Lifting Restrictions on Brakes in F-Class

[williada]

Wingnut, there are differences even in the law of torts (civil law) apart from any criminal laws or administrative laws and this is why our club had a legal firm write our waivers as a condition of entry. However, you cannot contract out of negligence or a duty of care.

Any signage must be conspicuous, no contract can be unconscionable or If damage was foreseeable, and you owe a duty of care, and if damage occurred you are in deep poo. The question in law is, if you did not know, but should you have ought to have known? In other words, the law of negligence covers not only an act but an omission or failure to act when you should have.

Sports like the AFL have changed their concussion rules for this very reason to mitigate against legal action. Good sense prevails because prevention is better than the cure and their Workcover premiums are reduced. All football clubs I was associated with had insurance for the players. They rely on insurance to pay that liability. The liability exists, it does not go away. Medical evidence is overwhelming these days and directors ought toknow now.

Consenting players maybe bluffed out of their rights when things go wrong when somebody says, "But you signed up to it". That means jack shit in a case of negligence because you can't contract out of it and if you turn a blind eye and things go wrong its more trouble. It is easier to have conditions of entry to a venue that may offer some mitigation. Consent may be deemed to demonstrate a mitigation and so remedy maybe reduced because they consented to the rules of the sport but it does not remove penalty altogether for wrong doing. These sports have strict rules to minimise risk when EVERYONE participating consents to do it. Not everyone in a rifle club consents to excessive noise.

Let's take this further, under consumer law, the ultimate consumer has full protection and the case that linked that to negligence was Grant v Australian Knitting Mills where a bloke got a rash and dermatitis from his undies yet everyone else did not suffer like him from buying the same undies. So many things these days go through an approval process based on medical research. Would people who worked in an asbestos mine give consent today when today's facts reveal detriment to health which was denied for years like smoking? Fee paying members and visitors are eligible for protection just like protection from smoke drift or excessive noise. People playing these sports maybe aware of the danger just like a jockey etc or a racing car driver where they ALL contract to participate in the sport like a smoker's corner. The majority don't use muzzle brakes. On a rifle range not all people expect to have their ears damaged by a few. It is not the norm. It is the tail wagging the dog! Our law protects many people from themselves. Its illegal to surf trains because most understand the risk. Excessive noise from muzzle brakes is the thin edge of the wedge and is a marketing tool and not a performance one and it can do damage from exposure. Are the majority now expected to wear fire-proof suits, because basic earmuffs are insufficient and conversation behind the firing point is now interrupted which is part of the enjoyment of the day for many.

Heaven help some official that goes outside the club rules or and damage occurs and there is no insurance. That occurs from slack work practice and lack of supervision. Heard of vicarious liability? That will apply to those responsible for people overseeing work who should have foreseen issues and not ignored them. In Victoria, we now have a case where under the new manslaughter laws, a manger of a trucking business has been charged for the negligent action when one of his drivers (who also broke the criminal law and killed four police by smashing through them with his truck) ignored his responsibility. Can't say that was an accident or act Act of God to get him off the hook although he is contesting the case.

You break our insurance rules for public liability and guess who pays? Not the insurer! Plenty of no win no fee lawyers out there and you can get dragged through the courts. Reality.

The thing about civil law is, judges will follow precedent until the circumstances change when damage results. In other words they can make new law. They are very often persuaded by medical and other expert evidence. It doesn't have to be in statute form. Under the principal of negligence (Rylands v Flecher), you keep anything of danger at your own peril. That outcome was determined by judge made law and was not statute law. If the danger translates to damage that becomes your peril. Mind you, you can go on both civil and criminal wrongs. A lot of the criminal law in statute form is a codification of the civil law. Civil judgements are based on the balance of probabilities and not reasonable doubt in the criminal law. That is the difference when looking at the broad concept of wrongs. Judges have the last say too when when it comes to statutory interpretation either through taking the statute literally or changing the decision if there is an issue identified through the exercise of the golden rule or the mischief rule. The statute law authorizes many a regulator. Regulators have refined many rules so there is little means these days to prove they were acting beyond their power particularly when it comes to environment and protection and noise which has its roots in the tort of nuisance.

