Why did the BOSS not catch on?

[roysclockgun]

Awhile back, in a swap, I got a Browning Stainless Stalker w/BOSS, in .280Rem. The rifle is topped with a Zeiss Conquest 3-9x40. I have not used the BOSS with brake, that came along with the rifle, but only the BOSS wo/brake, as even loaded hot, the recoil is not at all severe. I began to load up handloads, for hunting and test fired a number of loads, playing with the BOSS settings. I settled on 53gr. of IMR4350, pushing a Nosler AB 140gr. I used standard Large Rifle, Winchester primers. My OAL was 3.3880" to 3.3895". Brand of cases seemed to make no difference. Maybe I am foolish to think this, but I never used reloaded cases for the hunt, even though they perform as well as do new cases. For the hunt, I used new R-P cases. The BOSS setting was 4.1. Off the bench, at 100 yards, three rounds punched one little hole. I measure from outside edge to outside edge. At the widest point the hole measured .303 inches, or 7.69mm! For me, that is a phenominal group!
I wonder why the BOSS has not caught on with other firearms manufacturers, to be more widely used? I have never liked the "lump" on the muzzle end of any firearm, but for tuning in groups like that, I can accept the lump. The muzzle brake gives no advantage worth accepting the blast that it creates, so of the two BOSS attachments, I will only use the one w/o brake. Score thus far: one mule deer buck, taken at 210 yards and one pronghorn buck, taken at 265 yards. The 140gr. AB has again proven to be very effective.
Steven in DeLand, FL

 

[SJB358]

I have the 338WM M70 with the BOSS. I actually don't mind it a bit. Just like you with your rifle, once I found the most accurate load with my handloads, I begin to tweak the BOSS. Works pretty well for me. Not sure why never took off, but it does work. I won't be trading mine soon. Scotty

 

[rjm158]

I had an A-Bolt in 7mm-08 with the BOSS and a friend has two in .260. There is no doubt the system works. With the "brake" version used, the rifles are predictably loud, however.

I think the main reason it didn't become more popular is economics. I know there are starting points for a given caliber/bullet weight but then it requires shooting and adjusting to find the "sweet spot" as it's termed. If you don't handload, and with factory ammo prices being what they are, this can amount to a substantial cost if extensive test firing is necessary. It can also be complicated when using factory ammo because if different lots of the same cataloged load are used, there can be subtle differences that could, potentially, mean more testing and adjustment after the ideal setting is found.

Additionally, the BOSS-equipped rifles cost more than an identical one without it.


Ron

 

[DrMike]

Steven,

I imagine that FN has the patten, and it would add significantly to the cost of any rifle manufacturer wishing to include such an item. There are available sliding weights that can be placed on a barrel to accomplish the same thing as the BOSS. The other factors that undoubtedly conspired to ensure it didn't catch on would have been such things as casual shooters found it to be fussy. They weren't convinced of the value of fiddling with it. If you only shoot a couple of times a year, it is hard to take advantage of an item such as this. The studious ballistician would be challenged by the prospect of finding the same result through using propellant charge, seating depth, bullet weight, etc. Undoubtedly, the B.O.S.S. works, but it simply failed to stimulate the imagination of the shooting public.

 

[Kodiak]

Ron touched on it.

I have a neighbor that owns a Browning rifle with the BOSS. He will not shoot reloads, so its factory stuff for him. Every year, before deer season arrives he goes to the range with a couple of boxes of factory stuff and re-sights-in his rifle, tweeking the boss to get the best groups he can. Four inches at 100 yards are common. He likes it :roll: I haven't shot his rifle.

Whatever blows your skirt up!


Jim

 

[nvbroncrider]

I think price and adding another variable to the equations my thoughts are KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.

 

[Bruce Mc]

I think they're ugly. They spoil the lines of a fine rifle. It is also something to get broke, filled with dirt and dust, and just something extra that might go wrong.

 

[FOTIS]

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.

 

[Kodiak]

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.

Oh yeah ... did anyone mention how ugly they are??????????? :mrgreen: :roll:

Jim

 

[SJB358]

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.

Oh yeah ... did anyone mention how ugly they are??????????? :mrgreen: :roll:

Jim

Man, you guys would make a guy wanna take a hacksaw to one!!! Jeeze- rough crowd..

 

[BK]

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.

 

[elkeater2]

Remember the Poly-choke? The BOSS looks like a Poly-choke on a rifle. Kinda ugly.
EE2

 

[Wis65x55]

The major problem that had in the BOSS system was that it was the extra noise.

