Thanks. I will do so when I get the chance. I find it interesting he came up with completely different results from my friends. The one buddy was one of our top shooters from the National Guard in the annual Camp Perry competitions. Again, their practical, albeit limited test, with a set of like rifles, came up with no difference on their decibel meter. The only difference came when you moved the device to different positions around the gun. The shots were louder when it was placed ahead of the gun, and only somewhat less when behind the shooter. But again, to me this is kind of meaningless, because muzzle break or no, the report of any rifle, and particularly the magnums, are going to be horrendous. All are more than ample to damage one's hearing. Thus, even in a hunt, no one should be without hearing protection. I most recently acquired a new kind of headset for ear protection. I wasn't sure how well it would work but I was surprised when I used it -- a couple times now on the range. Rather than the earmuff/earphone style headset, which are too clumsy for the field, this is a band ending with a foam ear plug on each end, which plug into your ear rather than surrounding it. They are surprisingly effective. And the great part is you can take them off and simply have them around your neck until it's time to shoot.
All this said, is there ANY REASON why a PH would not be wearing hearing protection. It seems to me, having such on hand would make this muzzle break problem a non-issue. Again, without having been in Africa, I'm asking questions here to see if there is something I hadn't thought of, which makes it an issue.
Okay, I just looked over the article. Didn't read it word for word, but got the gist, particularly from the table listing results. Looking at the description of calibers and brakes tested, I noted two things, which MAY account for the differences in results my friends had with this far more comprehensive testing. Not sure how that would account for it, but thought I'd note the differences.
First, my friends used a much larger caliber -- a wildcat cartridge with a bore of .458 inches. Second, the one friend who had a muzzle break on his rifle had it built into the rifle. As I understand it, the gunsmith bored a series of holes into the end of the barrel. That is, as I understand it, it was not a commercial brake but rather a custom made one incorporated right into the barrel. It does not direct muzzle blast to the rear, toward the shooter. It simply comes out at at a perpendicular angle to the muzzle.
Regarding my muzzle brake, it's one that was developed long ago, and was not listed among this guy's test batch. KDF is still around.... found their website. But the images on that page were of their slim line models. I like those better. Mine is more of a flange, which is about double the diameter of my gun's barrel, making it quite noticable.
Mine have holes which guide the blast sideways as well. The pronghorn hunt I went on after having it installed was with a friend. We got permission from a farm to hunt their land and went on a drive. After spotting a good candidate, we pulled over to the side of the dirt road, and my buddy told me to simply stabilize my aim by leaning over his jeep's hood. Being off a public road, and in the middle of an open field on private land, this was not prohibited, so I did so. Neither of us thought about it, but when I fired, there was a little scorch mark left on his hood from the holes at the bottom of the muzzle brake. Mine has holes all around it, so gases come out upwards, to both sides, and downwards. I see from some of the photos and designs of those this guy tested some push the gases back towards the shooter. In that case, I see why it would be louder.
But again, all said, I think this is a moot point because I use hearing protection.
