Brakes reduce recoil more than suppressors. But brakes are also loud as hell and create/direct pressure and general obnoxiousness toward the shooter. So the choice is quieter and more recoil or louder/more obnoxious and less recoil.
Prefer Suppressor or Brake for 338/300 Magnums?
- Thread starter Aaron47pb
- Start date
That's true, but I think a lot of people are like me and would trade a little recoil for not blowing your eardrums out. To me it's a far from even trade: a little more recoil for a far less obnoxious report.
I'm not recoil sensitive, and find that a braked or suppressed .300MW in not unpleasant to shoot. I get a bruised shoulder after a full 100 shell round of sporting clays shooting low brass 12ga. When I go out and shoot a 100 .300WMs over four hours at the range I have no similar shoulder shading. Doesn't bother be a bit either braked or suppressed. Neked it would probably bruise like the 12ga.
I'm not recoil sensitive, and find that a braked or suppressed .300MW in not unpleasant to shoot. I get a bruised shoulder after a full 100 shell round of sporting clays shooting low brass 12ga. When I go out and shoot a 100 .300WMs over four hours at the range I have no similar shoulder shading. Doesn't bother be a bit either braked or suppressed. Neked it would probably bruise like the 12ga.
Well, on damn near every rifle I have, I run a TOMB-style brake/mount from either SiCo, TBAC, or SAS... so I answered "brake". 'cause sometimes I'll shoot without a can installed, but since I semi-permanently install my muzzle devices (high temp red LocTite), I don't shoot without the brake.
Suppressor for me. Last time a group went out and shot I had sand on and in everything from the guys with the brakes.
I think we’ve all been there. That’s where maneuvering your ruck to protect your action comes in.
