wear double hearing protection, custom fitted in-ear plugs with ear muffs over the outside. I still don't want to be squadded next to someone using a muzzle brake. I understand the concept of encouraging new shooters that may not be fully aware of all the rules, but I'm also strongly in favor of not making the other shooters miserable simply to attract a few new shooters that didn't take the time to learn the specific equipment requirements and rules of the sport prior to attending their first match.

If the rule applies, it is no advantage because everybody can use them. We shoot BR and they are allowed. It never bothered me yet except the one time a 338-408 Cheytac was next to me. We were under the lower roof and it was bouncing off the roof. I just timed my shoots and was done before he fired 3 shots. Matt

 

[Ned Ludd]

It would still be an advantage in F-Class because the rule has always been that they are not allowed. So anyone showing up that has one is likely the only person, or among a very few that will have one. Even if the rule was changed in the near future to allow their use, the majority of F-Class shooters that already have currently approved setups are not suddenly going to run out and have all their barrels threaded for brakes and/or suppressors. Suppressors may actually never be allowed in F-Class, even though I'm sure a lot of people would be happy to see that happen. One reason is because suppressors simply aren't (and will probably never be) legal in some states. That means differential equipment usage rules depending on what state you happen to live in, which I doubt we'll ever see. Besides which, the reason brakes aren't allowed is not solely because of the concussion. Because F-Class is fired prone, the muzzle is usually less than 12" above the ground, which means a good handful of dust, twigs, pebbles, and/or leaves get tossed on the shooters to either side with every shot. I seriously doubt that is nearly as much of a problem with rifles fired at bench height.

The bottom line is that I don't particularly care what is or isn't allowed in other shooting disciplines. People wishing to participate in other disciplines are perfectly free to choose for themselves whether they are willing to put up with the use of these devices on the firing line. Muzzle brakes and suppressors are not currently legal in F-Class, it's that simple. Because they are not, I don't want to have to put up with being squadded next to someone that showed up with one attached to their rifle because they didn't know the rules and the match director simply wanted to accommodate them. Their knowledge (or lack thereof) of F-Class rules is not my problem. I know and compete within the rules and I expect the other competitors to do the same.

 

[dcali]

Under certain circumstances, even doubled up hearing protection is insufficient to deal with the noise of brakes. It's on thing in an open field, and another entirely on a crowded concrete pad with a metal roof or enclosed firing line. There is only so much noise that muffs and plugs can handle before the sound is so loud it goes through your head and damages your ears that way. (Artillery does this, unfortunately, as can large magnum rifles). It's a safety issue. Brakes have their place, but a crowded firing line isn't one of them. If brakes were allowed in F class, I would find another way to spend my time. It's just not worth it.

On a related note, has anyone ever tried a brake that vented the gas at a forward angle? I realize it would make for a much less effective brake, but it might mitigate the downsides while providing *some* recoil relief.
I've always wondered about that.

 

[AckleymanII]

i wouldn't call myself sensitive by any means

just old and crotchety. some jerk with a .223 AR with a brake irritates me to no end. the tactical guy with the 20" barreled .308 with a brake blows the targets off my bench.

and here i am trying to shoot small groups with my 6 BR among all this chaos.

Irritates the heck out of me also. I go home or move. A guy with a single shot with brake does not bother me, but constant muzzle blast is more than I can take.

I shot at a range that had movable partitions, and AR guys did not particularly like them because the brass would often bounce back and hit them in a sensitive place. The partitions were made in a fashion like movable black boards or dry erase boards that you may have seen with feet and rollers. Everybody loved them. HK's would throw brass the length of three benches.

If Trump gets elected again along with some Republicans that can get along, we could have the Hearing protection act passed...the only answer.

 

[TRA]

My experience is that the loudest whiners are the ones that just have to have their tacticool DAP brand molded plugs. If you insist on wearing them, you get what you deserve. The other issue is no sound attenuation under the firing line roofs. BUT...the sop is always blame the other guy.

