Enysse nailed it you can't beat a 375 for an all round African caliber!
Louis van Bergen
Enysse nailed it you can't beat a 375 for an all round African caliber!
Louis van Bergen
And I really like the 7mm Mag....a lot more than the 300 Win Mag.
Just out of curiousity, why is that? Recoil? I have both, but have only shot and hunted with my 7mm Rem Mag. Some people say the .300 kicks a lot more, some say not so much. I guess it depends on the weight of the gun.
I will state that the 300 Win Mag shoots about twice as hard as the 7mm Mag. That is felt recoil. Alot of it depends on the stock and how the gun is set up. I have shot browningbbr's 300 Win Mag and his shoots a lot easier than mine. I put a muzzlebrake on my 300 Win Mag and really don't regret it. That thing was a sharp mule!
And I have shot the 416 Rigby and it's a lot more than 375 H&H....but I still felt I could have used it as a elephant gun...again the 416 Rigby wasn't mine.
And I hate all the Ultra Mags out there! I do like a lot of the calibers you mentioned ILCAPO.
Thanks. Your comments lead me even more strongly to believe that I'm going to have to have a muzzle break put on my .300 Win Mag. I have a local guy who can do that. I'll have to check on prices. Thanks.
I really do hate being beaten up by my rifle. I'm not too proud to admit it; I guess I'm a whimp when it comes to sharp recoil.
I have a Ruger No. 1 in .22-250 which is an awesome long-range varminter. It's a great prarie dog gun -- when I actually get a chance to get west to hunt prarie dogs! I haven't done so for about seven years now.
I added a lovely little Sako Riihimaki in .222 Remington to my collection about four years ago. Got a nice specimen from a collection that had gone on consignment. I haven't been to the range with it yet, but plan to do so soon. I topped it off with a nice Nikon Monarch Scope in 4.5-16x40mm I got at a good price. Should prove to be a nice match up.
BTW, are you anywhere near Blacksburg?
I like what my dad said about my 7mm or 300 Win....noise is noise....to me a muzzlebrake is just a little sharper....at least you you can hit what you are aim at. I wouldn't put a muzzlebrake on anything less than 300 Win Mag.
I spend a lot of time at the local range and absolutely cringe when I see a guy show up with a brake on his rifle. The noice emitted by these things is horrible to other shooters and can really throw one off his game. Sure they reduce felt recoil, so what. When hunting you never feel the gun go off anyway so whats the point? At the range you can take all manner of measures to reduce recoil without permanently disfiguring a perfectly good rifle. I HATE them!
I have a good recoil pad on my .300 Win Mag now. I haven't fired it yet, and will do so before doing anything to it. However, it has basically the same kind of decelerator gel pad, as well as Montecarlo style stock, that's on my 760 Gamemaster in .30-06, which I can handle just fine, but which does give a solid kick. I couldn't put another strap on pad over that. It would be awkward fitting at best and would make the length of pull unmanageable.
As for the louder shot due to the muzzle break, I have this to say -- I'm sure some people will likely jump all over this, being it's so well established now in the lexicon of shooters, but I have been presented with solid evidence otherwise -- and that is the idea that a muzzle break induces increased noise is a myth. Conventional wisdom, which I've seen in articles on websites and in gun magazines claim the typical muzzle break causes a 20 percent increase in noise to the shooter. However, this didn't make sense to a friend of mine who set out to investigate it and proved it is a false notion; urban legend that's been perpetuated by the shooting community.
My hunting safety instructor -- with whom I've been buddies since 1986 when I attended his class in Colorado --and a mutual friend of ours both bought matching Small Ring Model 98 Mausers when they became available in SHOTGUN NEWS back in the early 1990s. (I wish I had known about it, I would have joined them!) They both had these guns made up into sporters, chambered for the same cartridge; a wildcat known as the .458 2-inch American. It was a product of Frank Barnes, who simply cut the .458 Winchester Magnum case down from 2 1/2 inches to 2 inches. The former was simply more than was necessary to take an American big bear, yet there was a lack of big bore cartridges available for the purpose. Today's .450 Marlin is about the closest thing in a commercial offering available.
Anyway, he and our mutual friend Leonard got two rifles made up in this caliber. They had the same action, same brand of barrel, barrel length, etc. The only difference is my friend had both a good recoil pad and a muzzle break put on his. Leonard's has a standard recoil pad -- nothing special -- and no muzzle break. They wanted to test how much difference there would be between them in recoil. They also decided they wanted to test out their theory that there should be no difference in noise output between a rifle equipped with a muzzle break and one without. For this, they got hold of a good decible meter. (The latter was tested and found to be working perfectly fine.)
