Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: To port or not to port?????

  1. #1

    Default To port or not to port?????

    In the case of the Marlin 1895s (450 Marlin or 45-70) is the felt recoil reduced enough by the factory porting to make it worth putting up with the increase in muzzle blast and noise?

    I figure the hammer probably gets dropped on guide guns more so in Alaska than here in the lesser 48 so you guys ortsta know!

  2. #2
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    I've shot both varieties and can't tell enough difference to warrant the ports. The only rifles I've noticed appreciable difference in are higher velocity cartridges burning lots of powder- with the attendant muzzle blast issues to go with the reduction in felt recoil.

    I just don't think the 45-70 or 450 Marlin really benefit from porting all that much since the recoil velocity is fairly low and the amount of recoil energy is pretty manageable.

    That said- I pretty well hate breaks or ports of any kind, so consider me a biased opinion.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In an easy chair in Cyberspace
    Posts
    2,316

    Default

    Ports help with muzzle jump and arewnt much louder, if at all, than non ports

  4. #4
    Member akjeff's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    788

    Default

    I have had several guns which are ported. I no longer shoot them in the field. The noise is just to much for me. My 300 WM has the BOSS on it and after the 2008 season I removed the brake and put the solid weight on. It was hard enough on my ears that I didn't want to take a follow up shot on a bear (ears ringing). I use the brake on for the range and the solid weight for the field. I also traded my ported 454 for a non ported and mothballed my ported 44. I never notice recoil in the field, only at the range. That just me though.

  5. #5
    Member Smokey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Posts
    3,334

    Default

    EKC, I have run a few hundred heavy loads thru my 1895XLR with no porting and don't find it unpleasant to shoot. 20 - 40 rounds is very doable for sure. I don't think the potential risk for hearing loss is worth it - I have a couple ported guns and always use hearing protection which can be a bit of a bummer in the field - but I have already lost the hearing in one ear and try to do all I can to keep the other working...
    If your just going to play at the range with them I would suggest some lighter loads anyway - make it funner!
    When asked what state I live in I say "The State of Confusion", better known as IL....

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,568

    Default

    Owned two rifles with brakes. One was a Remington 375 H&H and the other a 450 Ackley. Both helped in the recoil reduction but the noise was terrible.
    Never used the 450 Ackley for hunting but managed to shoot a couple of caribou and moose with the H&H. The noise from one shot would leave my ears ringing all day, and this my friend indicates you suffered additional permanent hearing loss with each pull of the trigger. The loss is not noticeable right away as it only affects the higher frequencies at first. Maybe the noise is not any louder, but the deflection from the brake deflects it back towards the shooter.

    Anyhow, I HATE brakes. Most people are bothered by recoil because they will not get off the bench and shoot their rifles. Stand up and learn to control the recoil. If you exceeded your limit then load down or buy a smaller rifle.
    Thats my rant and $.02's worth.
    Tennessee

  7. #7
    Member hodgeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction AK
    Posts
    4,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Snowwolfe View Post
    Anyhow, I HATE brakes. Most people are bothered by recoil because they will not get off the bench and shoot their rifles...
    I think Randy is on to something here...recoil from even pretty moderate rifles can be bothersome off the bench. Even stout recoil is manageble from most field positions (not prone).

    The more I hunt, the more shooting I do from field positions. I only use the bench to get the rifle and scope shooting together and then its mostly sitting, prone, and offhand. I watched a video of a guy regulating a double NE... shot from a supported standing position with a small, high bench to take some jitter out of it.

    Come to think of it most of the guys I know with brakes shoot a lot off a bench and prone off bipods- not wrong, it just puts you in the position to take the hardest lick.

  8. #8
    Member mustang0335's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    98

    Default

    On my Marlin 1895 45-70 I installed a Pacmeyer recoil pad and it made 1000 percent differerence. Can shoot for hours and you dont feel a thing...so wouldnt port it. But did put a brake on my 300wm and it made a great improvement...would never shoot another magnum without installing one on it first. Did not make mine any louder than without it.......

