Porting: Why do people hate them?

In my experience the are unpleasant to shoot compared to the un-ported version in most cases. The ported barrels are often obnoxiously louder, and create a lot of user-seen muzzle flash especially in low light. They frequently make the front sight filthy in short order. The are very unpleasant even painful when fired from many retention shooting positions. They are fairly unnecessary with most cartridges you would consider using for CCW. In my experience shooting everything from 22LR to 44 Mag in handguns the porting always has more drawbacks than benefits for me. For the big bore revolver 454 Casul, 460 S&W, 500 S&W and similar I might be convinced but even then I would probably pass on the option.

He is sponsored by Magnaport, but he takes the time and effort to discuss and show a comparison of ported and unported using high-frame-rate video:


Towards the end he also does a muzzle-flash comparison in low-light (night) conditions.

I have a ported 3" revolver and a unported 5" revolver of the same frame size -- basically identical except the barrel length and porting.
The 3" has substantially less felt-recoil than the 5" with the same load, but the 5" is developing a lot more velocity (as much as 200 fps more)
The longer barrel also helps with muzzle lift and reduced felt recoil because of its additional mass where it counts.

When I tried to figure out how much difference the port was making versus the longer barrel, I tried to match muzzle velocities. When I did this, I found I could hardly tell the difference. Maybe there was a difference, but I would need equipment to measure it and by the "seat of my pants" it was too hard to tell. Given the ballistic advantages of a long-barrel, I will prefer that because it gives reduced felt recoil and muzzle lift as well as increased velocity for a given power charge. Essentially, I can get the needed velocity with less powder. A port can't do that.

I suppose what I could do is compare a long barrel with a port versus a long barrel without a port. I haven't done this. However, I feel that the recoil on my long barrel gun is quite manageable with the kind of loads that I think are necessary for good effect. Porting would reduce it even further but starting with a low-recoil gun/cartridge combination, there isn't a lot of value.

My conclusion is that for lighweight pistols and shooting cartridges that result in a lot of recoil velocity or maybe guns with a high bore center the porting is very effective, but it should be evaluated in consideration of an alternative heavier gun with a longer barrel (and reduced loads for matched velocity). People tend to like lightweight plastic, short barrels, and relatively hot loads. Porting makes sense for that combination. I prefer heavy, long guns with relatively light loads.

On a handgun, I am more bothered by noise than recoil, so find ported guns more difficult to manage in general. There are exceptions, but autos chambered for defensive cartridges are not among them.

Never owned or shot one. So I dont have a dog in the fight. One day I will. Just not high on my list.

I appreciate that recoil can be aversive to some inexperienced shooters, but Jerry Miculek favors porting not just because he finds recoil aversive. I don't like startling noises myself and I can see how porting would just exacerbate that. On the other hand, it should be apparent that Jerry's goal is to get the muzzle back on target sooner and lower his split times while keeping bullets on target. A lot of us would say .30 second splits are fast enough and we just don't need consistent .17's. Jerry does. Anyone who wants to win in USPSA or something similar needs to shoot faster. My opinion is that this is an aspect of so-called practical shooting competition that doesn't translate over to practical shooting. In practical shooting, we do not want to shoot faster than we can think. We need to be able to stop shooting as soon as it becomes necessary and not to continue shooting longer than it is justified. This does not mean that we can only shoot at a glacial pace of one-shot, thorough-assessment, one-shot, thorough assessment... What is means is that there is a difference between the competition shooter who can shoot a predetermined string as fast as possible, and someone who must be simultaneously assessing the situation and anticipating potential outcomes in situations where almost everything is uncertain. In the former situation, the fastest split times is a competitive advantage. In the latter, they're mostly irrelevant.

https://www.lexipol.com/resources/blog/understanding-police-officer-reaction-time-to-stop-shooting/

I agree with MCB...I've owned two over the years, loud, dirty and don't seem to make much difference in recoil.

Really loud, if circumstances don't go your way you can spray your face with the muzzle blast, not advisable to shoot from a jacket pocket or purse, other than that...

I could not find one for ported/un-ported handguns but I did find an interesting article compare a bare muzzle and a variety of muzzle brakes on a rifle and how much louder they make it seem to the shooter. The testing was done with 308 Win not a handgun cartridge but I still thought it might be of some interest to the thread.

https://precisionrifleblog.com/2015/08/07/muzzle-brakes-sound-test/

Here's an article that measures the effectiveness of ports on reducing muzzle rise in a Glock 19;

https://gundigest.com/article/ported-barrel-reduce-recoil

I’ve posted this before in a similar thread regarding ported revolvers.
My 6.5” 629 Power Port has less muzzle rise and felt recoil than my other N-frames do, as the port points directly upwards after the front sight ends. There is a disclaimer to my observations; the 5” 629 classic (since sold) and my 629 Mountain Gun I can compare the PP gun to matches frame size and caliber.. but these two guns are shorter/lighter so it’s not a true apples to apples comparison.