These are firearms and they are loud. If you can't cut it take up golf where the spectators are muzzled so you can take your shot.

Seriously the same bunch who cry about guns making too much noise, talk crap when someone living near a range complains about noise carrying over into their property.

Y'all should be happy when you are only allowed to shoot with air powered guns or throw rocks.

Dressing for cold is no different than dressing for noise. If it's that much of a problem, you should reconsider your priorities.

 

[people]

If Trump gets elected again along with some Republicans that can get along, we could have the Hearing protection act passed...the only answer.

I still do not see it passing. Too many RINOs out there. I would love it to pass but I think our best bet would be to get out individual states to pass laws that allow their citizens to bypass the NFA as long as the stuff stays in the state. Once we had enough then it stands a chance federally.

 

[sdean]

I still do not see it passing. Too many RINOs out there. I would love it to pass but I think our best bet would be to get out individual states to pass laws that allow their citizens to bypass the NFA as long as the stuff stays in the state. Once we had enough then it stands a chance federally.

Just like they are doing with marijuana. Sounds like a plan!!

 

[Beau]

XTR and others, Your hearing protection is minimal at best if brakes bother you. At these matches, you should be wearing ear plugs and ear muffs, preferably electronic ear muffs so you can hear normally(range commands). By Doing this double protection, your hearing will be better protected with or without brakes.

I do that and I still hate having someone shoot a brake next to me. The HP does nothing about the concussion or the debris.

 

[XTR]

XTR and others, Your hearing protection is minimal at best if brakes bother you. At these matches, you should be wearing ear plugs and ear muffs, preferably electronic ear muffs so you can hear normally(range commands). By Doing this double protection, your hearing will be better protected with or without brakes.

.

I don't wear muffs. I do wear properly inserted foam plugs. I don't wear muffs when I shoot rifles, they interfere with my cheek weld and end up being rather ineffective because I break the seals. I also wear plugs in the pits.
Look into the mechanics of the conduction of sound into your head. A large percentage, particularly from shock waves like the ones from the brakes are conducted through the mastoid, and nothing will attenuate that portion unless you wear a full face helmet.

I get that this is a sport where we shoot real rifles and real bullets, but that is no reason not to be smart about the physical hazards, most ranges are pretty diligent about that part, but in this case hearing damage is one of them. I am not the most experienced shooter in the game, but I have enough time on the line in enough places to know that what happened to me physically after that match was unlike any match in which I've ever competed, and there was one single variable. NRA rules already prohibit brakes, that's been noted above more than once. As stated above the point of this post was to highlight my experience with brakes on the line. I went from pretty ambivalent to a definite opposed. In an NRA match I have the option to request that a brake be moved away from me, and in the future I will.

I have been participating in hearing protection programs and getting annual hearing tests as a part of my HAZWOPER and Rad Worker physicals for 30 yrs. I have had documented minor hearing loss at certain frequencies since my 20s from things I did in my younger days. (mostly chain saws and dump trucks) Shooting with single protection has not resulted in increased hearing loss to date. I am certain that were I to shoot regularly 4 to 6 feet from someone running a brake that would change. My experience now tells me I not to do that any more.

 

[AckleymanII]

XTR, You are doing all you can do with your sport's requiring such a cheek weld. Have you tried the Peltor Tac 6 that have a very thin cups that will not touch the rifle? I feel like my wearing glasses somewhat breaks the seal on the ear muff, so I wear the ear plugs in addition.

The only reason that I mention this is that the ear lobes are major conductors of sound.

Our country really needs the Hearing Protection Act.

 

[dkhunt14]

Pro Ear gold, Preditor model. Very low profile. Fastest shutdown cycle time and the best warranty on the market which includes a trade up when new models are introduced. Matt

 

[Drop Port]

I think if we rename them "noise pollution reduction devices" or "catalytic mufflers" and slip it in on a bill in California they will pass before anyone figures out what they did.