Do More Muzzle Ports Equal Less Recoil?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 дек 2021
- In this video, we test how many ports on a muzzle brake are ideal for minimizing felt recoil.
▬ Sporting Rifle Accessories used in Video ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
MDT HNT26 - mdttac.com/hnt26-chassis-system/
MDT Elite Scope Rings - mdttac.com/elite-scope-rings/
MDT Muzzle Brake Elite - mdttac.com/mdt-elite-muzzle-b...
▬ More Videos ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Subscribe to MDT: / @mdttac
All MDT Videos: / mdttaclss
▬ Social Media ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
► Facebook: / mdttac21
► Instagram: / mdttac21
▬ Our Website ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Upgrade now: mdttac.com
▬ About MDT ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
MDT was born out of a single purpose: to provide better value and better accuracy for precision rifles. The first MDT chassis was developed from the ground up based on the needs of shooters.
Our engineers verified every function and feature based on the input from competitive shooters. The end result was a game-changing product called the TAC21 that continues to perform at the range, in the field and in competitions around the world.
Today, MDT chassis, magazines and accessories are still developed the same way.
We collaborate, question and verify our concepts with precision shooters from around the globe to ensure that every MDT product is designed with the same single purpose: to provide our customers with the absolute best product possible. 
Развлечения
This is *really* impressive! I clicked to find the answer, but just assumed it'd be a couple of yahoos saying, "Yeah, that felt different", or "naw... felt the same." But this is quantifiable, repeatable, and measurable. _Just superb!_
Welp, at the end of the day it all comes down to what the Yahoo thinks. LOL
Yea, it actually took me a few days before watching this. They should have put the setup in the thumbnail to get more views.
@Michael Hill Since the length of the arm is unchanging, a reduction in angle is also a reduction in height. You're not wrong... but you're not correct, either.
@Michael Hill Can't see the forest because of all the trees in the way? The rearward energy was reduced, and the GPE was correspondingly reduced as well. The reduction in angle correlates directly to a reduction in GPE.
-
Whatever their math is, and whether it's accurate or not, you can see for yourself that the gun didn't achieve the same height, which means less rearward energy was exerted.
-
"Hot garbage"? The video is there for you to see. Put the video on mute if you insist on nit-picking, but like I said, the video is there, and the vertical displacement is reduced with additional 'braking', though it obviously has diminishing returns.
@Michael Hill So put the audio on mute, soak in the video, and be grateful that someone took the time to do this experiment and video-document the results for you.
Wow, I am really impressed with this video. You have done something not even those gun channels with millions of subscribers and massive budgets would ever do. You built a rig and measured something quantifiably and gave a clear answer. Superb quality.
Thank you so much for the kind words!
That doesn't quantify ANYTHING!
I’m no engineer, this raised a question for me though. Would the most efficient amount of ports depend on the diameter of the projectile in relation to the amount of gasses behind it? Love videos like these.
Yes and also the design of the both the projectile and the brake, the actual pressure of the gasses at the individual ports, the physical weight of the brake not to mention the material, temperature, cartridge being used, and on and on and on...
Regardless, it is still a solid test to give you a general idea of how the brake would function to reduce recoil. Their setup, though not factoring in EVERYTHING, is an impressive test.
It would depend on a huge number of things. The design of the brake, the spacing/size of each port, and so on. Diameter of the projectile, pressure of the cartridge, length of the barrel firing, specific gunpowder mix. If we assume a sealed barrel (ie not the gun cycling) pretty much everything else will change the results and thus the number of ports. These numbers seem reasonably representative of what I'd expect in the majority of cases with a fairly average muzzle brake design, but with odd designs or odd scenarios we can very easily get an incredibly different result.
@@MrAPCProductions Once the bullet passes the first port the pressure of the gasses affecting the bullet is so small there is more pressure affecting the front of the bullet due to the compression happening since the gasses will always move to equalize with the outside. That is why a shorter vs longer barrel on pistols can make for a shocking change in velocity (More pronounced in rifles obviously)as once that bullet has left the barrel it's no longer getting pushed along gaining speed and merely conserving it's momentum (Minus of course the drag)
@@Jeff4559 Sorry Jeff but PHYSICS gives you a general idea of how the brake would function. It's not that impressive of a test. As Paul mentions, it's a truncated test that gives a very narrow window of results for a single caliber, single charge of gunpowder, and single barrel length.
Hmmm Im interested in shorter barrels… also was this normalized for the weight change?
That was my next question. Wondering if the small incremental reduction was actually because of the mass of the device.