As for noise, without an actual decibel reading at the shooters ear I can’t see how a port can make a revolver much louder to the shooter. This is because they’re already ported at the B/C gap, so I’m not so sure you’ll notice much more of the noise or even the brief flash at the end of the barrel in low or no light conditions when the B/C blast is so violent.

An unported 4” Model 66 .357


An unported 4” Model 686+ .357 Mag.

Now I do have a ported Springfield V-16 in .45 Super and an original ported Marlin 1895 Guide Gun .45/70. They really do get a lot dirtier around the ports and may indeed be a bit louder with their closed actions. However this is just speculation on my part as I can’t really tell much of a decibel increase with either one with earmuffs on.

Now I will fully agree that a muzzle braked rifle or rifle-caliber handgun like a contender or bolt action pistol is much more abusive to the bystanders than a non-braked rifle. The blast being directed to the sides/top from a braked high powered firearm will really rock your fillings at a covered range, or even out in the open if you’re not standing a ways behind the shooter. Those things I do not like being around at all.

Stay safe.

fxvr5 said:

Here's an article that measures the effectiveness of ports on reducing muzzle rise in a Glock 19;

https://gundigest.com/article/ported-barrel-reduce-recoil

Click to expand...

"The Glock 19C’s ported barrel produced at least 30 percent less muzzle rise than the standard barrel. That’s impressive performance for such small ports. Part of this is from the reduced velocity, but the greatest effect is from the vented gas force."

While this makes a compelling story, if I was really looking at gaining the advantage of reduced muzzle rise, I would go to the Glock 17. Going to the longer barrel and additional mass has fewer trade-offs than porting. In fact, it also has more advantages. If I had a Glock 17 and was still looking to reduce muzzle rise, I would go to a Glock 34. With the longer barrel, I can reduce the load quite a bit and still get the same velocity as I was with the G19 but I would be accelerating less powder mass and realize lower recoil impulse. I would also have the additional mass of the larger gun and longer barrel and slide. That would reduce the recoil velocity and recoil energy. The additional weight farther out on the muzzle would also contribute to lower muzzle rise. I could also add a tungsten guide rod and a weapon light on the muzzle-end for even more effect. All of these things have less trade-off in undesirable effects than porting. I could still add porting on top of all of the above, but the additional benefit for 9x19mm would probably be inconsequential for practical purposes. For a couple hundredths of a second on Jerry's timer? I'll believe him.

But most people aren't willing to carry a G34, or a steel gun. They say the most they'll carry is a Shield or a P365. If you restrict yourself to a diminutive gun of the lightest weight, then you'll need to resort to tricks to get it to shoot closer to as well as longer, heavier guns. Porting is one of those tricks that comes with tradeoffs. Personally, I prefer the tradeoffs of a long steel gun.

I had my Model 29 done back when Mag na Port first started doing them. Other than the impressive flaming "V" in low light, what a waste. Wish Id never done it. It did nothing to keep the muzzle down.

Bought this 696 a few years back, and it came from the factory with the Mag na Porting done. Would have much prefered they hadnt, but it is what it is. 696's are hard to come by.

And this is just part of what it is, and thats after just a couple of cylinders full of LSWC's. If you look close, you can see the red insert in there. It is there, its that smooth part right where it should be.

labnoti said:

"The Glock 19C’s ported barrel produced at least 30 percent less muzzle rise than the standard barrel. That’s impressive performance for such small ports. Part of this is from the reduced velocity, but the greatest effect is from the vented gas force."

While this makes a compelling story, if I was really looking at gaining the advantage of reduced muzzle rise, I would go to the Glock 17. Going to the longer barrel and additional mass has fewer trade-offs than porting. In fact, it also has more advantages. If I had a Glock 17 and was still looking to reduce muzzle rise, I would go to a Glock 34. With the longer barrel, I can reduce the load quite a bit and still get the same velocity as I was with the G19 but I would be accelerating less powder mass and realize lower recoil impulse. I would also have the additional mass of the larger gun and longer barrel and slide. That would reduce the recoil velocity and recoil energy. The additional weight farther out on the muzzle would also contribute to lower muzzle rise. I could also add a tungsten guide rod and a weapon light on the muzzle-end for even more effect. All of these things have less trade-off in undesirable effects than porting. I could still add porting on top of all of the above, but the additional benefit for 9x19mm would probably be inconsequential for practical purposes. For a couple hundredths of a second on Jerry's timer? I'll believe him.

