« A Bad Rifle Is (Almost) Always a Bad Rifle | Main | Some Thoughts On The Virginia Tech Massacre »

April 25, 2007

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

Quote of the Day

"In case anyone thinks equipping a a rifle with a muzzle brake...will make it easier on the scope, think again. In fact, the brake increases the stresses on the scope mounts. The rifle still recoils, but instead of completing the motion and then settling back, the gasses jetting out of the brake jerk the rifle forward almost instantly. So with a brake there are three distinct stress motions, not just two, and the second is almost as violent as the first." -- Terry Weiland, Dangerous-Game Rifles


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Quote of the Day:


JA Demko

I may be wrong, but his physics seem a little off to me. There are two force vectors involved: 1 to the rear, as with a non-braked rifle, and one in the opposite direction due to the effect of the brake. In a perfect situation, they would exactly cancel each other out and there would be no net motion of the rifle. That doesn't happen in real life. The recoil force is greater than the effect of the brake, so the recoil force is only decreased rather than eliminated. Is there any measureable forward motion from a brake?

Ralph the Rifleman

Wouldn't muzzle velocity and bullet weight greatly influence this factor? (I have had customers ask if a brake could be placed on their favorite .243!)

Dave Petzal

To JA Demko: Since brake designs vary, there may or may not be forward motion. Even Newtonian physics has been challenged, but I agree with Terry's point. The only scope I ever broke from shooting (and it was a good one) was busted by a .416 with a muzzle brake.

To Ralph: Yes, it would. I don't think a .243 with a brake would pose much of a threat.


I would rather break my scope, scope mounts, and shoulder than my ears. I have owned one gun with a muzzle break (454 Casull handgun) Sold it, the noise was more painfull than the kick.


Is "hogwash" too strong a word? I can't theorize about the physics like Terry and the other commenters, but my 5 1/2-pound Ultra Light Arms .338, which is now old enough to vote, has had literally thousands of full-bore rounds through it, and has worn the same Zeiss scope, still intact and undamaged, since Melvin Forbes first built the rifle. It has the felt recoil of a .308. Weiland's statement is so counter-intuitive as to require some experimental basis, which shouldn't be hard to arrange.

Clay Cooper

Yo’Chuckb! Zeiss scopes can be used as a hammer! But not every one can buy a $1500.00 hammer, perhaps maybe the government. I’ve witnessed Redfields and other major brands with the exception of Leopold scopes cross hairs just detonate on the bench. I know I cannot use a Leopold scope for a hammer, but it really puts my rounds in the X-Ring! Even after months of abuse on my ATV. I’ve seen a person put a muzzle break on a 22-250 with a 26inch heavy barrel with a muzzle break. The point here is, you will find that air rifle scopes are designed internally deferent from high power rifle scopes because of the + and – directions of travel.


The 3-9x40 Zeiss Conquest is no $1500 scope......about $400 on a good day. It has a lifetime warranty (transferable) and is assembled right here in the USA.

And yes.....it probably could be used as a hammer.

Our Blogs