Muzzle brake? - Page 3
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 52 of 52

Thread: Muzzle brake?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    185
    Likes (Received)
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eaglemike View Post
    Stressproof has nice mechanical properties, and machines (and finishes) very nicely. Not everyone knows how easy it is to machine. I've also machined a fair amount of 416, as it's my choice for a free machining stainless.
    I use 1144 stressproof strikers. Is does machine very well. My OPINION on this is probably a throw back to days where bluing was THE option for finishing. It was MUCH easier (if not the only way) to match the blue if the parts were all the same material... With the newer finishes that is really not a concern. However, I still plod along using using 4140 and 416 as my "go to" metals for muzzle devices. Taking the specs into consideration, I can think of no steel that would not work as a brake. But some choices remain Better than others.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    185
    Likes (Received)
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by g-coder05 View Post
    So many professionals giving the numbers for pressures but yet forgot something most of us where taught in 6th grade science class. Bimetallic (Galvanic) corrosion. The OP said a Stainless barrel with an Aluminum muzzle break. Aluminum is Anodic to stainless and begins corrosion at first contact. So basically the threads on both the barrel and the break will eventually dissolve. So, how do the pressure numbers work with thread decay?
    Although this is 100% correct TECHNICALLY. I doubt it would be a huge concern. I have used stainless steel fasteners with Al for years... Even where exposed to salt water (talk about a galvanic corrosion nightmare!). Properly passivated stainless can actually act as a dielectric preventing galvanic corrosion. However, I know few gunsmiths who passivate stainless after machining.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dewees Texas
    Posts
    2,282
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    26
    Likes (Received)
    605

    Default

    I made muzzle brake blanks for a well known outfit. After a management change they went to 12L14 after using Stress Proof for years. I quit working for them after the management change, a few years they went back to Stress Proof, I seem to remember hearing of failures that happened after time with the leaded steel. 12L14 has lots better numbers than 6061.
    I heard that the failures were very noisy.
    I will ask the fellow that made the brakes after I quit, and see if I am remembering correctly.
    Last edited by FredC; 06-10-2019 at 02:37 PM. Reason: brakes not breaks

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dewees Texas
    Posts
    2,282
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    26
    Likes (Received)
    605

    Default

    MY mistake, I will leave it as the additional info may be helpful to some. The fellow that took over the job says there was only one failure.
    I remember one failure was because the installer forgot to bore the 1/4 pilot hole to the bullet size plus some. If that was the only failure then 12L14 may be a marginally good enough material. The fellow told me what they are using now, but that may be a trade secret so I will not say. It has been 30 years since the switch to the leaded steel so that is a lot of history. Man am I getting old! Thirty years!

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Idaho
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    98
    Likes (Received)
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIBill View Post
    The numbers for 6061t6 Mram10 cited are crap to start with... Although it is TRUE that typical vales are close to what he cited, ONLY MINIMUM values are specified for 6061t6. ONLY these MINIMUM values should be used unless you have the facilities to test tensile and yield strength. The CORRECT values are: tensile 42,000 psi yield 35,000 psi. HOWEVER, the fatigue limit is only 14,000 psi. STRIKE ONE!

    Next 6061t6 Is NOT even the best choice of readily available aluminum alloys for this type of application... 7075-t6, 7075t651, 7075t7 or 7075RRA would be better choices. Each of these heat treats would be slightly better than the one before it. However, only the t6 is readily available (check McMaster-Carr). STRIKE TWO.

    And none of this takes into account aluminum's nasty habit of developing stress fractures. Please google Fatigue limit. STRIKE THREE!!!

    He clearly does NOT understand the nature of the materials he is working with! I believe this is what Butch is referring to when he used the expression "spewing knowledge". Mram10's "knowledge" is incomplete and dangerously lacking. Some times a little knowledge is worse than none at all...
    Ha! Sober up buddy, let’s talk this out. My specs for 6061t6 are backed up by the following:
    ASM aerospace specification metals inc
    Gabrian metals
    United Performance Metals
    Glemcom inc

    Now, since they make a living with this stuff, I will call them in the morning and let them know that their numbers for 6061 are wrong. I’m sure they will be thrilled that you fixed the error and send you a thank you card.

    To your point, of course there are always “better” choices. I KNOW 6061t6 works based on EXPERIENCE.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    moscow,ohio
    Posts
    5,900
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    579
    Likes (Received)
    1887

    Default

    1 ply works too, right up to the point you get a stinky finger.

    then you wished you had sprung for 2 ply

    it's the better choice IME.