That's not what the data would suggest
ruclips.net/video/Xqfb7IA9gA8/видео.html
This guy; always science thinking
Was thinking about this when the video started but we'd see more of a difference on the 4,5,6 ports measurements if the weight was doing a significant amount of work?
@@legiongames2400 Indeed, overall added mass is negligible. It would however help stability by weight in front a bit. Free swinging test wouldn’t show much. If they had a sled with a impact meter you might see the result.
I'd like to see this done with magnums. they have longer burning powder so that may effect results. e.g. the effect you discovered may happen at 5 ports for a .300 WM
That would be a great idea for our next video!
It wouldn't make a difference. Once the ass end of the bullet reaches the first port the gasses are naturally going to expand to equalize with the external pressures of the atmosphere. The extra ports on the breaks is where they get their other name from.. Flash hiders as the ports give the flash of the still burning powder a rear ward angle instead of spitting it out of the barrel in line with you line of site thus during low light situations allowing you to still see down range better (and obscuring your position slightly as well)
@@SilvaDreams Brakes don’t make good Flash Hiders typically. I’m not sure if there is Fire with my .338LM Sako TRG42 (paying attention to different things), but my DD MK18 will let you know what’s up.
Magnums do benefit from 5 port brakes and six port brakes. Nathan with muzzle brakes and more has done a lot of muzzle brake testing using a lot of different calibers. Also the wider the surface area of the brake, the more recoil reduction.
@@SilvaDreams flash hiders don’t send powder rearwards they just have prongs or cages that create turbulence in the gasses coming out of the barrel which allows a cleaner and dimmer burn of powder
An addition of a decibel reading and maybe a doppler radar would help felt concussion and standard ammo deviation as well as velocity differences. I agree with some the pendulum may not be ideal but you are getting consistent data and gathering information is the key part to build a comparable data chart. Great job and keep it up, results whether good or bad are successful as long as something can be learned from it.
Thank you so much for the kind words!
No BS, just testing and data. Very well put together video!
I wonder if the change in the weight distribution going above 4 ports could account for the slight increase. As the length of the brake gets longer it may change the swing character of the system. The increased weight should increase the inertia resistance but what wins out. That's what the smart guys are paid for.
That's what I was thinking too. Could the extra weight at the front change the balance point of the gun and affect the pendulum characteristics.
you could try mounting the rifle on a sled and measure the way it travels after a shot. no problem with swinging or something like that and it simulates the rifle hitting the shoulder.
@@johndeere2799
100% 👍
I think the pendulum arc is a great idea to measure recoil energy. The motion of a pendulum is a well understood system mathematically in terms of energy (just about every mechanical or aerospace engineering student has seen the equation of the motion of a pendulum developed). So the change in energy observed through a measurement of the angular average angular velocity and maximum height achieved, with an appropriate estimate of the moment of inertia due to the rifle+aluminum bar. Very simple, effective setup!
If it did significantly affect the swing, we would be seeing a larger angle the bigger the brake, so to an extent it kinda cancels itself out
Great video! Don’t forget, the size of the ports, the distance of the ports from each other, and the angle of the ports (facing straight, Forward, or backwards) all can affect the recoil. A well designed 2 port can be much more effective than a poorly designed 6 port.
The angle does not linearly correlate to the recoil energy. The first degree is a lot easier than the last since gravity counteracts it less.
I think the potential energy achieved at the end point is a more accurate estimation (not perfect though) (Potential energy = mass * gravity * height).
I calculated the reduction in potential energy from no port to 6 ports to 68%, please correct my drunk math if necessary. Happy new year!
You are correct. Potential energy (vertical distance in this case) would be a better way to express recoil reduction than angular displacement. You can appreciate a little bit more the effect of the first port this way.
1 port energy reduction: 55.0%
2 port energy reduction: 60.5% (5.5% more)
3 port energy reduction: 63.8% (3.3% more)
4 port energy reduction: 67.5% (3.7% more)
5 port energy reduction: 66.8% (0.7% less)
6 port energy reduction: 68.0% (1.3% more)
What you've written is true. But their tests demonstrate the performance of each option relative to the others as long as port design is consistent across all devices.
Correct, they would want to use the Sine of the angle reduction to convert the values into a linear scale.
@@dereklaroque172 Almost. You need to use the integral of the Sine.
Was looking to see if others thought the same, was pleasantly surprised.
Love the fact that the video is not an advertisement of their products ! Hat off
Would be very interesting to see the same test with different cartridges. The more powder burned, the more effective more ports become.
Really love how you take the time and effort to take down quantifiable data not just your "shoulder feel" first time watcher and will definitely be coming back for more videos
This is absolutely the best test procedure of recoil testing I've seen. Great job guys.
Thanks for doing the test and sharing the results. Always have been interested in this test.
I tried to do a curve fit of the muzzle break performance data. While it turns out that the model is actually really sensitive to the weight of the break (which we were not given AFAIK)... depending on my assumption of break weights, I'm finding that each additional port strips off something like 45-60% (best guess: 55%) of the remaining gas.
Except the first, which is somewhat more effective than it "should" be: regardless of any reasonable manipulation of the model's free parameters, it reduces the gas momentum by about 75%.
I like the no BS, straight to it videos. Good work fellas!
Great testing, Great video, Thank you fer sharing great info. Couple years ago I requested one or two more ports from my brake mfg. & he said no need, 4 is all that's needed, so I took his word for it, Thanks to you guys - now I am certain to not question anymore.👍
Thank you so much!
this is a really well designed experiment to find an answer to a question that not many people ask. very cool and helpful!
NIcely done Ryan and MDT Team. Great Videos and I like how you do them.
This is the coolest testing rig I've seen. Very clever setup!
Saw the weight video and glad to see you guys listened to the comments about brakes
I was looking at a different chassis company but decided to look at MDT because of your videos.
Nice! We are very happy you enjoyed it and it helped out!
Love that you attacked this quantifiabley, was expecting shoulder fire and your word!
Great vid
One of the best Presentation about firearms experimental i have ever seen in a long time. good job.
I am digging the research you all do. Great work!
THIS is the kind of science I want to see! Hope to see more, maybe with different port designs!
Wow! The whole testing contraption is amazing.
Thank you MDT for great accessories and great service. Y'all rock!
Thanks for watching!
very well conducted testing and a clean and repeatable testing setup! i wish more youtube vids hat such an approach. very nice
What caliber was used and how would different calibers affect the results? There's a massive difference in the amount of gas between 6BR, Creedmoor, and a 338 Lapua
That was my thought as well. Was the ammo used stock or custom, factory or hand loads? Too may variables here to make a quantified estimate. Also cold vs hot barrel and weights of each muzzle break.
Largely there wouldn't be a drastic change as most of the recoil is from the mass of the bullet being forced down the barrel (Every action has an equal and opposite reaction -Newton)
So yes there would be a change between calibers but there would also be a change depending on the weight of the bullet and the powder load and the barrel length as more powder means more gases to expand rapidly and the longer the barrel the more time it has to be accelerated and thus more energy is transferred back.
Once there is an way for the gases to equalize with the outside atmosphere they rapidly expand to do just that which is why there is essentially little to no change past a single port but functionally it does work better for it's other task which is to diffuse to the burning gasses off to the sides thus it's other name of "flash hider"
This is brilliant! So well done! Thank you.
Great test .. thanks. It is true that the first port in most brakes do the most work. In the brakes I offer I tune the internal dimensions to balance the pressure across all baffles. This makes the brake more effective as it distributes the pressure across all baffles.
REALLY EXCELLENT JOB on this test, extremely scientific, WELL DONE!!
Excellent work guys. You answered my question in a very scientific manner. Thanks!
Once again great video every time I watch them I learn something thanks a lot y'all be safe out there happy holidays
MDT as always is great. Thak you guys for your job.
Awesome video! You guys are doing a great job on these.
I love actual science and well designed experiments! This was superb, really great content. Loved your barrel burning out video as well.
Thank you so much!
Awesome video! Like everyone else is saying, this video was very professional and gave numbers instead of just personal opinion. Keep up the great work!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
This is truly QUALITY CONTENT. Kudos to the team!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
thank you for the good work you’re doing!
Great methodology and the video was not excessively long. Fukken subbed
Very cool video, thanks for taking the time.
REALLY appreciate the direct to the point no fluff efficiently edited sharing of results and information. Wish more RUclips videos sharing experimentation and results would use this format
Absolutely, others would have easily stretched this into a 15 even 20 minute video.
Excellent science and engineering!!! Solid repeatable execution of hypothesis measurement.
Thats such a cool test. This channel is awesome
You just got a new subscriber. I'm a bit of a data junkie. I love the info and this was a beautifully conducted experiment. Looking forward to anything else you do. I'm just babbling at this point, but keep up the good work guys
This was excellent. Awesome work.
Great video. I’ve always wondered about how many ports would be most effective and I figured there would be more diminished return on the 3 port but it’s good to know.
These testing videos are awesome!
I’ve been experimenting with my Christensen arms 338 Lapua (has mini set screws in the brake). I’ve been taking one at a time to see if I notice a difference. I blame the shooter (me, lol) not the rifle. You gained a subscriber today.
