Why did the BOSS not catch on?

[DrMike]

Steven,

The scenario you describe in such accurate terms is played out at least every other time I hit the range. I am astonished at the depth of ignorance by many shooters who assure me they know what they are doing. After all, they are male and once shot a BB gun!

 

[FOTIS]

I personally had 3 of them. All model 70's Wins 1 30-06 1 300 win man and 1 30-06 Ackley Improved. The BOSS does work for accuracy. I personally could not stand the looks. I worked up some great loads and sold the guns to buddies who did not mind the looks. I still reload for that 30-06 AI

 

[Oldtrader3]

The other issue that was nagging at me as an engineer was the physics and dynamic ranges of noise, whether from a brake or whatever. No one remembers that sound pressure, AKA-DbA, is a logarithmic function that dictates, if you are twice as far from the sound, you are hearing the square root of the original sound, not half of it. So all of the fuss and feathers about brakes being noisy and being sensitive and publicly attuned to not disturbing your neighbor with your brake, is balderdash!

The only person that noise is bothering is yourself! The guy 10 feet away only gets the sound resultant (net DbA) to the root 10 of the noise that you hear! He can not tell if you have a brake or not, especially if he has hearing protection on which at the range is required! He will only hear the first 85 DbA unless you are shooting an atomic cannon!

Now, I wear hearing aids because of shooting too much in the Army with no ear protection and having immune system problems which destroyed part of my hearing with infections as a child. I hear fine with hearing aids but they clip at 85 Db. As does the electric ear muff that I wear when I don't wear hearing aids. If you wear one of these devices, it is hard to determine if you are shooting a brake or not. So what is all of the fuss?

I just wish that the armchair quarterbacks would bother to check their assumptions before stating the same old tired mantra about brakes!

 

[roysclockgun]

Wow! Oldtrader3 I respectfully have to disagree with you, regarding what shooters at other benches hear from your muzzle brake blast. Whether it is only one tenth of what the shooter hears, or not, it is oppressive! I owned one rifle with brake and that one was in 300RUM. When I had fired it at the range before having the brake installed, no one even looked up! After the brake, I had angry faces all up and down the firing line, and a few who simply moved away down the range, if postions were open, or left the range because of my noise. This is no "balderdash" or spoken after hearing some fairytale. The brakes do create unacceptable blast to the left and right of the shooter. If the others do not have tightly fitting ear plugs, or as I wear, two hearing aids, AND high quality ear muffs, they will suffer serious hearing loss from your brake's muzzle blast, no matter how much the initial blast is muted by being a couple firing positions away.

Dr. Mike, while I realize that I strayed from my original topic, regarding BOSS, I do believe that addressing how much knowledge a shooter possesses BEFORE he buys a rifle, is precisely what many rifle makers study before they bring out a new model. Just look at how many "package rifles" have hit the big box stores and other firearms retailers in the past couple of years. As boot in a trade, I got a Remington 710 in 30-06. My apologies in advance to those who may own and love a Rem. 710, but in my humble opinion the quality in the rifle was largely non-existant. Not to pick on Remington, as Stevens, Marlin, Mossberg, and others, have all entered the realm of offering very low quality rifle combo packages just to meet the entry level pricing sales found just before hunting season opens.

As I previously stated, maybe the one week a year deer hunter will use and love his package rifle and may even cleanly kill every deer that he takes under fire. But, for studied riflemen, the quality falls well short of what we expect and in general, want! I am not speaking of any rifle priced much over $1000, when I speak of what I want. The high end priced hunting rifle, where the buyer is paying more for the fancy wood, than he is for a really accurate barrel, just are not for me. First off it would be dying of a thousand cuts, to see scratches appearing in my finely finsihed Lower Slobovian Yew Tree stock that has upteen clear coats of high gloss plastic covering it. My "composite" stocks take the beating are never worse for wear. The stocks come flat black and remain flat black, thank you. But, again, only my opinion.