One aspect of the tort of nuisance is that it deals with noise when there is an expectation of quiet enjoyment. That expectation does not extend to excessive noise which muzzle brakes bring to a rifle range and not a hunting scenario.

Legislation has watered down limited liability companies so that directors shareholder/members are now subject to penalty as is the case for incorporated rifle clubs. There are many visitors to whom we owe a greater level of care who are ignorant of a rifle range being an inherently dangerous place. So our activities are at our own peril. We also have neighbours to contend with. No man is an island. We may be born free but everywhere we are in chains. Public thinking dominates what we do.

OH&S does apply to workplaces , club members and visitors and particularly when working supervising as Range Officers and scorers not just the shooters where they are exposed to excessive noise. But where does the vicarious liability lie when workers stuff up? Another reality, back with the leaders of the club.

As they say, ignorance is no excuse under the law! People might call this red tape, but it how our society is governed.

[AlanF]

I'd like to start the ball rolling on ideas for reducing noise and blast from muzzle brakes :

Here's my initial thoughts on a design. It is a conical sound reflector which sits on the ground and the muzzle pokes through it. The brake is designed to expel in a slightly backward direction then deflect off the internal surface of the cone directly towards the target. It has the advantage that a backward blowing brake can be smaller and still give the same recoil reduction affect, and nearly all blast and sound will be directed down range. That's the principle - there is a lot of refinement to think about. For example if it needs to be quite large will it interfere with sighting? The solution might be to have rows of vents in the brake at say 10, 2 and 6 o'clock, which would allow gaps in the cone at 12, 4 and 8 o'clock, with the 12 o'clock gap allowing sighting. And the stand would need to be height adjustable, and to reduce the weight requirement of the base, could possibly have feet that could be pressed into the mound. BTW the green backing on the cone would be some sort of sound dampening layer. The cone would probably be metal, but possibly some other material with more suitable properties.

brakesafe.JPG

[AlanF]

Maybe the first one was a bit of overkill , but here's a simpler idea, based on similar principles. Its a rectangular tunnel, positioned such that the brake is right in the middle, with the taper of the box back towards the shooter, which will push most of the blast and noise to the front. Options for the material to construct the box are many. Sound deadening could be used on the inside surfaces. Different dimensions could be tested easily and inexpensively.

simple.JPG

[Gyro]

Good concepts Alan ! Preliminary of course.

[Wingnut]

Can I have the readers digest version please. Plus, might I suggest if that’s all the case, it would stand to reason there should be a good case against the various states to mandate the use of sound moderators to prevent hearing loss. Just sayin!

[williada]

Alan, if you want efficient flow of gas, a circular design provides the least resistance for accuracy. That's also important for bullet stability just in front of the muzzle where the atmospheric node forms as it is a determinant of ideal barrel length and where the bullet gains speed for a brief period before further atmospheric resistance reduces it. Its the hot gas area 5000 degrees. In theory you would have to match the bleed holes on a brake to the a desired atmospheric density like we do with custom forward of the muzzle tuners. I'm in Peter S's camp with regard to fine accuracy from a muzzle brake. They may control barrel lift and recoil, but are not in the same league as a custom tuner forward of the muzzle matched to desired harmonic frequencies and gas density. The tuners you see attached brakes are no better than a movable muzzle weight IMO like many of the commercial tuners I see. Many don't understand that the atmospheric node like that of a flute lies just in front of the muzzle to give the correct resonance. The crown is an antinode in relation to the atmospheric node. If you analyze a sine wave the groups for just in front of the anti-node on a rising barrel and just past the anti-node on a falling barrel unless you have a neutral lift barrel when bullets exit on a true node in physics speak. Where your muzzle points determines accuracy. The weight controls the amount of lift. It may act to compensate variable velocity, but its not the whole story.

[williada]

Not having a crack Wingnut, but calling it as it is when lawyers get involved. That's why our club invested in legal advice. Forewarned is forearmed. Wingnut, the problem is when you are dealing with complex laws we don't understand a simple answer won't cut the mustard if you are on the end of an action. That was the point of my exercise in a long winded explanation.