 

[cloverleaf]

Hmmm, I thought they looked kinda cool. "JEEZ what kinda cannon is that guy shootin" that he needs a muzzle brake....he must have deep pockets....he's a real rifle looney...bet he shoots sub inch groups..." Or any number of thoughts like that. Incidentally, They are not any where near as ugly as a "dial a duck" poly choke. Tight for Mallards...way open for Teal.... :wink: :wink: My old Mosberg bolt actiion dosent exactly have fetching lines as it is. CL

 

[Mountain Goat]

All they needed was a better acronym. :wink:

The CR version came out later for obvious reasons.
Yes, they are ugly.
A slimmer version that matched the barrel contour would have helped. Something that looked like Savage's factory brake pehaps.
Factory ammo shooters have a difficult time with minor adjustments making a difference, so they mostly made huge twists on the BOSS and ended up where they began. Then the question arose, "why in the hell did I pay extra for this?"
And the story ends. :mrgreen:

 

[Oldtrader3]

DrMike, this is not from what you said. Browning has the BOSS Patent, a couple of them in fact. I personally don't give a fig about recoil control but I do care about accuracy of rifles and about information integrity. I have owned (4) BOSS rifles, 3- Brownings (one of them a Micro .243) and I still have a .30-06 Model 70. All of them were very accurate rifles when some time and effort was spent wringing the best accuracy out of these guns. They performed accurately in spades and shot below 5/8's MOA to 300 yards.

All of the opinionated hot air blown around about brakes in general and about BOSS accuracy, specifically, which I have read have heard spewed (over the boards) since 1994 or so about this topic, have all been written by people who have never fired, never tuned or don't know cow-poop from Shinola about the technology or the patent, let alone about brake technology or sound dynamics engineering. Yet they have a strong opinion, based on what, pray tell?

How can all of this lack of knowledge and experience have resulted in such strongly formed opinions among nattering nabobs on a topic which most admit that they know nothing of which they speak? Just curious! I have read about the bull, now I want to see the meat!

All I hear is hearsay and nonsense with not an engineering fact or scintilla of any in depth to be found or any specific knowledge from any of these arm chair experts about which they speak, regarding the technical merits of this topic. It is all heresay and half truths and passed-on stories! I am sorry, but until someone says something intelligent that can be verified about their "lore" or "my BIL said", I am not coming any where near believing this half-baked nonsense that I am hearing from folks with ZERO experience! Plus, no time-in-grade, or OJT, with brakes in general or BOSS in particular!

If you want to seriously talk, I am here and so are others who have actual experience in this topic, otherwise, keep believing the unfounded, unscientific, trash that you are spouting now!

 

[DrMike]

Charlie,

You are correct that the B.O.S.S. does work. If an individual takes time to fine the "sweet spot," it will yield excellent accuracy. Again, other manufacturers didn't want to pay to use the technology, which meant that it would remain a proprietary item on Browning and Winchester. The same end result can be achieved with use of the sliding weights that dampened the barrels and which were marketed by a couple of firms. To a significant extent, bedding (skim bedding and pillar bedding) are intended to have a similar effect on barrel harmonics.

I've shot rifles equipped with the B.O.S.S. They don't appeal to me, but I did sell a few. My primary objections were aesthetic and not because of any failure of the system to deliver what was promised. Not many people wanted to take time to set them up properly, or they weren't capable of shooting well enough to take advantage of the system. The casual shooter wanted (and still wants) a rifle that delivers sub-MOA accuracy without either practise or effort on their part.

 

[elkeater2]

Charlie,
"If you want to seriously talk, I am here and so are others who have actual experience in this topic, otherwise, keep believing the unfounded, unscientific, trash that you are spouting now!"

Sure glad DrMike didn't take this personally! He could have since you started the post like it was directed to him only :grin: Until I re-read your post and DrMike's reply, I was all set to send you a PM nastygram suggesting that you clarify! I agree, there are a ton of 'experts' who spout stuff on the web like it is Gospel. I pity those who are newbies and trying to figure out what to believe. I also agree that the BOSS can be very effective and just fun to work with.

We had some fun with the "ugly" label here. Maybe if the Gamos didn't put that bulge on the end of their barrels it would help the BOSS sales.

 

[SJB358]

I am with you Mike. They don't look especially nice, but mine does work well. It is actually pretty easy to tune as well. At least mine has been. It doesn't take alot of extra ammo to do it either if you have the rough setting. If you start spinning and grinning, I can see alot of frustration.