One last story, because by now you know that I like recounting stories, that if not true, would be funny:
With this man, who showed up at the range for the first time in October with his new rifle, I went through the same drill of how to get the bullet on the paper, etc. The only additional details that I attempted to impart were; getting firmly seated with both feet flat on the ground. Resting the forestock on the sand bags and not the barrel. Trigger control and not anticipating the let off. Keeping one's eye on the target while chambering the follow-up round.
I am not critical of these people. In fact, I would do all that I could do, to help them along. I do it as much for the benefit of the game, as I for the shooter.

Ours is a great sport. Sadly fewer shooters are entering the sport after following behind family members on the hunt, long before they were big enough to carry a rifle.
As someone else mentioned, they are not well served by those who write in gun periodicals, as those folks are primarilly interested in selling magazines and not in how useful their articles really are to novice riflemen.
Maybe this is in part, our fault. I admit to many times being too busy at my own shooting bench to take time to assist a struggling novice shooter. I am all too well aware of hearing loss when I must remove my ear muffs to answer questons during firing sessions. I wear two hearing aids to compensate for already suffering lost hearing.
I would not mind holding learning sessions well back behind the firing line, if the county range officers are in favor of that. I am going to mention this idea to Officer Bill, the range officer.
Best,
Steven

 

[DrMike]

While I realize that I strayed from my original topic, regarding BOSS, I do believe that addressing how much knowledge a shooter possesses BEFORE he buys a rifle, is precisely what many rifle makers study before they bring out a new model.

Good point, Steven. In defence of the long-time manufacturers, I do believe they are producing a great product that is far superior to what was available even a decade or two back. However, as corporations form conglomerates and endeavour to maintain profitability, quality decreases on some of the newer products as they seek to appeal to the uninitiated. I viewed the B.O.S.S. as an experiment that didn't generate enough interest to entice the knowledgeable shooters, much as the concept of electronically ignited ammunition failed to generate interest. Perhaps a hundred years from now, shooters will look back at some of the innovations that didn't capture interest and wonder why we didn't persist as they shoot firearms equipped with precisely such accoutrements. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Kodiak]

Fascinating stuff , yes.

A very good read indeed.

 

[Mountain Goat]

Could it have been an engineer that designed the B.O.S.S system to purposely be so much larger in diameter than the barrel? This still does not discredit the opinions of others on why this system did not catch on, which was the OP's oringinal question. The reasons don't even have to be factual from an engineering standpoint, or any other point-of-view for that matter. Many good products fail for reasons unrelated to the product itself.

Oldtrader, if you are implying in any way that I am one of thes "armchair quarterbacks" as you so eloquently stated, send me a PM, and we'll discuss this behind the scenes. Don't take that as a fascination or interest in anything you have to say though. :wink:

 

[Oldtrader3]

Roy, I am not going to change your mind and really don't even much care but one final note. I did sound attenuation (engineering studies) of all of the world's largest toy maker manufacturing plants at one time. This was in order to profile plant noise from all sources, quantify it and find out when noise harmonics aggregated and caused the most issues for workers. This included coverage of about 30,000 worker in (2) US, (2) Mexican and (6) Asian plants in Malaysia, Philippines and China.

Noise dynamics are interesting because they generate secondary sound harmonics at differing frequencies which can become a secondary problem about which people are not even aware. Anyhow, the point of all this is: that if you are shooting outdoors and are shooting CF rifle at a covered range, your neighbors are demonstrating the placebo effect from your brake, which because of harmonics and noise reflection, they can not even hear your rifle any differently from any other rifle, most likely, that is unless they are in some harmonic sinkhole where they are getting mixed secondary harmonics which are nearly impossible to track or predict and model, let alone measure which rifle that they came from.

Every firearm, due to temperature, pressure and ejecta weight, puts out the same frequency mix of gases at the same ejecta velocity (Mach 3.5-consistently). The only significant variable is the amount of ejecta that is being spewed down range and the directionality in which it is being spewed. If you stand blindfolded with a sound meter 10 feet away from a gun, I defy you to pick out the gun with a brake, while you have hearing attenuation on! The only thing that you will notice is secondary harmonics and larger calibers with more powder and heavier bullets(ejecta), end of story!

 

[Oldtrader3]

Could it have been an engineer that designed the B.O.S.S system to purposely be so much larger in diameter than the barrel? This still does not discredit the opinions of others on why this system did not catch on, which was the OP's oringinal question. The reasons don't even have to be factual from an engineering standpoint, or any other point-of-view for that matter. Many good products fail for reasons unrelated to the product itself.

Oldtrader, if you are implying in any way that I am one of thes "armchair quarterbacks" as you so eloquently stated, send me a PM, and we'll discuss this behind the scenes. Don't take that as a fascination or interest in anything you have to say though. :wink:

???? This means that I do not have a clue what your point is?

I am not calling anyone anything. I am NOT trolling for praise certainly. Just noting mainly that lore becomes fact when repeated by enough people enough times, or perception becomes reality if you prefer.

I did a lot of engineering consulting on sound attenuation for manufacturing plants back when modern OSHA (TWA averages) went into effect in the 1980's. There are some dynamics of sound transmission in air at temperature that most people have no experience or exposure to and thereby do not know much about. Most people don't even know how to balance the dynamic ranges in their stereo for sound pressure! Just saying.

I just get weary of the same ole saws being accepted as truth by the same ole people! Especially when it is not nearly that simple.

BTW, just to put things in perspective. I shoot a .340 Weatherby Magnum a couple times a week with 225 Partitions and an Accubrake on it. This rifle burns nearly 90 grains of slow powder with a magnum primer and not once in 3 years has anyone complained about the noise and moved except one (barrel on the sandbag, sit behind me) M-16 shooting, 18 year old who was blowing up pie plates at 25 yards. He did not want to be near any "big bores". I rest my case.

 

[Guest]

Charlie, I'll respectfully disagree with you on the issue of brakes and noise, from two points of view. First, from a strictly engineering/physics/sound dynamics point of view, I think you're disregarding one key element of what brakes do. Continuing on your thought line, it's the directionality of the spewed ejecta. When shooting a braked rifle, I can tell you for a fact that I can hear, see, and feel a difference at the bench. When sitting next to a braked rifle, I can equally hear, feel, and see a difference. How? Well, again, using your terminology, when gases are redirected perpendicularly (or nearly so) to the direction of the bore, sound waves are also redirected along these perpendicular or near perpendicular paths. In some instances, brakes can actually redirect these gases back a good bit toward the breech of the rifle, as many brakes have rearward vents that are angled back rather than directly perpendicular. I've had muzzle blast from a brake move pages in a notebook on the next bench when firing a braked rifle (interestingly enough, a Browning A-Bolt II in 270Win, with a BOSS, which belonged to my dad and now resides with my brother). I've also been sitting at the next bench over and felt the air movement from the brake effect. Where expanding hot gases and particulate matter go, there goes also sound waves, as you cannot redirect one without the other, generally speaking.

To add an additional note, I suffer from some sinus issues related to a motorcycle accident as a teenager involving a severe facial impact/injury. (Don't worry, I wasn't pretty before, so it did no lasting harm...other than the sinuses...) When I shoot braked rifles, I get a pressure headache. Really, when I shoot any rifle, I get a pressure headache. I get a more pronounced one when I shoot braked rifles. Pressure waves, much like sound waves, come from the muzzle of the rifle, and move outward along predictable paths. The only explanation for the greater incidence of pressure induced headache from braked rifles is a greater component of pressure wave directed toward my head/sinuses. I discovered this for the first time actually sitting at the next bench over from a braked rifle shooter at my local range. I was easily 10-12' away, and he was shooting a 300WinMag with a brake. After about 15 shots from his rifle, I had a noticeable headache. Now, comparitively, I've been at the range for hours sitting next to people shooting all types of unbraked 7mm & 300 mags, and beyond, and not gotten that effect. I realize it's anecdotal, but coupled with the consistency of my experience with braked guns (shooting them, and sitting adjacent to them when fired) I can attest to the impact of pressure wave redirection by muzzle brakes.

