Gastro Gnome - Eat Better Wherever

Brake and/or Suppressors

Europe

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 26, 2018
Messages
1,576
My thoughts about these items were expressed on a recoil thread and part of my opinion was disagreed with by Richard ( Devon Deer ). I did not want to derail that thread, plus Richard is very knowledgeable, so thought a thread specifically about these products would let others weight in on the subject

My thoughts are

They do reduce recoil, the brake more than the suppressor

They can, at first, make the rifle balance feel a bit off, depending on the product ( and the weight of the product )

The brake creates noise to those around you, especially those on each side of you

The brake, depending on the one chosen, can reduce muzzle jump, to some degree and therefore allows one to "regain the target quicker" ( this is the one where Richard and I disagreed ) I do believe that it depends on the design of the brake used on whether or not it helps reduce muzzle jump.

One last comment. My preference was always no brake. I would have also said no suppressor, until recently, but I am not so sure about that now, as they certainly do reduce recoil and muzzle jump, without the noise of the brake, but as Richard says, they are not as point-able---plus it is hard for me to imagine one on a rifle as nice as a Blaser--those are sweet rifles you own Richard, so certainly understand you point sir.

I and others I have spoken to, are interested in your opinion gentlemen
 
Last edited:
My go to rifle is .338 and does have a brake. In retrospect, I would never put a brake on a rifle again. I hunted for 20 years with no significant hearing loss. A year after hunting with a brake, hearing significantly decreased,

Yes, brake reduces recoil. But, with time, your can learn to adapt to recoil.

Did not research the brake before putting it on the rifle, my mistake and my harm.

I think I have had the .338 for over 20 years and still use it. The damage has been done, so why not.
 
I hunted for 20 years with no significant hearing loss. A year after hunting with a brake, hearing significantly decreased,

I just put a brake on my 300WSM and while much louder (especially to the sides), since I always shoot with earring protection, I haven’t noticed any negative effect on ears. Did you use earplugs and still get this damage? Did the damage arise with or without side effects at time of shot such as ear ringing? If you have significant hearing loss while using ear plugs and didn’t get ringing at the time then I am done shooting mine.
 
My thoughts about these items were expressed on a recoil thread and part of my opinion was disagreed with by Richard ( Devon Deer ). I did not want to derail that thread, plus Richard is very knowledgeable, so thought a thread specifically about these products would let others weight in on the subject

The brake, depending on the one chosen, can reduce muzzle jump, to some degree and therefore allows one to "regain the target quicker" ( this is the one where Richard and I disagreed ) I do believe that it depends on the design of the brake used on whether or not it helps reduce muzzle jump.

One last comment. My preference was always no brake. I would have also said no suppressor, until recently, but I am not so sure about that now, as they certainly do reduce recoil and muzzle jump, without the noise of the brake, but as Richard says, they are not as point-able---plus it is hard for me to imagine one on a rifle as nice as a Blaser--those are sweet rifles you own Richard, so certainly understand you point sir.
Europe, if you read that post again that I made on the other thread I was referring to the suppressor, I made no mention of the brake in relation to target acquisition after the first shot.
With a brake I agree target acquisition is easier than with a suppressor.
Cheers
Richard
 
VikingsGuy,

Always used ear plugs went sighting in or target practice. When hunting, I do not. Mine sounds like a cannon going off and even a few shots would damage the ear. I did go to an electronic ear plug for hunting, but I usually see game and forget everything and go for the animal.

My damage is done, but I constantly warn others of the effect. It can be avoided! Never had the ears ringing, just the hearing loss.
 
I don’t understand the need for brakes or suppressors. If you can’t handle the recoil then step down in caliber. Another option is to stalk in for closer shots. Even if recoil affects your shooting, you should be able to put a kill shot on an elk sized or larger animal within 100 yds without a brake or suppressor.

And I think Europe would agree with me, please don’t ever put one of those things on a 375 or larger caliber :) it would be similar to putting a man bun on, well, a man.
 
I don’t understand the need for brakes or suppressors. If you can’t handle the recoil then step down in caliber. Another option is to stalk in for closer shots. Even if recoil affects your shooting, you should be able to put a kill shot on an elk sized or larger animal within 100 yds without a brake or suppressor.
I agree, that is why I don't use either anymore.
Cheers
Richard
 
My thoughts about these items were expressed on a recoil thread and part of my opinion was disagreed with by Richard ( Devon Deer ). I did not want to derail that thread, plus Richard is very knowledgeable, so thought a thread specifically about these products would let others weight in on the subject

My thoughts are

They do reduce recoil, the brake more than the suppressor

They can, at first, make the rifle balance feel a bit off, depending on the product ( and the weight of the product )

The brake creates noise to those around you, especially those on each side of you

The brake, depending on the one chosen, can reduce muzzle jump, to some degree and therefore allows one to "regain the target quicker" ( this is the one where Richard and I disagreed ) I do believe that it depends on the design of the brake used on whether or not it helps reduce muzzle jump.

One last comment. My preference was always no brake. I would have also said no suppressor, until recently, but I am not so sure about that now, as they certainly do reduce recoil and muzzle jump, without the noise of the brake, but as Richard says, they are not as point-able---plus it is hard for me to imagine one on a rifle as nice as a Blaser--those are sweet rifles you own Richard, so certainly understand you point sir.

I and others I have spoken to, are interested in your opinion gentlemen

I agree that brakes do reduce recoil and do so more effectively than a suppressor. The amount of reduction varies considerably based on the design of the brake.

I had a browning A-bolt with the BOSS installed, I found that to be ungainly and obtrusive. I had that removed and a conventional break installed and it helped with balance.

They are indeed very noisy and I usually double up on hearing protection when I shoot, except when hunting. I almost always hunt alone but if I am with someone else, I take a different rifle. If I go to a public range, I either wait till I have it to myself or ask if anyone minds if I shoot a rifle with a brake. I think that is the courteous thing to do. I have some slight hearing loss from my military days so I may not be as sensitive as those with full hearing.

I agree that a brake will reduce muzzle rise to some extent and that is also dependent on design.

I have no preference as to brake or no brake. I have 2 rifles with brakes and many more without, those that do, I wish i knew what I did with the thread protector. Since they don't really enhance a rifle in anyway other than felt recoil, to me it just comes down to personal preference.
 
I wasn't a fan of suppressors until my son bought one, after the first day at the range I was doing the paperwork for my own suppressor. I shoot thousands of rounds a year and have severe hearing issues and tinnitus from previous damage. I wish I had started using suppressors decades ago and now use one almost always. I have a couple of hunting rifles with out a suppressor, but prefer to use one even when hunting. My vote is go suppressed whenever possible.
 
I don’t understand the need for brakes or suppressors. If you can’t handle the recoil then step down in caliber. Another option is to stalk in for closer shots. Even if recoil affects your shooting, you should be able to put a kill shot on an elk sized or larger animal within 100 yds without a brake or suppressor.

And I think Europe would agree with me, please don’t ever put one of those things on a 375 or larger caliber :) it would be similar to putting a man bun on, well, a man.


And you would be correct sir --on all your points actually. I even took it a bit further 375 H & H as I was inclined to stay with one bullet and one bullet weight for each rifle. If I needed more ( or less ) I would use a smaller or larger caliber rifle. But --I was never a target shooter, only a hunter. Which brings me to another point you made. I preferred to hunt, so to speak, so I always attempted to get closer--we are kindred spirits in that respect sir.

Suppressors were only a Hollywood thing as I was growing up and even into my elder years, suppressors were not that popular, but now Ruger, Remington, Browning, Savage, Marlin and others are selling their rifles for those who want suppressors on their rifles.

Richard--my apologizes --I did, in fact, misunderstand you post on the recoil thread.

Bobbydean, I am sorry to hear that, that happened to you

Vikingsguy, be careful, maybe try a suppressor instead of a brake

Scott85--this is exactly how my son and daughter feel and believe it will help bring young people to the range and field (suppressors--NOT Brakes )

Kyle--best of luck, I am sure you will

fishingforsanity----this post and the one from Scott, gives me some confident that my son and daughter are on the right track. It is all new to me, as their popularity ( suppressors ) came along just as my ability to use them disappeared )-:

deer-shooter--thank you and I agree---the effect---- recoil, muzzle jump, noise, all change depending on the design of the brake------also thank you for your service
 
Last edited:
I wasn't a fan of suppressors until my son bought one, after the first day at the range I was doing the paperwork for my own suppressor. I shoot thousands of rounds a year and have severe hearing issues and tinnitus from previous damage. I wish I had started using suppressors decades ago and now use one almost always. I have a couple of hunting rifles with out a suppressor, but prefer to use one even when hunting. My vote is go suppressed whenever possible.
I was the same as you for a long time. I scoffed at them actually, saw ZERO use or need for them. Then I used one for a day. I had 3 of them ordered the next week.
 
VikingsGuy,

Always used ear plugs went sighting in or target practice. When hunting, I do not. Mine sounds like a cannon going off and even a few shots would damage the ear. I did go to an electronic ear plug for hunting, but I usually see game and forget everything and go for the animal.

My damage is done, but I constantly warn others of the effect. It can be avoided! Never had the ears ringing, just the hearing loss.
Thanks - I am religious about hearing protection at range and in field so should be ok - but good reminder. Thanks.
 
The brake I put on my .300WM made a world of difference in both recoil and noise. Before the brake, it was hard not to start flinching after 6 or 8 shots, but I realize I'm a flincher. Not everyone is. Its so loud now that I can't just use ear plugs, it has to be a good pair of high-quality muffs. I've shot it before with only ear plugs and can actually feel my ears start ringing after a handful of shots. Its a trade off and I'm honestly not sure which I prefer - heavy recoil or deafening report. But still, I've killed a large pile of deer and elk with that rifle both pre and post brake.

As far as some of the other things mentioned in the OP, I definitely have noticed its easier to reacquire a target after a shot with a brake.

I've only tried a supresser once on my friend's 300 Blackout, it was interesting, but isn't it illegal to hunt with a suppressed rifle?
 
I'm the opposite. No suppressor or brake for me. Especially a suppressor. No way one goes on a hunting rifle. Yes, I've shot rifles with them. And, I shoot heavy recoiling rifles. Lord willing, I stay unbraked or suppressed. mtmuley
 
I'm the opposite. No suppressor or brake for me. Especially a suppressor. No way one goes on a hunting rifle. Yes, I've shot rifles with them. And, I shoot heavy recoiling rifles. Lord willing, I stay unbraked or suppressed. mtmuley

What do you dislike about suppressors? I've never shot with one. Just curious.
 
I've only tried a supresser once on my friend's 300 Blackout, it was interesting, but isn't it illegal to hunt with a suppressed rifle?
There are a few states where suppressors are not legal. Of the states where ownership is legal there are a few back east that don't allow hunting with one. The western US, except California, allows both ownership and hunting. If you're interested here's a link to a map.
 
Gee, look at that. Not legal in Illinois. Who would have guessed that? I've got tinnitus and sure wouldn't mind trying out something like that.
 
Gee, look at that. Not legal in Illinois. Who would have guessed that? I've got tinnitus and sure wouldn't mind trying out something like that.
You should of said when you were over, I could have stuck it on my 30-06, you used my .243
Cheers
Richard
 

Forum statistics

Threads
110,805
Messages
1,935,069
Members
34,883
Latest member
clamwc
Back
Top