They set up the decible meter in various positions and went through several boxes of ammunition; as I recall they fired about three boxes of ammunition each (60 rounds a piece). They put the meter ahead of the gun, adjacent to it, and behind, and at different distances. The Results? Less than a half a decible difference between the two. And of all things, the one WITHOUT the muzzle break came in the higher. That said, half a decible across several boxes of ammo was well within the range of error for that device.
My friends were not surprised, and for this reason. As they explained it to me, and as they demonstrated by sending pictures of slow motion video proving this to be the case, whether a firearm has a muzzle break or not, the excaping gases are going to go outwards at a 90-degree angle from the muzzle once the bullet leaves the barrel. What makes the recoil less violent is the fact that there is a very brief -- split second really but sufficiently significant -- spreading out of the time over which these gases are released. The sound is still at the level it always was. It's let out over a fraction of a second longer, but in total, it's the same noise level.
If you look at slow motion video of a bullet leaving a barrel, you'll see the moment it exits, gases will come out in all directions at a 90-degree angle from the muzzle. It creates a "halo" like effect, very much like a fighter jet as it breaks the sound barrier. Ever see those photos of the F-18/HORNET breaking mock and this white cloud appearing at the wing root and circling the plane? THAT is what happens when the bullet leaves the barrel of your rifle. Same effect. The muzzle break therefore doesn't change the direction of gases, but rather simply extends the time during which their expelled, letting a little at a time out along the way.
Anyway, I'm sure someone will come up somewhere with "scientific evidence" claiming it actually makes a gun louder, but I'm just relating what my friends said their test revealed. And oh, by the way, the muzzle break and gel recoil pad made a HUGE difference in recoil. No surprise there. He said neither gun had a violent recoil. Both were simply a big "push." However, whereas his gun stopped pushing at a point, Leonard's gun just kept going! LOL!
I didn't notice a lick of difference in noise before or after I had the muzzle break put on my 7mm Rem Mag. It was WAY too loud and left my ears ringing in either case. LOL!
That said, I keep forgetting to bring them -- which will NOT happen when I go to Africa -- but I plan to use earplugs from now on. In fact, I brought a set when on my last bear hunt. Never fired, but I had them nonetheless. As for whether I get to use them or not depends on whether I have to rely on a snapshot or I have time to set up. Then again, I have these really great earplugs I bought at a military shop as I was deploying to Iraq which have valves inside. They are open in normal use, but close to a noise over a certain decible level. The sound of a shot will cause them to close in time to prevent your ears from ringing. It's not like a headset, but it was certainly all I needed for shooting on the range. Then again, I was only shooting the M-16 with its glorified .22 rounds. But they DO work. What I like about them is you can wear them without deafening yourself, which you don't want to do while hunting. Your ears are obviously a big part of sensing for the presence of an animal. These plugs allow you to still hear pretty well, but cut off any really loud noise. Not sure if a PH would recommend wearing them during a hunt, but in either case, it would be good to have them along. If one shouldn't wear anything until the time of firing, then I have another set of regular plugs that hang around my neck on a string, making them available at a moment's notice.
This said, in November I took a nice doe with my .250 Savage. I forgot my earplugs this time around, but to be honest with you, I barely noticed the shot. I DID notice moments afterwards, however, much to my surprise -- and delight -- that my ears were not ringing. That little .250 Savage is not only very pleasant to shoot, but it's not at all that loud. My ears certainly weren't left hurting like after shooting my .30-06 or 7mm Rem Mag.
And no, I'm not near Blacksburg. I believe that's all the way on the other end of the state. Actually.... hold one...... Looking on Googlemaps, it appears to be 100 miles south of where I hunt, which itself is about 30 miles west of Charlottesville. As for me, I'm way up in the Washington D.C. metro area.
I think my story supports your dad's comment. That's what my friend said, noise is noise. It's the same regardless and is a function of the amount of powder, not the muzzle configuration. As for not putting a muzzlebrake o nanything less than a .300 Win Mag, I'd agree based on the shooting I've done.
I read through a number of sources, including Gun Writer Chuck Hawks, that the .30-06 is about as much gun as your average shooter can handle without finching terribly. I'd say I fall exactly into that category. I can shoot mine just fine. My 7mm Mag hurt like hell before I put the muzzle break on it. Then again, had the nice new gel recoil pads been available at the time, that would have been sufficient and a better option. I'll have to see if the pad I have on my .300 Win Mag is sufficient for the task. The only issue I have with the muzzle breaks is they break up the otherwise lovely lines of a hunting rifle.
Decimals, schmecibals! No way can you stand next to a gun with a brake on it and say it aint louder, no way. Also dont forget the direction of the porting. I suppose one could argue that with 90 degree porting, the difference may be slight. But what if the porting points back towards the rear. You dont think having all the blast directed back and out wont affect other shooters? It is to laugh. I shoot on a rifle range at least once a week and the benches are about 2.5-3 feet apart with no baffle wall between and there is absolutely no question I can tell a rifle with a brake on it from 6 benches away, its quite obvious. And I wear plugs and muffs to protect what little hearing I have left. In my view there is no reason to brake a rifle at least one that came without one. I admit to buying an Armalite AR15 during the Assault Weapons ban that came with a "recoil check" to get around the stupid laws, but that is the only rifle I own with any kind of brake. It shoots so good I dont want to change it. Like I said there is just too many ways to dampen recoil for bench shooting that a brake is not necessary and for hunting its stupid and dangerous to others hearing. Ask any PH about muzzle brakes. Diatribe over.
Sestoppelman... We agree on the "disfiguring" point on the gun. However, like I said, according to imperical evidence from my friends who used a decible meter on two exact guns, one with and one without a muzzle break, they found zero difference in actual noise.
As for "When hunting you never feel the gun go off anyway so whats the point?" It the practice sessions where the heavy hitters that came become an issue. Then again, that's only for those of us who are particularly sensitive to recoil. Shooting from the bench I have a new sandbag which sandwiches the rifle forearm and thus not only holds the gun steady, but locks it down in place with many pounds of sand, thereby greatly reducing the recoil felt. However, get off the bench to practice off the sticks, or especially while sitting, kneeling, or standing and shooting freehand, you're on your own. I prefer to reduce the heavy recoil. As I noted earlier, in its original configuration, my 7mm Rem Mag was brutal!
Sorry, not buying it. I know what I know and after over 45 years of shooting, I am convinced that brakes increase noise and blast. No question.
Sestoppelman. If the ports are to the rear, then the game is changed. However, that said, I have never seen ports pointed backwards. Actually, that sounds dangerous. Gases can hurt you. Put your hand near the muzzle (to the side) when shooting and see what happens! You'll burn your hands.
I'm thrown off, however, by the complaints at the range. If you have hearing protection -- and I wear double, ear plugs and muffs -- what's the difference? As for PHs. They can cover their ears in the field, which they ought to be doing anyway.
Well somebody had to do it, right? LOL? Seen ports point back on guns before. Its not so much that its dangerous, but enough to cause the gases to pull the gun forward a bit. Thats the point of the brake effect. Like on my AR. I contend that if plugs and muffs is not enough to dampen noise for a guy like me whose hearing sucks to start with, its TOO FREAKING LOUD. My very opinionated point is that it just aint necessary. And yes a PH should plug his ears but often in the field for one reason or another, he may not, especially if he has his hands full of binos watching to see the reaction to the shot on the animal. Like I said ask any PH. In fact I invite any PH to come here and say brakes dont make a rifle louder. Not throwing down the gauntlet, just like some professional opinions. I already know what mine is. Brakes suck!!
It would be interesting that if during your research with a decibel meter that you were able to block the sound from the front of the barrel and only measure the sound coming from the ports and see the difference.
I would think that if your meter was only measuring noise from the gun alone it would not differentiate the two sources of noise.
If you are in front of a muzzle, which unfortunately I have been on occasion it is louder than if you are behind it.
My empirical evidence would be the measurement of hearing damage in m y left ear vs my right.
The ear facing the muzzle has a large deaf "notch" in it and the right ear which for me faces away from the noise source is better than average still.
From all the shooting I have done beside shotguns with and without porting. You stand beside a man shooting a ported gun you will be going deaf long before the man shooting the solid barrel.
Hope your friend can do the test!
I didn't put one on any other gun. And I definitely can understand people hating muzzlebrakes....won't argue the point either anymore.
And I can understand being in the way of muzzle blast and hating it. Someone shot last year shot right behind my right ear with no hearing protection on and I was swearing about it.
And yes you can feel muzzle blast...physically pretty easily! (lol)
Look at the ports on most .50 cal rifles, ported to the rear. Thats the point of it. You dont have to have the ports angled to blow into your face but rather out to the side, rearwards to "check" the rearward movement of the gun.
I had to laugh, because I always thought the 7mm Rem Mag cracked when it shot. Loud you bet! My dad hated that gun and I didn't even have a muzzlebreak on it.
I will say some people are bothered more by noise than others. And I'd rather hit the target than miss it.