stubblejumper

That is because most people do not undergo regular hearing tests.I work in a refinery and we must undergo a hearing test every two years.Many people are surprised to find out that they have suffered hearing loss.On the other hand,the person that I spoke of in my earlier post suspected it immediately after his ears stopped ringing,and he was correct.I have owned a brake equipped rifle myself,and I did discover another fact in the short time that I owned it.The point of impact was not the same with the brake installed,so I still had to remove the brake to sight the rifle in.That being the case,I no longer own any brake equipped rifles.I shoot two 300 ultramags and don't finda brake necessary.

stubblejumper

Quoted from the chuckhawks website

If the advantage of muzzle brakes is reduced recoil, the disadvantage is increased muzzle blast. As always, in the real world, there is no free lunch. The increase in muzzle blast with these devices can be literally deafening, even for shooters wearing hearing protection.
The muzzle blast from a powerful muzzle brake equipped rifle is so loud that even with hearing protection the shooter risks suffering some permanent hearing damage after a few shots. Earmuff type hearing protectors typically reduce noise by about 25 dB. A muzzle brake equipped magnum rifle (like a .300 or .338 Magnum) produces a sound pressure level (spl) in the 130-dB range, according to reports I have read. Thus the spl inside the hearing protector is in excess of 100 dB, a potentially damaging level.
For a hunter in the field, shooting without ear protection, the muzzle blast from a muzzle brake is immediately deafening. Nearly complete temporary deafness usually lasts from about a minute to several minutes after firing a powerful magnum rifle equipped with a muzzle brake. Later almost all of the shooter's hearing returns, but a certain amount is permanently lost, and the losses are cumulative.

From the link posted below

http://guns.connect.fi/rs/mounting.html

Muzzle brake effect: Reflex Suppressor is a highly efficient muzzle brake, due to abrupt reflection or blowback of muzzle blast in the first expansion chamber. The threading for a suppressor also serves for mounting a separate muzzle brake. Attention! The devices serving only as muzzle brakes are not recommended, as they increase essentially the shooter's noise level! The peak noise level to shooter may go up from abt. 157 dB to up to abt.167 dB with a .308 Win rifle if equipped with a muzzle brake. Such a noise level can cause permanent damage to unprotected hearing even with single shots!

From the link below

http://www.freehearingtest.com/hia_gunfirenoise.shtml

Table 2. CENTERFIRE RIFLE DATA




.223, 55GR. Commercial load 18 _" barrel
155.5dB

.243 in 22" barrel
155.9dB

.30-30 in 20" barrel
156.0dB

7mm Magnum in 20" barrel
157.5dB

.308 in 24" barrel
156.2dB

.30-06 in 24" barrel
158.5dB

.30-06 in 18 _" barrel
163.2dB

.375 — 18" barrel with muzzle brake
170 dB
Krammer adds that sound pressure levels for the various pistols and ammunition tested yielded an average mean of 157.5 dB, which is greater than those previously shown for shotgun and rifle noise levels. There was also a greater range, from 152.4dB to 164.5dB, representing 12 dB difference, or more than 10 time as much acoustic energy for the top end of the pistol spectrum. It should be noticed that this figure of 164.5 dB approaches the practical limit of impulse noise measurement capability inherent in most modern sound level meters.

Roskoe

This mirrors my experience.

James B

If someone close to me at the range starts firing a big rifle with a Muzzle Brake, I just pack up and leave. It huirts my ears even with good ear protection. I already can't hear my wife when she speaks.

stubblejumper

Is that a pro or a con for muzzle brakes?

James B

Thats a tough question.The up side would be that after 38 years I have probably heard it all before.

KareImp

Galngbeard, with all due respect to the others on the board, who have a great deal of expertise, I was in a similar position as you not too long ago.

Actually, my situation was simply that I wanted a "more than 30 caliber" rifle. My preference was a 338 Win Mag, or a 35 Whelen - and then my local gun dealer came up with this 338 RUM for about $150-200 less than normal retail. Well, I offerred him $50.00 less than he was asking - and he said yes - so, Iown one.

I struggled with what is being posted - the 338 RUM packs a whallop, in the books at least - I had never shot one. I really just did not want to put a brake on it due to the noise. At the same time, I figured if I'm going to shoot a big bore gun, lets push some lead. I purchased 275 grainbullets.

I researched proper technique to reduce felt recoil, and really planned out a bunch to educate myself before I ever shot the gun. I was determined to at least shoot it before putting on a brake, and became concerned I would probably just sell it if I could not shoot it well. I looked at brakes you could remove, considered them before even shooting the gun.

I even watchedscary video's of some massive calibers, pounding on the shooter, and guns falling to the ground the recoil was so bad.

Well, when I finally shot the gun - it wasn't that bad.

I think I got myself all worked up, and it just was not that big of a deal. I still would not spend an afternoon shooting 100 rounds from it, but I was honestly wishing I had brought more test loads when I shot the last, and 12th round in my first range visit.

I won't be putting a brake on my gun, I don't feel it is neccessary. I still would have preferred a 338 Win Mag, or a 35 Whelan. After shooting the 338 RUM, I know this will not be the last "more than 30 caliber" gun I own. I love it!

Only you can decide, most do not like the 338 RUM. I like it. Mine is in a Left hand Rem 700 LSS BDL. I would have preferred a straight stock like the Ruger 77 if I had a choice, but like I said, mine was a meeting of a gun shop owner who wanted to clear his inventory of a left hand 338 RUM, and my intent to buy a larger bore rifle, so I have what I have.

I've been back to the range with it several times now. Each time is enjoyable. I've got about 65 rounds through it, and have built up loads for a couple different bullets. I'm not completely satisfied with my handloads, a change in powder may be what is needed. However, the gun is like most in my cabinet, more accurate than I, and capable of a clean kill.

I wouldn't suggest a reduced load with the oversized case. Just load it like it's gonna get used, and see what it's like.

IMO.

James B

It might be just me but I seem to get less felt recoil from the Remington stocked rifles than I do the Rugers when both are chambered in the same cartridge. Maybe the Remingtons just fit me better. I have had both Brands of rifles in 300 and 338 Win Mag.

TerryM

Seems the original poster said he had both an 06 and a 7mm rem mag but wants to step up on an elk/moose rifle. Don't have huntable elk here but have hunted moose for a long time and used a .338 win mag for many years with great results, have since stepped down to a 7mm rem mag and don't miss the big gun at all. If I had a 7mm mag I would skip over the .300 right to the ,338 if the recoil was not an issue. A muzzle brake is not a good solution, been there done that have diminished hearing to back that up. One thing to consider is what kind of range are you taking shots at? If your shots are all at 300 yds or less you might also want to consider a .350 rem mag or .35 whelen. Their performance on heavy game far outweigh the paper ballistics.

Roskoe

I, too,find the Ruger's to have a bunch more recoil than Remington's or Weatherby's. Got to be the stock design. The new Remington SPS's are particularly soft recoiling with the sythetic stock and the R3 recoil pad. Weatherby Fibermark's have always been pretty soft kicking as well. Worst kicking gun on the planet? The Ruger 77 Stainless all weather with that old black plastic stock that has the cut-outs in the buttstock. A .270 will give you a bruise. A .338 will give you flinch that will last a year or more.