do muzzle brakes reduce noise at the target

[FOLF]

I know that muzzle brakes redirect energy back towards the shooter to reduce recoil and this increases the apparent noise for the shooter. I know that muzzle brakes do not reduce overall noise, but if they are redirecting energy and noise back towards the shooter then do they reduce noise out near the target?

I am a farmer shooting roos in fairly open country using a 223. It seems to me that it would help to reduce as much noise as possible around the roos so that they stand longer and aren't disturbed as much when I shoot. I am not a professional shooter and need all the help I can get! I don't know if a muzzle brake would make any difference, but this seemed like the place to ask.

Also, am I correct to assume that muzzle brakes are not prohibited in NSW?

[geoff]

A muzzle brake redirects the gases created by the powder being consumed, but the pressure gradient that causes the sonic boom of the supersonic projectile is still going to be there along that path of the projectile. It's the bullet "breaking the sound barrier", which is unavaoidable without using subsonic ammunition and that is not advised in this circumstance.

[deye243]

The reason why the roos are not gonna sit there and let you shoot them is because of the sonic crack which sounds like a stock whip coming from the projectile itself

[Blr243]

And one night tired or under stress in an awkward shooting posion at a bad angle if the muffs are not sitting properly u are gonna get smashed by the sound of that brake

[tim.laher]

Never considered until now that muzzle breaks make it louder for the shooter. Makes me rethink ever getting a muzzle break now.

[bladeracer]

I know that muzzle brakes redirect energy back towards the shooter to reduce recoil and this increases the apparent noise for the shooter. I know that muzzle brakes do not reduce overall noise, but if they are redirecting energy and noise back towards the shooter then do they reduce noise out near the target?

I am a farmer shooting roos in fairly open country using a 223. It seems to me that it would help to reduce as much noise as possible around the roos so that they stand longer and aren't disturbed as much when I shoot. I am not a professional shooter and need all the help I can get! I don't know if a muzzle brake would make any difference, but this seemed like the place to ask.

Also, am I correct to assume that muzzle brakes are not prohibited in NSW?

If you're shooting subsonic it might, the sonic crack is the loudest part of the report. Supersonic...it _might_ decrease the sound of the shot a little perhaps, but that is nothing compared to the crack of the supersonic bullet breaking the sound barrier. At the 200m maximum roo shooting distance they're dead before they hear the shot.

I don't believe brakes are prohibited in any state - provided they specifically do not reduce the sound signature, then it becomes a silencer which is prohibited in all states.

[bladeracer]

Never considered until now that muzzle breaks make it louder for the shooter. Makes me rethink ever getting a muzzle break now.

They're fine as long as you always wear hearing protection, and ensure anybody else around you is protected.

[Latitude37]

I've heard that if you set up a pair of boards angled back towards you, then shoot through the gap between, can seriously reduce the report down range, and make if more difficult to pick the direction it's coming from. Think of an arrow head, your prime position is the shaft, don't put the muzzle in front of the "point". -->

[bladeracer]

I've heard that if you set up a pair of boards angled back towards you, then shoot through the gap between, can seriously reduce the report down range, and make if more difficult to pick the direction it's coming from. Think of an arrow head, your prime position is the shaft, don't put the muzzle in front of the "point". -->

Shooting through a row of tyres is also somewhat effective, but not to a really significant level in my experience. At a rough guess if I could hear a .308 firing 1500m away just enough to be aware of it, it's possible that shooting through a baffle arrangement might make it not noticeable at all at that range, or perhaps even at 1000m. I would have to test it to be certain.

On the other hand though, I've been shooting with the muzzle poked through small gaps in stacks of logs and that very significantly reduces the effect on my own ears. I can only imagine if I kept the muzzle on my side of the logs that it would have to have a similar effect on perceived sound downrange, but the effect on myself would be very impressive I'm sure.

[womble]

There are muzzle brakes becoming more common that have a second shroud that screws over them to redirect noise away from the shooter.
Like this https://www.gunbloke.com/ecommerce/12-unef--12x28-muzzle-brakes/radial--plus-muzzle-brake-12x28
Don’t know how effective they are. Ideally not at all. Because any noise suppression fitted to the rifle could get you in trouble.
But they look cool, especially on a bull barrel.
So in theory if you fitted it on backwards…..
No don’t do that

.

[straightshooter]

There is a problem with most of these schemes.
First part is the muzzle brake. Forget about all the sales pitches, if they were even 10% effective in truly reducing recoil I would be pleasantly surprised. Although I can accept that in some cases that might be enough to reduce recoil from unbearable to bearable. I base my opinion on a careful examination of the physics of a firing event but if anybody prefers to believe in some other kind of magic then that is their prerogative.
The second part is we are talking about supersonic projectiles. The muzzle blast with or without a muzzle brake is quite loud at the firing point but it diminishes as the distance from the firing point increases. At a distance it can be somewhat muffled and in hilly forresty country it can be hard to pinpoint the source. However the sonic crack of of a supersonic projectile is equally loud anywhere along it's trajectory only diminishing as it's velocity slows and enters the transsonic/subsonic velocities. Anybody who has ever done any target marking at a fullbore range will immediately understand.

[bladeracer]

There is a problem with most of these schemes.
First part is the muzzle brake. Forget about all the sales pitches, if they were even 10% effective in truly reducing recoil I would be pleasantly surprised. Although I can accept that in some cases that might be enough to reduce recoil from unbearable to bearable. I base my opinion on a careful examination of the physics of a firing event but if anybody prefers to believe in some other kind of magic then that is their prerogative.
The second part is we are talking about supersonic projectiles. The muzzle blast with or without a muzzle brake is quite loud at the firing point but it diminishes as the distance from the firing point increases. At a distance it can be somewhat muffled and in hilly forresty country it can be hard to pinpoint the source. However the sonic crack of of a supersonic projectile is equally loud anywhere along it's trajectory only diminishing as it's velocity slows and enters the transsonic/subsonic velocities. Anybody who has ever done any target marking at a fullbore range will immediately understand.

There was a guy a few years that use a "free recoil" sled to objectively measure the effect of muzzle brakes and they certainly do work extremely well when they're well designed.

The sonic crack is definitely loud, but you do need to be fairly close to the path of the bullet to hear it, a whole lot closer than you need to be to the shooter to hear the shot fired. You might hear a shot fired 2km away, but I doubt you'd hear the crack of a bullet passing 100m away for example.

[Larry]

I would say that yes a muzzle break would reduce the noise at the target. As a muzzle break does direct pressure waves away from directly in front of the muzzle. As sound is just pressure waves of a certain frequency then the sound is obviously being directed away from the target this is also evidenced by the fact that the sound is greater at the shooters end because the pressure waves are directed backwards.

[womble]

I think we have a winner