Not trying to start a peeing match here, by any means, and you know we have a long, respectful history on this and other forums, but this is an area that perhaps you're missing one element of the equation? Or perhaps the rest of us are all crazy? This may be just the impetus I needed to get a db-meter app for my iPhone.

 

[SJB358]

I have no real dog in this show, other than owning a BOSS equipped 338WM. I don't find it to be totally alarming, but then again, it is nothing compared to the RUM's or WBY's. I do have a little bit of time shooting the .50 SASR (Semi Auto 50 cal). That brake is so alarming that if you are not laying directly behind the rifle, you feel it. In your head and body. Guys laying off the side get hammered. Again, not wanting to add drama, just my experience with a few braked rifles. Scotty

 

[Oldtrader3]

That is the problem with carrying on a running conversation on two sites.

Dubyam, I absolutely believe that you feel the pressure differential and hear the noise of the brake because your ears are two feet away from it. Now, a couple of points to consider: 1. brakes only deflect about 40% of the muzzle blast over a radial 180 degree (nearly) axis. So, at most only 40% or so is being directed away from straight forward at least with a BOSS, which is what we were talking about. 2. Consider that each hole is at equal pressure and diverts the gas in an axis of its particular centerline If the brake has 12 holes, each hole will divert 8% (1/12th) of 45% or 3% of the gas, total (Boyle's law). Because brakes are so loosely fitted by Browning (BOSS) and others, they are losing much of the gas ejecta forward. This is why they are not more effective!

I will not question that you feel and hear a differential pressure and noise level with a brake because you are so close to the gas. My issue is with the logarythemic loss effect on spectatators who are under a metal sheet covered range who are 10 feet away feeling or hearing the difference. To be honest with you, that is my issue with all of this lore.

I have had sinus cancer and had my right ethmoid process removed in 1973 for a tumor. Because of that, I have had Migraines for almost 38 years. Maybe I am fortunate, but I can shoot any caliber with or without brake and have no effects. Just lucky I guess but I am very sensitive to barometric pressure changes and that weather changing sometimes drives me crazy.

The only reason that I started this controversy at all was because without data, hearsay is like bellybuttons, every body has their opinion! If sombody even went to a range and surveyed the noise profile with a DbA meter and with different rifles in different places, Some with brakes and some without, it would have some cred. I am 100% certain from experience that the survey outcome would not be like any of us thought! Maybe the Army has? I have never read about any of that.

I have been shooting a brake for a long time. I shoot a lot, I shoot at various public ranges and have never had anyone complain yet! I can tell when someone is lighting up a RUM or such but I can not tell that they have a brake without looking.

 

[Oldtrader3]

I have no real dog in this show, other than owning a BOSS equipped 338WM. I don't find it to be totally alarming, but then again, it is nothing compared to the RUM's or WBY's. I do have a little bit of time shooting the .50 SASR (Semi Auto 50 cal). That brake is so alarming that if you are not laying directly behind the rifle, you feel it. In your head and body. Guys laying off the side get hammered. Again, not wanting to add drama, just my experience with a few braked rifles. Scotty

The .50 SASR has a very efficient brake which diverts a lot of gas to the side. Plus, there is a lot more powder burning and the weight of ejecta must be over 850 grains, with all of the powder being blown through small side slot orifaces. I can remember blowing up orange crates and setting grass fires with the 106mm recoildless rifle recoil gas ventilation in YFC (Yakima). Lot of difference between a couple pounds of powder and 65 grains of powder ejecta.

Has anybody even compalained about your .338 WM noise?

 

[SJB358]

Has anybody even compalained about your .338 WM noise?

The old range I shot at in North Carolina used to take the light bulb out of the overhead awning when they saw me pull the 338 out. The overpressure used to kill the bulbs. Never had a problem with shooters complaining though, but to be honest, I never shot when there were alot of guys on the line. I preferred to shoot when less people were around. I know Brian's 300 RUM with the brake gets my attention, but I don't think it is so much the brake as the nearly 100gr's of powder behind a little bullet spitting out the end! Scotty

 

[JD338]

For me?

