Let's back track a bit. The reason brakes were outlawed in Fly were because of the disturbance they cause to shooters beside those using the brake. This is fair enough and i am not about to try to overturn that rule to suite just me. The brakes were never outlawed because they reduced recoil were they? If they were please correct me.
So if i can use the gasses in the process of firing a shot to reduce recoil, while not disturbing those beside me, then there is no issue is there? The blast is actually reduced so that should be even more desirable.
If the the issue is recoil reduction, then i don't see it in the rules and the girly man syndrome i can live with.
Mick you mentioned rimfires. This system is of absolutely no value on the very small calibers as they just simply do not have the gas velocity or volume with the quick burn powders they use. Just thought i would add that in. It's a real shame that it would be of virtually no benefit to say something like a 6BR. Sorry Trev, just had to add that in too
Friend Tony...
I believe you are correct on the reason that brakes were outlawed in the Fly. I do however doubt that anybody making the rules would admit to this and allow a new type of recoil reduction device that worked on much the same principle as a conventional brake. I personally like the idea, but don't see it ever being accepted....
3.1.4.1 Sight radius increasing barrel extensions [bloop tubes] and fixed or moveable barrel tuning weights are
permitted.
3.1.4.2 The use of compensators or muzzle brakes is not permitted
3.1.4.3 Barrels and extension tubes must not be perforated in anyway. Any construction or device inside the
barrel or tubes other than the rifling or chambering for the cartridge is not permitted.
This is for TR, but the FS and FO rules specify to refer to these rules.
Thanks for that lefty, but i have zero interest to do anything apart from shoot my Savage FTR 308 in FS. This is solely about the Fly where the only rules that exist for a LG are 7.7 kg weight, bipod weight inclusion and no muzzle brake. None of my LGs will ever see FO again, nor could they with their 4 inch fore ends. The early mention of FClass on the thread was with regard to mercury dampers, the rest about unfair advantage is more about a perpetual private joke amongst some on this forum and was never a consideration. 10 kg of FO rifle does not require a RRD, my first HG for Fly back in 95 was exactly that weight. So were many others.
I think I understand the concept you have with the 'no brake'....
Does it shoot but ? or is the interupted gas flow another variable that can change throughout a day/match....as in if your sweet load is running on the edge already ? prolly a silly question...just wondering...
Sorry to get off track but...
There was mention of a dampening system earlier on and I am wondering if this was contained in the rifle itself that still rode on seperate front and rear rests would it still be considered a 'rail' system ? as the gun would still recoil in the bags but have the 'edge' taken off it.....Pretty sure I can make one light enough..would just like a bit less of a floggin.
Kenny a refined version of Vaughn's unit would indeed be light and reduce recoil, but i am sure it would be challenged to its potential to be a rail mounted within the confines of a stock. I believe there was such a unit sold in the US some years after Vaughn published his book but it was based on a dovetail and not flexions. Splitting hairs yes, but this is what it gets down to.
As for my method, the gas splitter will stop the gas flow around the side and front of a departing projectile so it will in fact enhance accuracy potential. This is nothing new and is IMO why the braked LGs do so much better apart from the recoil reduction. If you want to see a basic splitter, have an inside look at the front bob weight of the first BOSS brakes, it is a seperate piece that is srewed in later. Crude but very effective at reversing gasses at high velocity and diverting blast away from the projectiles path. These spiltters take an average brake from 20 or 30% efficiency to over 50 %.
If the rediverted gases exit the muzzle like they usually would but just delayed then it should be fine and not be regarded as a conventional brake, it would not disturb the other shooters on the line anymore than a conventionly barreled rifle ( it should actually reduce any percieved blast from the muzzle), which is why the no brake rule was listed in the rules in the first place. This was due to the close distance between benches here in australia compared to the US.
Yes there can be arguments about this but wouldnt it be terrible to look outside the square.
There is alway an opening to start another class for FLY.
Super Modified Class where Muzzel Breaks and compensators etc are all alowed but all these rifles must be shot in the same detail not amoungst other class shooters Just like experimental Class Rail Guns etc.