Thank you. 😁
simple. to the point. good test equipment.... earned a new sub :)
Thanks for the research. That's was super informative.
Frikn Science!!!
I love these videos!!
Great job thank you again!!
Happy new years all!!
🍻😷👍
Another excellent video from the MDT Team
Thank you so much for the kind words.
Man, this is an interesting channel! Well done bruv.
Guys I LOVE your methods here very experimentally sound and based on the scientific method, Removal of external variables and all. Well done fellahs!
Very interesting data. Thanks for that!
Thanks for the testing and evaluation. I was just looking at a pinned and welded brake so that I could conceivably lower the barrel length without going SBR. Recently found a 3.8"-3.9" brake so that I could use a 12"-12.5" barrel for an AK. Since the 7.62x39 seems to like shorter barrel lengths without drastically affecting muzzle velocities.
Nice informative test. Thank you.
Excellent testing methodology. Thank you
Awesome video very institutional clear to see your findings
That's excellent! I'd love to see a revisit to this, where you test muzzle velocity as well. Maybe the bullet velocity is acting as a confounding variable in your testing.
Very nice short held informative video!
Really great videos 📹. Keep them coming 👍
Great scientific test, you earned my subscription.
Quite impressed with the experimental apparatus, good work 👍
Grate subject, I learned a lot from this.
Good and repeatable test. Nicely done.
Amazing video and education. Thank you!
Well, this got way more scientific than I expected. Nice job guys 👍
Really fascinating and good info to keep in mind
Great on video! Appreciate the contribution to firearms development.
Good stuff. Thanks! Final conclusion is limited by relatively low sample size, but the trends are there.
Awesome rig and video. I don't have any want for a brake, the science brought me here. Subscribed, liked and commented.
Awesome!
Great video, thank you!
Great content man!
Great video! Excellent science!
Great test!
This is cool to me seeing the data behind how effective brakes are. I was personally very skeptical of brakes until I got my 30 06 bolt action with 24 in barrel that came with a tacticool tank break on the front with 8 small ports on each side and 10 top and bottom, looks drilled with a 3/16 or a bit smaller. It spits a bit of fire but has less felt recoil than my 16 in 5.56 gas operated ar 15.
Outstanding analysis!
I think this experiment was pretty well executed. I’d like to see them use that equipment to measure the best brake for different calibers and case capacities. A 6.5 CM may benefit from a brake differently than a .358 Norma Magnum.
Absolutely outstanding work
That was really cool oh, I like the way you guys did that I hope to see more interesting videos from you people PS love your stocks. Saving up my coin to put one on my 7 mm08
Really great video. Would be interesting seeing how it affects guns with shorter barrels and smaller calibers. I think the larger the caliber, the larger the difference in recoil would be.
Dang, only now just discovering you guys, these are excellent videos.
i could be wrong, but i think the amount of energy needed to deflect a certain number of degrees increases as you get higher and higher. so for example it would take more energy to go from 50-55 than it would to go from 40-45. my point being i think the recoil reduction going from no brake to single port is more significant than youre giving it credit for. i wonder if measuring actual force on the butt would yield different percentage changes. either way, im still surprised how effecting just one port is.
After shooting 2 years in ELR 33XC and one year with 375 Cheytac the T5 Termiknator is the best so far.Id like to tyry the Warrior 35 Beast Tuner Brake. Great video
Thank you for sharing your research
Fantastic science that you have done!
Thank you!
I wonder if changing port sizes for all but the first port would help optimize the brake for weight
It changes things that is for sure.
@@MDTTAC I would think theoretically a brake operates like a hydraulic piston pushing the bullet pressure is in force per surface area and the first break effectively triples the surface area, the second reduces the pressure of the center channel by 9 and the third is 27.
That’s kinda what was thinking as well, just instead one large port, I wonder what the results would be haha.
What the heck? This video has some great production value and very very nice editing!
Thank you so much for the kind words!
Great video, all tests are repeatable which is not often found on gun channels. Reminds me of a Charpy impact test. If I could make a suggestion for a follow-up video: I'd like to see the same rifle on this setup fired with various suppressors to compare how the recoil is affected/unaffected vs brakes.
Great job, thanks!
Such an awesome video! Love the test set up and the products. Kinda upset you didn't do a 100 port test ;D
Well done very properly executed
Great scientific testing, good video!
this is Science i always want to see more gun channels.
Excellent work.
That was a great visual experiment. I'd love to see this repeated for different calibers and barrel lengths.