1. ugly
2. Who wants a 300 Win with a 22" tube?
3. Ugly

They should have made it slim lined or like an accubrake.

Plus, they're ugly.

They are very LOUD! They are also very UGLY!!
Reminds me of the old Poly Choke for a shotgun, looks like a shoe box on the end of the barrel.

JD338

 

[Guest]

Just to clarify, I've sat at the next bench (up to 10-12' away) and felt the additional blast from the brake on my brother's 270Win with the BOSS.

To the original posters question regarding why didn't the BOSS catch on, I think the bottom line answer is, because the audience Browning was going after is not interested in shooting that much. The BOSS was designed to do what a good set of handloads do - match the load harmonics to the barrel harmonics. Well, handloaders have been doing that for years, and will generally not get a huge improvement with the BOSS because they're already matching harmonics with seating depth, powder type, and charge weight variations. The target audience was the non-handloader, as the BOSS gave those folks the ability to find that matched harmonic. Well, what Browning didn't think about is these folks aren't "shooters" in the sense that handloaders are. And to have to shoot up 15-20rds to find the "perfect" sweet spot, just isn't in their nature. They want to go out, make sure the rifle goes bang when they pull the trigger, and then quit shooting until the deer walks out. And, generally, they buy one box of ammo a year for their rifle. No chance they're going to spend much time sorting out the sweet spot with an extra 10-12 shots or more.

At least, that's my opinion.

 

[roysclockgun]

dubyam : I agree with most of what you wrote and this is an honest question from a person, perhaps ignorant of what the BOSS can or cannot do.
I was under the impression that the BOSS would tune any load, bullet weight, primer and OAL, to wring out the best groups from that rifle. As I previously wrote, I got the BOSS mounted rifle in a swap and knew that he previous owner had only used factory ammo. He and I both left the muzzle brake device in the box, brand new! I hand load and wanted to use the Nosler 140gr. AB, as I had plenty success with that bullet in my 7mmRemMag. I only went by the book to arrive at a propellent load that looked like it would get me at or very near to the MV that I wanted. I took the rilfe to the range, shot and then went up and down on the BOSS until I hit the 4.1 setting. This took well less than a the 20 rounds that I had with me. At 4.1 setting, the rifle fired three rounds through a .303" hole, as measure by my micrometer at the widest point, edge to edge. I admit, I am no great shot and that group was better than any that I gotten, save for bull barrel varmint rifles with target scopes, that I have owned.
So, I believe that other then working up loads, to wring out the best groups through trying out many components in various mixtures, the BOSS will do that with any number of combinations of components. Is this not true? Or perhaps, without more data, I just hit the load that my rifle likes on the first try. Which do you believe it is?
Best,
Steven

 

[DrMike]

Steven,

The B.O.S.S. will work with any load if you take the time to find the sweet spot. It does sound as if you are going to be hard pressed to better what you obtained on your first outing, but you won't know until you test.

 

[roysclockgun]

Dr. Mike, after taking a mule deer, pronghorn and wild pig. I will not be testing any different loads! <8^)) The pig was the longest shot, at 265 yards and the 140gr. Nosler AB performsd as I have gotten used to it doing, using it on a lot of game with my old 7mmRemMag
Best,
Steven

 

[Guest]

Steven, I think you've it upon exactly what the BOSS is good for. I'd own a rifle with one on it, as I don't mind any excuse to shoot more (if I can find the time...). I'd say the BOSS will tune virtually any load, and I only say that because you might be able to find a combination that just isn't within the bandwidth of the BOSS to frequency-match, but I suspect those are rare. Again, I think the only reason it didn't catch on is that many handloaders are already shooting plenty of loads and finding great loads that match harmonics (on rifles without a BOSS system) and thus won't necessarily spend the extra money on one, and the folks who don't handload, aren't going to take the time and ammo necessary to shoot it out and find the sweet spot. Just about every non-handloader I know who owns a BOSS-equipped rifle sets the thing at the factory recommended setting and leaves it alone.