I recall, back when I got the rifle. I started with two kinds of ammo. Winchester Fail Safe 230's and Fed Premium 225gr TBBC. I shot the FS's first. Started at the recommended setting and moved a 1/10th at a time till I got I got as small of groups as I could shoot and they started to open back up. I think it went into 1.25" or so. Did the same exact deal with the Federal 225's. They shot 3 touching until they started opening up. I backed to the spot where they shot three touching and called it a day. Old man went on to shoot an elk, brown bear, 6x6 WT, and black bear with it before I was able to pry it outta his fingers. I think it took me a few hours one afternoon to do it. That was back before I knew anything but how to read directions! Once I started loading for it, well, now it is even easier. I find the load at the speed I want, tune and DONE!

I wouldn't buy a Browning rifle with a BOSS (just cause I like Win's) on there, I don't think, but with a decent enough deal, I would probably budge on another Winchester.. I do like the muzzle brake feature on it though. Made shooting a 338WM easy for me. Scotty

 

[roysclockgun]

Yeah, you who responded are all correct. The genuine objection is probably the "lump" on the end of the barrel and if, to you, that is too ugly to overcome, then so be it. To each his own.
I did, in my original post, state that I was not using the BOSS with brake, so the stated objections to the BOSS because of muzzle blast are not valid.
The extra cost issue, while a real objection, does not always make sense, because even the most lowly hunter can afford what he knows to be better, if he waits long enough to save the extra bucks! Why settle for what one knows to be inferior, even if doing so means that for a couple of hunting seasons one will need to borrow a rifle? "Those who buy in haste, regret in their leisure."
Each October, at my local range, I see Joe Hunter show up with his new entry level package rifle with the too low quality optics. If he hunts a lot that scope will likely fail him very soon. If he is like many Joes and does what I witnessed this past October, maybe the cheap optics will last him a lifetime!
A man showed up at the range with five boxes of new 30-06 ammo, for his obviously new "package rifle". Sadly, I did not notice until he'd burned through 40 rounds, that he was not on the paper at 100 yards. Since the range was full, rather then tell him to go to the twenty five yard position, I offered to help. I asked if he had looked down the bore and he only appeared confused by the question. I told him to pull the bolt, but by the look he gave me, he had no clue. I asked if I could try to get him on the paper and he handed me his rifle. After showing him how to pull the bolt, I solidly placed the rifle on the sand bags and put the crosshairs on the bull. Without touching the rifle, I looked down the bore and could immediately see that his bullets were impacting to the right, far off the paper. I asked him to look down the bore, but after he peered down the bore, I got only a blank stare from him. I asked him if he'd allow me to make adjustments and he responded by asking me if knew what I was doing. I assure him that nothing that I would do would hurt his rifle and in fact, I could get him on the paper without firing a shot. He agreed to allow me to fuss with his rifle and after several adjustment and bore sightings, I told him to fire one round. To his surprise, after he fired and looked through my spotting scope, he was on the paper! I asked him if I could make the adjustments that would cause his bullets to impact the target one and one half inches above the center of the bull. That really threw him, but after a brief lesson in down range ballistics, he agreed to allow me to make the adjustments. After three rounds and a like number of scope corrections, he was hitting one and one half inches high, which was where he should be at one hundred yards. Over his objections, I had him fire ten more rounds, waiting for the barrel to cool between shots. Not knowing how good he was at shooting, I saw that he was ecstatic over putting all ten rounds within a three inch circle. Not wanting to further push the envelope, I wished him luck in his hunting and he thanked me for saving him untold numbers of rounds, punching nothing but the backstop. The last thing that I told him was to take one of his cartridge boxes along, next time that he bought ammo and to be sure that he bought the same brand, bullet weight and bullet type, so that he could be relatively certain that that ammo would hold the same zero. Again, his face clouded over with puzzlement, but he agreed to do what I had told him to do.
So yeah, getting back to the BOSS or any other form of attaining really fine accuracy, I agree that for Joe Hunter and millions of others like him, the chances of them springing for the extra bucks to buy BOSS, or any other accuracy enhancing tool, the chances are slim to none. For the annointed among us, it is a choice, backed up by some knowledge and/or experience, that causes us to spend extra bucks....or not! However, we constitute a very small group of firearms and accessory buyers. So small in fact, that not many new rifles are designed to attract us, but are designed to meet entry level pricing, in order to snag Joe's bucks. Maybe to most, the better hunting rifles are considered to be too pricey. But to those who read and study all the features of rifles and their capabilities, the dollars that we put into getting the best that we can afford, is money well spent.
Steven in DeLand
Steven in DeLand, FL