"Your observations about technology and the ability of some of our best smiths being able to come up with a solution to recoil are well made.  Since I am the one who made the motion in the meeting to ban the use of muzzlebrakes, I feel I should share with you my reasons for taking the course I did."

Dick, at the 2003 HBR Nats, LAGrande, OR, we had a lengthy discussion regarding muzzle brakes a voted to REQUIRE competitors using MBs to provide  transparent shields - what was wrong with THAT?? Further, I know of one device, which the "committe" offhandedly dismissed without a demonstration, let alone careful consideration! :(   In my opinion, THAT vote was improperly negated by the proceedings at this years "meeting".

" I have shot next to muzzlebrakes that have almost torn my shirt off my back, not to mention the dirt and debris that were propelled at me and my equipment.  I do not use or care for muzzlebrakes in their current state of development.  And I do not wish to exclude anyone from shooting.  However, these are not the purposes of my making the motion. "

This (almost tore the shirt off my back) is the type of emotional language that is best left out of a discussion - like most, I have never used a brake, however, I have shot next to them since day one - about nine years ago, when Mike and Bud Schnideman, from St. Louis, MO, showed up at the old River City Range (Mason City, IA) toting a pair of Hunter rifles sporting brakes milled into the barrel - that was the beginning - about 1995. At the 1997 NBRSA Hunter Nationals, a majority of attendees voted in favor of removable brakes.

"I don't feel muzzlebrakes, in and of themselves, are intended to give a competitor an edge either: they are recoil reducing mechanisms, nothing more.  When a brake does become an "advantage", though,  is when it puts me to a disadvantage by pelting me and my equipment with debris and endangering my eyesight (even though I wear glasses every time I shoot anything). It also concerns me when my rifle is rocked off target by the blast of a muzzlebrake.  And even though I wear ear protection, a muzzlebrake adds new meaning to the word "decibel.".  In the field muzzlebrakes may not present such a host of disagreeable elements as they do from the bench."

Beginning at the end, if you've ever measured and compared the magnitude of braked barrels with unbraked barrels, you'd know that there is no measurable difference in the "noise" - we have  MEASURED this (in DECIBLES, at both the muzzles and from adjacent benches) with equipment borrowed from the safety department of my employer - I will admit that the MEASURED result surprised us . . . .  however, there is no valid reason to allow a false perception to become reality.

I will state, that even at VanDyne, WI, where the benches are placed on centers not exceeding 4 feet, and where muzzle brakes are common, I have never been offended by thier use - any more so than I have by some bare-muzzled rigs. The only negative attribute I have experienced is that, when the user failed to remove the brake during cleaning, I have occasionally been "sprayed" with a mist of solvent - scarcely life threatening. I NEVER fire a center-fire RIFLE without eye protection . . or even a rim-fire for that matter.

The NBRSA board of directors SHOULD, as pointed out by Mike S.,  pass a rule REQUIRING the use of eye protection by all competitors.

What concerns me is the degredation of the process (we had already voted on a passed a "shield rule") and a disregard for the needs of the few, some of whom use muzzle brakes because of either previous injuries, or current physical/medical problems. This, combined with the committee's curt dismissal of new shield concepts leaves a bitter taste in my mouth . . . One individual, who innocently presented his concept to the range officer and a NBRSA board member was told [by both] that the device "cannot be used" - very poor judgement by the advisors. This was an opportunity for the referees to examine and rule on the legality of the equipment in question. The only fault on the inventors part was his TRUST.  :(   The unwillingness to discuss and consider alternatives is, at best, immature.

I have to admit: I was in the far corner of the building until I heard the, "one of our competitors nearly lost an eye" comment - only then, did I move closer an begin paying attention - by then, they were counting votes  - for the second time . . . and this following the afore mentioned INFLAMATORY introduction . . . . I wonder, since both items passed, and the shield rule (first item) was not specifically deleted, shouldn't the NBRSA board consider both? ;)  R.G.