June 6, 2011 · 9:30 pm
Normally when I am asked about muzzle brakes I tell guys they all work about the same. Reducing felt recoil by about 30%. That is not the case with this brake, Brandon Miller pictured at left with his design has totally rethought the concept of recoil reduction and muzzle brakes.
Brandon calls his new brake the “Hammerhead”. He has already scaled the design up for larger calibers, so they will be available for heavy recoiling rifle very soon.
I had a chance to test fire this brake at a range in Oklahoma. This new design keeps the crosshairs/sights on target at all times. Recoil from the test gun in 5.56 Nato was straight back and so slight that if not for the sound it would be hard to believe this was a center fire rifle. Percentage wise I would guess recoil is down by ninety % or more.
Shooters sitting beside you at the range will not like you much, but this brake is for fast shooting, not bench work. Competitive shooters will eat this new design up. I would go so far as to say that if you don’t have one, the shooters who do, will leave you in the dust. It’s not often that I am impressed by a product the way I was with this one. I would not hesitate to recommend or sell this new offering from Miller Precision Arms.
Filed under accuracy, Camp Perry, Firearms, Recoil, Rifles
Tagged as accuracy, competition, custom rifle, Firearms, guns, muzzle brake, recoil, reduce, reduction, rifle, shooting
GunsmithTalk 
Too bad the Miller design is nothing more than a copied Titan comp as designed by Eric Lund and S & J Customs. The flats, # of up ports, # and angle of side vector ports, and even the front bevel are the same. Come on guys, have a little honor!!! The shooting industry generally polices itself on cheaters. I know, I refuse to deal with dishonest companies and take great offense to the theft of others intellectual property.
It is so nice to hear from the competition posting negative feedback anywhere they can. It is a sure sign that our brake has a place among the competition. Our design drawings show –
(1.) There are only 2 side ports, not 3.
(2.) Our side ports are at a completely different degree of angle.
(3.) The side ports are in different locations as compared to the Titan.
(4.) The side port shapes are of a different design.
(5.) Our top ports are positioned in a location where the greatest effects of fluid dynamics are achieved.
The Hammerhead is more effective because of these differences which is the principle reason shooting competitors are making a switch to our brake.
I find it ironic that the guy posting the above negative comment is the guy that is in charge of sales at SJC. Must be affecting his sales commission.
Our intent was to make the most effective brake to date and we believe we have accomplished that goal.
We, at Miller Precision Arms, feel that competition is what defines and drives us to make the very best products for our competitive shooting customers, so we embrace the competition not bad mouth them.
In address to “Dishonest Companies”, I say “Set the example, Mr Breeding, and stop using underhanded tactics such as threatening our distributors to name them in a suit of which they have no grounds for in the first place.
To say the Hammerhead is a copy of the Titan is like saying the Titan is a copy of Benny Hill’s Rolling Thunder. They look very similar but are completely different brakes.
SJC stop whining and embrace the competition. That is what your customers do, after all.
Brandon Miller
Owner
Miller Precision Arms
Please let me take this opportunity to rebutt Brandon Miller’s comments on my recent posts. First, SJC has zero issue with product competition. Most comp manufacturers brought their own intellectual property to the market place through their products.
Second, Brandon Miller should not construe my aggressive posts as an indication of his success. Even though the mimicry of the Titan comp is a form of flattery to SJC, we will always point out and openly attack any one who tries to sell our unique comp design as their own. Need I point out that changing an angle slightly and moving a port a little while leaving the overall appearance virtually the same does not make an idea yours. Neither does my telling everyone that will listen what business plan that individual follows make me underhanded.
To date, the Lund/SJC Titan comps have proven to have no peers, many competitors, but no peers. This whole issue is not about competition in the market place. Rather, it is all about Brandon Miller standing on the shoulders of others while claiming their idea as your own..
Finally, that saleman on commision you were trying to belittle is the “S” in SJC, half owner in the company, and was present as an active participant for everyone of the design meetings for the still unsurpassed Titan comp.
Full disclosure: I am personally acquainted with Brandon Miller and have found him to be above reproach in all business dealings.
It’s never a good idea to bad mouth a competitor. It took me less than a minute to find information on the S&J site that Steave Breeding has a dog in this fight. No disrespect but, too bad Steave did not say so in his first post.
Since the length and diameter of brakes is limited by USPSA rules there are only so many options for compensator design so they are bound to appear similar by their nature. What really matters to competitive shooters is results, i.e. How well do they perform in use.
If moving holes around and changing angles produces better results then the shooting public will make it’s own decision.
Want to talk about honor? How about having some shooters test your products side by side? If your game, let me know it would make a great article for this blog. I will recuse myself from the tests and simply report the results or if you prefer I can find a third party to handle the entire test and reporting.
Sorry, if I failed to properly identify myself in my first post. I thought the name, email address, and website info pin pointed who I represent. Never the less, I know you are right and am game for a heads up review. Additionally, let me apologize for degenerating this blog into a he said she bickering contest and let us work out a fair trial of comp abilities.
Here we have a video showing the Benny Hill comp.
In the interests of full disclosure, I’m Erik Lund, and I’m one of the designers of the Titan comp. Please allow me to address some of these issues.
The Rolling Thunder comp by Benny Hill is an outstanding design and were I not using a Titan Comp, I would use Benny’s. Benny is a great, personal friend of mine and I have tremendous respect for him. I can highly recommend the Rolling Thunder comp if the Titan were unavailable.
If you want to have a discussion about design features, I’ll be more than happy to respectfully talk about why I think the Titan is a superior design, but I’d rather address the issue of design similarity. Having said that, yes, USPSA and most of the outlaw 3-gun matches do have the 3″x1″ rule for compensator design, so there are some restrictions when it comes to designing a competition legal compensator, but if you watch the Rolling Thunder comp video previously posted, the end of the video shows in excess of 10 different designs of various sizes and dimensions. None of those designs have anywhere near the similarity of the Titan/Hammerhead design. Performance differences like port size and location constitute a fair discussion but the flats and bevelling on the top and front of the compensators are identical. Those features on the Titan are weight saving design features and while I haven’t had a chance to personally examine a Hammerhead comp, I’ve seen several close up pictures from several competition shooters emailing me and asking if this was a new 2-port Titan design. On it’s face, the flats and bevel’s appear to be an identical copy. Based upon the Miller Precision website, it appears that Mr. Miller is a quite capable Gunsmith. I’m confident that he could have chosen any number of ways to “shape” his design, but the fact that those simple weight saving features were directly copied, leads me to believe that he simply took a Titan comp and shortened from a 3-port to a 2-port design. Making very minor port dimension changes or slight angle changes does not constitute a “new” design in my opinion.
While that is my opinion, Reamerrentals is correct. The consumer market will ultimately judge which design is better.
Here is one of several video’s showing the performance of the Titan compensator. A quick search for “Titan compensator” on Youtube will bring up the other Titan performance video’s.