There is a reason why 90% of people who self-represent lose and have a fool for a lawyer as is the common saying because they don't understand the consequences. Some guys would lead you off a cliff when they don't understand action and consequence. Our rules already require people to wear ear muffs or hearing protection. You see that printed on most prize meeting dodgers. Problem is people don't read the rules. Don't need any more mandating, just good sense. The Victorian government was lobbied by shooters a couple of years ago to permit the use of silenced firearms but the politicians would not have a bar of it. Community pressure was too great. So we have to deal with the here and now (pardon the pun).

[Rich4]

Very true, but mitigation at the source is required if possible by oh&s which is where the argument comes from, personally I don’t see it getting past an agricultural level and certainly not here in Qld judging by current behaviour

[Gyro]

If you type in "shooting range muffler" on a search engine ........

Surely something portable can be used that will provide an adequate solution for the muzzle brake question ? Im at Trentham this weekend shooting so best get out of bed, have a shower and go and get smashed !

Correction added.

[Old Trev-39]

My take on brakes. I am approaching 82 years of age and have a shoulder that is past the use by date. I have been shooting a .284W with 175/180 gr. projectiles in 1000yd. B/R for 18 years and F/O since the inception in Nth Qld. I shoot light gun (7.7kg) in B/R and the F/O rifle weighs in at slightly under 10kg. To look after my shoulder a bit I had a break made by an experienced machinist shooter for my light gun. It reduced the felt recoil to about the same as my FO rifle with no apparent loss of accuracy. Not a great reduction. The best thing that reduced felt recoil on the LG. was the fitting of a ISIS Green X recoil pad. Not cheap, about $105-00 landed here.
Breaks may be more effective on larger calibers, but these cannot be used in our competitions, anyhow would probably not reduce felt recoil enough for those who are complaining about recoil from the calibers we can now use. Personally I think that people who want to change the rules should sit back and analise their equipment and adopt other means to mitigate what they conceive to be excess recoil. With marked or electronic targets we do not need to see the projectile trace. A lot of times I can see my own trace, depending on atmospheric conditions. I cannot see breaks being allowed into our comps, except for sport hunter, and then with consent of the clubs who shoot it.
Cheers,
Trevor.

[Tim L]

I think the discussion took a turn in the right direction with comments that the issue was not with muzzel brakes but rather range use with a muzzle brake.
I applaud Alans suggestion that we investigate a device that would mitigate the problems muzzle brakes produce, namely noise and back blast, so ranges can accommodate their use without detriment to other shooters.

[pjifl]

No one has mentioned that the simplest way to reduce felt recoil is to max out the weight of the rifle if it is allowed. Restricting rifle weight via rules is counterproductive in many ways although popular with those who want to introduce more and more classes. In general, very light rifles require more careful and expensive Gunsmithing to be competitive.

Someone should do systematic experiments to measure and report on how much reduction in recoil actual brakes cause.

Peter Smith.

[bruce moulds]

why not just use no muzzle brakes as a selling point?
bruce.

[Rich4]

why not just use no muzzle brakes as a selling point?
bruce.

As I’ve just tried my first one, I’d have to agree, I’ve never experienced such an obnoxious device, it’s not like a creedmoor kicks much anyway, kinda regretting that threading

[Tim L]

No one has mentioned that the simplest way to reduce felt recoil is to max out the weight of the rifle if it is allowed. Restricting rifle weight via rules is counterproductive in many ways although popular with those who want to introduce more and more classes. In general, very light rifles require more careful and expensive Gunsmithing to be competitive.

Someone should do systematic experiments to measure and report on how much reduction in recoil actual brakes cause.

Peter Smith.

https://youtu.be/-PKOEy54NrI

I guess we could have a lengthy discission on their effect and how to build the perfect one but really, that work has already been done. They are called suppressors and we can't have them.
The point, I feel, is that people have muzzle brakes and for whatever the reason they want to keep them. They also want to use our ranges and we want them, it's just that muzzle brakes are a problem.
What we need is the sound moderating part of the suppressor in a form that is not fixed to the gun.

I can certainly attest to the fact that a good muzzle brake works. I have a T3 on my 6.5 PRS gun, and one on my 308 tikka. I also have a clamp on one from (Hunting Heaven I think) that turned my 243 into an air rifle. That one is so good it stops the ATN recol activating record function on the scope from triggering!
There are plenty of crap ones out there too.