Vuurwapens toegerus met trompremme (“muzzle brakes”)

Gewysigde reël Januarie 2016: Die gebruik van trompremme (muzzle brakes) op vuurwapens word vanaf 1 Januarie 2016 kragtens die “SAJWV Universele Reëls by skietoefeninge” nie toegelaat op skietbane waar georganiseerde tak-, streek- of nasionale skietoefeninge/kompetisies deur takke van die SAJWV aangebied word nie.

Redes vir die besluit: Uit die navorsing is dit duidelik dat ‘n tromprem op ‘n geweer op skietbane waar skuts naby mekaar skiet ernstige probleme, beserings en blywende gehoorverlies kan veroorsaak. Naburige skuts in die omgewing van die skut waarvan die geweer met ‘n “muzzle break” toegerus is word blootgestel aan onaanvaarbare vlakke van klank, “muzzle blast” en selfs voorwerpe soos bv. sandkorrels, skrapnel, onverbrande kruit ens. wat beserings kan veroorsaak, word “teruggeblaas” na die skuts. Die aanhoorbare klank van die meeste trompremme is meer as tweemaal harder in vergelyking met dieselfde vuurwapen sonder ‘n tromprem. Die implikasies is dat standaard gehoorbeskerming meestal nie voldoende is om skuts se ore te beskerm nie.

Jagters het ‘n verantwoordelikheid en word versoek om bedagsaam en uiters versigtig te wees wanneer hulle jag met ‘n vuurwapen toegerus met ‘n tromprem en om te verseker dat gidse, jagmaats en ander omstanders nie onnodig blootgestel word aan die skadelike gevolge van ‘n tromprem op ‘n vuurwapen nie. ‘n Nalatige skoot naby ‘n persoon wat dit nie verwag nie en nie behoorlike oorbeskerming in plek het nie, kan onherstelbare skade aan onder andere die persoon se gehoor veroorsaak.

Lees Ron Thomson se boek “Mahohboh” waar hy ‘n ware jagstorie vertel oor die dramatiese effek van ‘n skoot uit ‘n jaggeweer toegerus met ‘n tromprem op ‘n jagmaat tydens ‘n noue ontkoming met gevaarlike wild….‘n Uittreksel van die storie os onder aan die artikel beskikbaar.

Ek beklemtoon hieronder slegs uittreksels uit die artikels wat handel
oor die navorsing wat op trompremme gedoen is en nooi u om die
skakels te volg om die volledige artikels te lees. Hierdie artikels word
geplaas met erkenning aan die outeurs daarvan:

Article 1: “Muzzle Brakes: Recoil reduction” by Cal Zant

However, in the section on muzzle devices from Dr. Carlucci’s textbook, Ballistics: Theory and Design of Guns and Ammunition, he reminds us “Best design practice is to divert gases to the sides of the weapon, because rearward diversion could affect an exposed gun crew.” During my tests, a manufacturer sent me a prototype of a muzzle brake with 45° baffles back toward the shooter. It provided outstanding recoil reduction (better than anything shown here), but while testing that brake, a friend helping me with the tests caught some shrapnel in his side. It penetrated 2 shirts and caused a wound deep enough to see flesh. I told the manufacturer I wouldn’t write about it, because I didn’t think it was safe. They were concerned as well, and haven’t release that prototype for sale.

The other downside of angled port designs is increased concussion/blast. All of the muzzle brakes are loud, but diverting gases rearward can increase the pressure shock wave at or near the shooter’s position. Some shooters would rather deal with the extra recoil than the increased concussion from that shock wave. So that is another thing to keep in mind. The sound test should give us insight into the pressure difference at the shooter’s position for each brake, so stay tuned for that.

There are clearly downsides to rearward deflection of gases, but it also has a measurable influence on recoil reduction. I don’t want to present this as “right or wrong.” It’s up to each shooter to strike the right balance for their application. I’m just trying to give a balanced and responsible presentation of all the facts to help you make an informed decision.

Article 2: “Muzzle Brakes: Sound Test” by Cal Zant

Both OSHA and MIL-STD-1474E require hearing protection if sound pressure levels are 140 dB or more (for “impulse” noises like gunfire). However, hearing loss can occur from sounds as low as 85 decibels with long or repeated exposure. Noise-induced hearing loss is cumulative and permanent. Ear protection typically reduces noise by 16-30 dB, which you can find by looking at their Noise Reduction Rating (NRR). For example, the popular Howard Leight ear muffs have an NRR of 22 dB. That may not get you below that 140 mark without “doubling-up” by wearing ear plugs in addition to the muffs. If you’re using a brake, please protect your ears, and pass that message on to your shooting buddies.

If we just start at the top, you can see the OPS muzzle brake was the “quietest” of the batch. It says “+ 41%”, which means it’s still 41% louder than the same rifle without a brake.

If you’ll remember, the OPS brake was also the worst performer when it came to recoil reduction … so I’m glad to see it wasn’t both ineffective and loud.

Most brakes hovered around 100%, which means they sound twice as loud as the rifle with a bare muzzle.

Finally, we have some brakes that were more than twice as loud. We see some familiar names at the bottom of this chart: APA Fat B* and Little B* Brakes, the Alamo Four Star Muzzle Brake, the Holland Radial Quick Discharge Muzzle Brake, and the Impact Precision Muzzle Brake. If you’ll remember, those were some of the best performers when it came to recoil reduction.

There seems to be a correlation between how loud a brake is, and how well it reduces recoil. Most “quieter” brakes aren’t good at reducing recoil, and most of the brakes that are great at reducing recoil are very loud.