  9. #9

    Default

    Negative on porting too, unless there are extenuating circumstances to justify the extra risk to hearing from the increased muzzle blast. Use a better recoil pad, extra weight, better stock design, more upright shooting position, etc. With today's improved bullets, you may be able to downsize to a less recoiling combination that will still get the job done. Power is seldom a substitute for accuracy and bullet placement.

  10. #10

    Default

    If your willing to put up with ear busting noise for less recoil then port it, just warn any one around you before you shoot. I wonder how many Alaskan guides and African Professional hunters ported their personal weapon. I do own a 18" barreled Vang Comped ported shot gun. I don't hunt with it though and it is either in my camper or bed room. If I ever have to use it I probably won't be thinking about eye and ear protection.

  11. #11

    Default

    No brake or port for me on my .338 WinMag, use a PAST recoil pad and practice from hunting positions, and the recoil is very manageable. Hate shooting at the range near a rifle with a brake, the noise is unpleasant even with ear protection on.

  12. #12
    Member TWB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    3,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mdhunter View Post
    No brake or port for me on my .338 WinMag, use a PAST recoil pad and practice from hunting positions, and the recoil is very manageable. Hate shooting at the range near a rifle with a brake, the noise is unpleasant even with ear protection on.
    Same same. I don't mind my .338 over the 300wm. I've thought about porting my 300 but hearing loss is more important, and rarely do I see a hunter wear ear protection before kill.

    I've only noticed recoil on the bench, never in the field. Adrenaline and an animal in the scope quickly drowns out any knock in the shoulder.
    We do not go to the green woods and crystal waters to rough it, we go to smooth it. We get it rough enough at home; in towns and cities; in shops, offices, stores, banks anywhere that we may be placed

  13. #13
    Member stevelyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Posts
    1,316

    Default

    My experience with ports has mostly been with handguns. Other than reducing muzzle flip in higher pressured cartridges, I haven't notice any reduction in recoil. If anything the reduced muzzle flip allows more recoil energy to be driven straight back into the shoulder or hands and wrists in the case with handguns.
    Now what ?

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    21

    Default

    I have a 1895 guide gun in 45-70 and a 1894 in .44mag. The barrel on the .44 might be an inch longer and is not ported.

    The 45-70 has the factory ports and I was very reluctant to buy it because I also do not enjoy sitting next to people with a loud break and the range, and would not want to be next to someone in the field, without hearing protection, as they touched one off. But... I got a good deal on it so I bought it anyway.

    When I finally got to the range to shoot both rifles I asked the people next to me if the 45-70 was super loud. They told me they thought the .44 was louder. I personally couldn't tell the difference.

    On thing to consider is that I was shooting Remington factory loaded ammo out of both. I'm not sure how the 45-70 would sound with a hotter load in it.

    If all things were the same I would buy one with the non-ported barrel, but I wouldn't pass on a ported barrel if that was my only option or if I found a good deal.

    Enjoy your new rifle!

  15. #15

    Default

    Many years ago I had a Mag Na Ported a .338 WM After I had the work done the gun did not seem louder, but the noise was different to me. Not louder, just different. It did decrease some recoil and muzzle jump. Check out their web site. It is probably the only "porting" I would consider. Due to stock design I do believe the Marlin 1895 45-70 would benefit from the Mag Na Port Process since it does not raise noise levels, supposedly.

  16. #16

    Default

    In my experience there has to be a lot of gas moving around for porting to show much benefit. And neither the 45-70 or 450 qualify with their limited case capacity. I have two 375's, a lightweight ported one and an unported model that's 2+ pounds heavier. And the light one is definitely more pleasant to shoot, noise or no.

    Short barrels are another matter. I have a lot of ported handguns, and the recoil reduction is there with hot magnum loads but you don't notice a single benefit from a mid-range load, say comparing hot 44 mags with even fairly hot 44 specials. In 500 S&W, I don't think I'd want to shoot my 4" without ports, but midrange loads don't seem to recoil any less than hot loads in that one.

    As for noise? Eh? What's the you say? I hunted big game with handguns for over 20 years, and all of that field shooting was done without hearing protection, even though I wore it on the range. I never really was aware of the noise at the time of the shot but the ringing in my ears stuck around for days. And eventually it just quit going away. I still hunt with a few ported guns, but dang. I've sure got incentive to do all the killing on the first shot!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •