Do More Muzzle Ports Equal Less Recoil?
- Thread starter AR10ShooterinNC
- Start date
- Replies 18
- Views 555
OP
I would how gas volume would affect the out come? I would like see a test with a 300 Win Mag.
Great video, interesting stuff.
HOWEVER< it is a false premise.
NOTHING you ever do will reduce recoil.
Why?
Physics!
Go as Newton.
However, lots of things can reduce FELT RECOIL.
The energy is always the same (Assuming the same load etc). The mass is the same. You cannot reduce the potential energy converted into kinetic energy.
You can reduce the effect to the observer.
HOWEVER< it is a false premise.
NOTHING you ever do will reduce recoil.
Why?
Physics!
Go as Newton.
However, lots of things can reduce FELT RECOIL.
The energy is always the same (Assuming the same load etc). The mass is the same. You cannot reduce the potential energy converted into kinetic energy.
You can reduce the effect to the observer.
mig1nc
Well-Known Member
Yes. That's been well known for a while. More gas to drive the ports has more effect.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Having a hard time understanding this.
If you were to measure how far the gun recoils it will be the same distance no matter the device on muzzle?
Nah, what he means is that you cant cheat physics....
The net total energy is still there. Efficient design just means we do not experience it.
We sit in cars and go down the road at 55 mph.... if we suddenly, and completely stop, that would be catastrophic to our continued existence....
However, we hit the brakes and slow down carefully and we can comfortably decelerate and not even feel a thing.
The difference? We dumped that kinetic energy into heat, and spread what was left out over time, letting friction do its thing.
The same amount of energy was "expended" but the experience on our soft, squishy bodies is completely different.
Last edited:
The energy is still there.
But "energy" and "recoil" mean different things. They are not the same.
Recoil is the backward movement of a gun caused by the energy released by the cartridge.
Recoil can certainly be reduced and almost entirely eliminated by re-directing that energy (gas) via a gas port or ports.
Muzzle brakes reduce recoil. Compensators reduce muzzle climb. That is physics.
What am I missing here?
The overall “force” from the round being fired is the same but the distribution in various directions (side or down) by the brake spreads it out. If you did a vector analysis of the different directions the muzzle energy is being directed with a muzzle device … the sum of those vectors would roughly be the same as the single vector one generated by a barrel with no device. Spreading the force in a couple directions lessens the force to the rear (what we pretty much consider as “recoil”) of the firearm.
Last edited:
Right. You spread the force (energy) to reduce the recoil. The recoil is lessened as a result. Recoil and force are not the same thing.
This is the quote I was talking about:
Nothing you can do to reduce force or energy, but plenty you can do to reduce recoil. Like use a muzzle break.
You can't slow down a car either, until you add friction. By air, brakes, concrete wall, etc.
Another example: you can eliminate recoil totally by mounting a gun to a rigid enough base..
Also, the act of diverting gas to cycle an action reduces recoil by diverting energy that would go to recoil into instead cycling the action.
Not trying to pick on you Spartan01, just thought bottom half of your post was true, but think you mispoke on first part.
Not trying to be an ass, just trying to line the facts up.
Not trying to be an ass, just trying to line the facts up.
I love their experimental design setup. Using angular movement is a great way to quantify a typically fairly subjective element like felt recoil. Very neat experiment that went about how I was expecting it'd go. Props to MDT for doing something nifty like this.
I may have misspoken.
I do that quite often.
It depends on what we are talking about and how we say and define it.
Let’s say you have a bolt action 308, shooting 75 grain bthp loaded with 44.5 grains of Varget, and the ogive is spaced 5/1000 of an inch behind the lands and grooves.
Just setting the stage for imagination.
The same rifle, shooting the same bullets, with the same powder load will (environmental factors being the same) produce the same amount of force each time it is fired.
You could bolt the rifle down to a concrete bench and you would not experience recoil. It still there just absorbed/mitigated by the bench.
You could tune a muzzle brake to the rifle, and reduce the amount of felt recoil.
You could make the rifle heavier.
You could put in a hydraulic/spring/padded butt pad or shoulder rest.
The energy released is the same.
We can express this energy in Newtons, or widgets, or whatever.
What I was saying, admittedly poorly, is that the energy doesn’t go away without magic.
The released energy has to go somewhere.
So, we can change the factors of weight, stabilization, or distribution, which may have the result of reducing what we perceive as recoil, but the gross energy expenditure is the same.
For example- an efficient muzzle brake reduces what you perceive as recoil by let’s say 15%, but the back blast from the brake is increased dramatically and the guy shooting next to you is mad.
The energy output is the same.
It can be redirected.
I just don’t like marketing gimmicks
I do that quite often.
It depends on what we are talking about and how we say and define it.
Let’s say you have a bolt action 308, shooting 75 grain bthp loaded with 44.5 grains of Varget, and the ogive is spaced 5/1000 of an inch behind the lands and grooves.
Just setting the stage for imagination.
The same rifle, shooting the same bullets, with the same powder load will (environmental factors being the same) produce the same amount of force each time it is fired.
You could bolt the rifle down to a concrete bench and you would not experience recoil. It still there just absorbed/mitigated by the bench.
You could tune a muzzle brake to the rifle, and reduce the amount of felt recoil.
You could make the rifle heavier.
You could put in a hydraulic/spring/padded butt pad or shoulder rest.
The energy released is the same.
We can express this energy in Newtons, or widgets, or whatever.
What I was saying, admittedly poorly, is that the energy doesn’t go away without magic.
The released energy has to go somewhere.
So, we can change the factors of weight, stabilization, or distribution, which may have the result of reducing what we perceive as recoil, but the gross energy expenditure is the same.
For example- an efficient muzzle brake reduces what you perceive as recoil by let’s say 15%, but the back blast from the brake is increased dramatically and the guy shooting next to you is mad.
The energy output is the same.
It can be redirected.
I just don’t like marketing gimmicks