Maybe the most obnoxious handgun ctg. I’ve shot.
Well our 15” .50 BMG handgun actually takes that tittle. But this was a second for sure. 15” with a chamber brake (I still don’t know why). It was like getting slapped in the face with a wet towel, the muzzle blast! I’d rather be hit than talked to, like that.
![[image]](images/uploaded/202412051611316751d0b3038f5.jpg)
OK I give. What the hell is a chamber brake?
- No text -
Expansion "chamber" before the gas exits.
I categorize your brakes as "chamber brakes", the most effective type in reducing recoil. The brake has a larger than bore, bore, where gasses expand then exit the holes. Compared to those that simply expel the jet gasses at or near bore diameter. More like directive flash hiders. The point is to nullify the jet nozzle propulsion effects of the gasses firing the bullet. High volume, lighter projectile rounds see the greatest benefit. A 7mm GNR has .223 recoil, a .338 GNR is less than a .44 Magnum, the .416 Rigby is about 7mm Rem/30-06 range. Amazing.
I'll say it out loud, your brakes far, far, outperform the Mag-na-ports, even the 4-5 port systems. I've shot them side by side. On my revolvers all the two port systems do is dirty my front sight with lead. The 4-port does reduce rifle recoil but not NEAR as much as your Reeder brakes. If there is a FPS difference I can't register one, and it's worth it.
![[image]](images/uploaded/20241205210125675214a5bda2e.jpg)
What ctg is that WB ? 22 something
- No text -
.22-250 Improved! Quite violent.
Normally in hand gun length single shots you loose about 800-1000 fps over a long barrel rifle in small bores (.17-.22's). That one boosted it back up a little, but not too efficiently. I always seem to hit the wall at around 3300 fps in a 14"-15" handgun. Ditto the .17 Remington.
26" compared to 18" barrel
I have an Encore 22-250, bought it as a rifle barrel 26".The 55gr Accubond did 3550 fps in the 26" barrel, sent the barrel to Gary he cut it to 18" pistol barrel, same load does 3250 fps still just as accurate. I have taken turkey and hogs at 100+ yards , hogs were head shots.
Sean
I also am a 22-250 Improved freak and have taken
critters the size of Arizona's Couse Deer with it. When we did the ballistics on it (I think Sean was in on this) when we cut the barrel down from 24" to 15" for an XP-100 we lost no more than 32 FPS per inch which amounted to less than 350 fps. It still beat the standard 22-250 in every instance.
My original custom XP-100 was chambered in 224 Weatherby and with a 15" barrel in the XP we only lost less than 32 FPS per inch over the factory listed speed. A gun shop in Nashville was selling off all their Weatherby ammo and they had around 30 boxes of 224 Weatherby priced somewhere around $4 a box. I bought all of it and used it groundhog hunting in Tennessee for 2 or 3 years before I ran out and started loading my own. I had every "expert" known to man telling me I would lose 1000 to 1500 fps using the factory ammo in a short 15" barrel. They were totally full of crap as the loss amounted to less than 32 fps per inch over the quoted factory velocities. They also said I would burn up the barrel in less than 500 rounds. That was also total BS as when we moved here we had no groundhogs and only prairie dogs as varmints so I sold my original XP in 224 Weatherby to a friend who wanted it. Before he bought it I did a long test using several bullet weights and after more than 4000 rounds the gun was almost as accurate as it was when I built it. The groups with it when I built it were dime size and after almost 8 years of shooting the hot Weatherby loads the groups were nickel size so as far as I was concerned that was not from a burned out barrel. It was as accurate as it was back in 1978 when I built it.
I am in the process of building a new XP-100 in 22-250 Improved and plan on duplicating my original XP-100.
![[image]](images/uploaded/20241206200649675359598c1fa.jpg)