What is the concensus on the the usefullness of ported barrels? Do they really do what they claim in significantly reducing recoil?
My dad recently bought a .454 Casull lever action rifle but now it turns out he doesn't like the kick. My brother suggested getting it ported by Mag-na-port. He figured out that the cost is going to be around $250-$300 dollars.
My question, is it worth it?
For the physics guys out there:
I understand that it's effective for reducing muzzle rise by porting the gasses out the top forcing the muzzle back down. That makes perfect sense.
If it does reduce recoil (they claim up to 50%!!!) how does it do that without significantly reducing muzzle velocity? I would think that it is equivalent to shortening the barrel due to cutting slots/holes in the last several inches of the barrel.
Am I correct that the majority of recoil occurs as the powder ignites & the bullet starts to travel down the barrel? Wouldn't the majority of recoil already be imparted to the shooter by the time the bullet reached the porting? I know that the powder doesn't all ignite at once & that there is a "pressure curve", which is the reason why longer barrels allow for a higher muzzle velocity in the first place, but it just seems counter-intuitive that porting is some magical physics phenomenon that significantly reduces recoil with no loss in efficiency. I can see how it would reduce recoil a modest amount but with the attendant loss of muzzle velocity.
Unless I'm completely wrong in my understanding of the concept of recoil....
If I am, please enlighten me.
My dad recently bought a .454 Casull lever action rifle but now it turns out he doesn't like the kick. My brother suggested getting it ported by Mag-na-port. He figured out that the cost is going to be around $250-$300 dollars.
My question, is it worth it?
For the physics guys out there:
I understand that it's effective for reducing muzzle rise by porting the gasses out the top forcing the muzzle back down. That makes perfect sense.
If it does reduce recoil (they claim up to 50%!!!) how does it do that without significantly reducing muzzle velocity? I would think that it is equivalent to shortening the barrel due to cutting slots/holes in the last several inches of the barrel.
Am I correct that the majority of recoil occurs as the powder ignites & the bullet starts to travel down the barrel? Wouldn't the majority of recoil already be imparted to the shooter by the time the bullet reached the porting? I know that the powder doesn't all ignite at once & that there is a "pressure curve", which is the reason why longer barrels allow for a higher muzzle velocity in the first place, but it just seems counter-intuitive that porting is some magical physics phenomenon that significantly reduces recoil with no loss in efficiency. I can see how it would reduce recoil a modest amount but with the attendant loss of muzzle velocity.
Unless I'm completely wrong in my understanding of the concept of recoil....
If I am, please enlighten me.