  7. Likes Lharmon, Butch Lambert liked this post
  8. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Idaho
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    98
    Likes (Received)
    74

    Default

    Here is the link for the muzzle pressure numbers I cited.

    Bullet Ballistics 101: Pressure, Velocity & Distance

    Here is one of the links listings 6061t6 specs.

    ASM Material Data Sheet

    AGAIN, for clarity, the rifles using the aluminum brakes were stainless barrels in 308 up to 338 edge in 26” or longer barrels. The brakes were .875” or 1” depending with .020-.030” over bore. Those muzzle pressures are far below the specs for 6061t6. If you aren’t comfortable using an al brake, don’t. Just showing the OP and others looking for real world EXPERIENCE, that it is possible. I’m out of this one, so I hope it helps someone out.

  9. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Michigan
    Posts
    599
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    185
    Likes (Received)
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mram10 View Post
    Here is the link for the muzzle pressure numbers I cited.

    Bullet Ballistics 101: Pressure, Velocity & Distance
    Where in this does article cite a 1,000psi pressure for ANYTHING??? Hint: It does NOT! ANYWHERE!!! I read it 3 times.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mram10 View Post
    Here is one of the links listings 6061t6 specs.

    ASM Material Data Sheet
    Clearly noted under the "Comments" for BOTH tensile strength and yield strength: "AA; Typical"

    As far as the "Typical" note, that is EXACTLY what I said ("Although it is TRUE that typical vales are close to what he cited")! However, that is NOT the minimum value, which I provided.

    Now what does this spec sheet say about the "AA" note??? "Data points with the AA note have been provided by the Aluminum Association, Inc. and are NOT FOR DESIGN". Which is why I wrote "ONLY these MINIMUM values should be used unless you have the facilities to test tensile and yield strength". Typical values are NOT FOR DESIGN".


    Quote Originally Posted by Mram10 View Post
    AGAIN, for clarity, the rifles using the aluminum brakes were stainless barrels in 308 up to 338 edge in 26” or longer barrels. The brakes were .875” or 1” depending with .020-.030” over bore. Those muzzle pressures are far below the specs for 6061t6. If you aren’t comfortable using an al brake, don’t. Just showing the OP and others looking for real world EXPERIENCE, that it is possible. I’m out of this one, so I hope it helps someone out.
    Again, for clarity, your specs are garbage and your understanding of them is faulty! Pressures at muzzle are higher than you think and the materials you are using are weaker than you realize... A VERY dangerous combination!

  10. Likes Butch Lambert liked this post
  11. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,082
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    13
    Likes (Received)
    290

    Default

    For a muzzle brake to work effectively, it needs a high pressure at the muzzle to generate the force needed to fight recoil. Easily proven by shooting subsonic loads versus standard loads. Filming with a high speed video will show the gas pressure and the movement. All part of our standard test procedures.

  12. Likes Butch Lambert liked this post
  13. #50
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Boalsburg, PA USA
    Posts
    234
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    5
    Likes (Received)
    14

    Default

    A lot of technical opinions here, and I'm not qualified to argue with any of them. I'm just wondering why the fellow thinks a muzzle brake is "necessary" for the upcoming hunting season. For "one or two shots" while hunting and a few more for zeroing the scope? I hunt elk with a .300 Weatherby and never felt I needed a muzzle brake.

    I shoot at the range a lot and have learned to hate them (muzzle brakes). Interestingly, all the fellows with black rifles and muzzle brakes are usually shooting at 50 yards. Why? I suspect it is because their groups are usually 3-5" wide. Not that the muzzle brakes are to blame, only that most of those guys need to fix other things before trying to gain a small advantage for that second quick shot. They are going to grow old with tinnitus, like me.

  14. Likes MIBill, Lharmon liked this post
  15. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Idaho
    Posts
    353
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    98
    Likes (Received)
    74

    Default

    MIBill,
    It is funny you are so adamant about this when you have ZERO experience with aluminum brakes. Just theory. After the 3rd paragraph, there is a table titled “Bullet Ballistics Chart”. Have a friend read this for you if you can’t find the 100. I said earlier it was under 1k.

    For argument sake, let’s say your 35k was accurate. Would it matter since that is about what 304 is? It would still work. Go try aluminum unless you like to be ignorant

  16. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Arizona
    Posts
    2,203
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4
    Likes (Received)
    335

    Default

    I think this thread has reached the end of its usefullness so I am closing it.

  17. Likes muckalee, GenePoole, Lharmon liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •