Talk:Muzzle brake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Contents 1 Legality 2 Muzzle Brake v. Flash Suppressor 3 Muzzle brake vs. recoil compensator 4 Integral Muzzle Brake?

[edit] Legality

Yaf, pleaese stop reverting to the previous version. The way I wrote it is neutral and accurate. Your reversion is neither. CynicalMe 07:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are neither accurate nor gramatically correct, nor do they follow the WP:NOT rules governing the avoidance of speculation in articles. Stating a state may do something in the future is not allowed under Wikipedia rules. We must stick to the facts that are verifiable. Yaf 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Back at you. States do NOT 'retain provisions' of the federal ban, they have their own laws which are not the same. CynicalMe 16:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but for example, California and New York both make statements in their state laws that these laws are in accordance with cited Federal laws. However, this reference is now to a defunct federal law. If this is not retaining provisions, I don't know what is. It is especially an issue with high capacity magazines (holding more than 10 rounds) that must be marked in some states to be for law enforcement use only, but are not required to be marked in current Federal law nor in other states. Needless to say, they are no longer being marked. Yet, this rule, too, existed previously in a Federal law that has now sunset, but to which the state law still points. Yaf 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Linking the two makes it sound as if the state laws no longer apply. In addition, California's law was always more strict than the federal law. Also, I don't know of any state laws which require that mags must be marked LEO. They restrict possession, but there are no marking requirements that I know of, at least not here in CA. CynicalMe 16:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muzzle Brake v. Flash Suppressor

Unless I am mistaken, the device pictured in photograph 2, "Muzzle brake of the Sig 550 rifle," is actually a "birdcage" style flash suppressor. This device is designed to redirect muzzle flash out of the line of sight of the shooter to prevent temporary blinding in low light shooting conditions. While flash suppressors are often designed to reduce barrel rise, shouldn't it be distinguished from a muzzle brake and a link to the Flash suppressor article be included?

Nope, you're absolutely right. It's a flash suppressor.--Asams10 07:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muzzle brake vs. recoil compensator

It seems to me that there are two overlapping but basically distinct types of devices that use redirection of propellant gasses to differently effect the recoil characteristics of a firearm. The first is the muzzle brake, which is found on heavily recoiling firearms and is designed primarily to direct propellant gasses out or back, thus reducing the amount of backwards force on the firearm (or artillery, as these are often found there as well). The other is the recoil compensator, which is used on lighter recoiling firearms and directs the gasses mainly upwards, to counter to torque caused by the bore almost universally being above the center of mass of the firearm. The design of these is very different--brakes generally deal with much larger quantities of gas (the gas mass must be a significant fraction of the bullet mass to have a real impact on recoil) and thus have large baffles and lots of ports, generally in all directions. Compensators can be much simpler, like Mag-na-port slots cut in the top of the barrel, since they have much less gas to deal with. Compensators will reduce recoil as well as reducing muzzle jump, as any gas not going forward will reduce the recoil by that much, but compare the 5 grains of powder gas to the 230 grains of bullet in a .45 ACP and it's obvious recoil reduction can't be much--but it can do a lot to keep the muzzle down. There are also hybrids, such as the "Muzzle Tamer" in the T/C Contender barrels. I have one in .45-70, and it's got a significant expansion chamber to trap the expanding gasses, and 10 big ports on top to direct them upwards to help with the muzzle flip. It does a moderate job of taming the rather brutal recoil, and a very good job and keeping the muzzle down.

I think this article would be better if it were organized to address both the recoil reduction and the muzzle control as separate issues, and then note that the same device can do both. While the terms "muzzle brake" and "recoil compensator" are often used interchangeably, if you search on "muzzle brake" you'll find a greater number of symmetric dispersion devices for rifles and artillery, and if you search for "recoil compensator" you'll find more devices designed to address muzzle rise in handguns, SMGs, shotguns, and carbines.

Since I just used this same distinction in the transitional ballistics article, I'd be willing to do the rewrite work if no one has any objections to the proposal. scot 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integral Muzzle Brake?

I'm new to the wiki, this is my first posted comment, but I've been searching a lot of gun terms and from what I've read on Manufacturer's websites, they're calling a recoil compensator an Integrated or Integral Muzzle Break. While some of you term-junkies might roll your eyes at this, might help people who are actually trying to understand the terms. Here's a rifle from Remington that uses that term: http://www.remington.com/products/firearms/centerfire_rifles/model_700/model_700_vtr.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desert4w (talk • contribs) 05:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Integral in this case means it's machined into the barrel itself, rather than being a separate part that is screwed onto a threaded barrel. If you'll look at the closeup, you'll see that the brake consists of three slots milled into the barrel, similar in concept to the Mag-Na-Port process. Compare to the brakes such as the ones offered here, which are threaded on. scot (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Porting means drilling, which is what happens when a barrel is ported. A muzzle brake, whether integral or threaded, is a distinct piece of equipment, as it is "post-barrel". Since both deal with dissipation of propellant gasses, they should be better defined and explained individually in the transitional ballistics article. Consider that the parking brake and the brake pedal on a car achieve the same result, deal with the same forces, but are distinct mechanical systems.Coloneldoctor (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)coloneldoctor