But most people aren't willing to carry a G34, or a steel gun. They say the most they'll carry is a Shield or a P365. If you restrict yourself to a diminutive gun of the lightest weight, then you'll need to resort to tricks to get it to shoot closer to as well as longer, heavier guns. Porting is one of those tricks that comes with tradeoffs. Personally, I prefer the tradeoffs of a long steel gun.

Click to expand...

I I like what you’re saying...but the greater slide mass moving under recoil of the Glock 34 (I carry one every day at work) or the Glock 17L (I have one of those, too, shot it last Friday with Win 124 gr fmj) rocks my hands upwards as much or more than my smaller-slide Glock 19 does.

There is a bit of give and take between gun size and recoil reduction, but old Mr. Newton just can’t be beat once the movement of the greater slide mass gets involved.

Stay safe.

The only handgun that I have that is ported is my 460 XVR. I'm not sure it is affective or not.

I've got a couple shotguns that are ported. I'd really prefer they not be as they are a real pain in the ass to clean. I really do not feel the porting is all that effective.

I've tried a muzzle break or two on rifles and again, I do not find them terribly effective. Maybe they would be useful with a 50 BMG, but I do not have a 50 BMG.

I’ve shot a ported .357 mag. Not really sure why it was ported to begin with. Anyways every time it went off you got a face full of muzzle blast. All this in a snubby that’s marketed for self defense I’m sure. Nothing gives you the upper hand in a gunfight like intermittent blindness...

Riomouse911 said:

I I like what you’re saying...but the greater slide mass moving under recoil of the Glock 34 (I carry one every day at work) or the Glock 17L (I have one of those, too, shot it last Friday with Win 124 gr fmj) rocks my hands upwards as much or more than my smaller-slide Glock 19 does.

There is a bit of give and take between gun size and recoil reduction, but old Mr. Newton just can’t be beat once the movement of the greater slide mass gets involved.

Stay safe.

Click to expand...

I spent some time once with a Sig MPX. For the mass of that gun, I would have thought it wouldn't move much with only 9x19mm, but the mass of the reciprocating bolt caused it to move quite a bit more than only what I was expecting from the recoil impulse. The movement from reciprocating mass was quite a bit lower velocity than the recoil, but it also had a longer "dwell" time.

That's one of the reasons I like revolvers.

labnoti said:

I spent some time once with a Sig MPX. For the mass of that gun, I would have thought it wouldn't move much with only 9x19mm, but the mass of the reciprocating bolt caused it to move quite a bit more than only what I was expecting from the recoil impulse. The movement from reciprocating mass was quite a bit lower velocity than the recoil, but it also had a longer "dwell" time.

That's one of the reasons I like revolvers.

Click to expand...

These aren’t the greatest images taken off of my phone when I was shooting the other weekend, but they show that in my hands an unported L frame S&W shooting upper level magnum 158 gr handloads (Not max) has about the same level of muzzle rise as Win 124 gr FMJ practice loads in my Glock 17L. I attribute this to the momentum of the long slide moving backwards above my hand during cycling rather than the recoil of the load just moving the grip back into my hands.

Porting on the end of a pistol like this G-17L or a revolver like the 686+ may limit some of this flip by pushing downwards on the ports as the muzzle gases jet upwards, but I’m not enough of a scientist to prove it.

L Frame at the ready:


L frame recoil max flip upwards:


Glock 17L at the ready:


Glock 17L slide back in recoil:


Glock 17L slide now forward:


Im no expert class shooter by any stretch, but these two guns recoil in a similar fashion even though the .357 is pushing a heavier bullet at a similar velocity.

An expert shooter I do respect, Massad Ayoob, did a story about a new 3” S&W Model 19 Carry Comp in On Target Magazine. He had pictures taken as he was shooting the Carry Comp and an unported 3” .357 Model 66 and published the pictures. These shots showed he had less muzzle flip with the ported gun than the unported gun on page two:

https://ontargetmagazine.com/2019/04/sw-performance-center-model-19-carry-comp/

Again, porting may or may not make a difference for us, my two ported handguns can have some stout and snappy recoil (.44 Mag and .45 Super) so with these guns I don’t mind these being ported.

I wouldn’t want porting on any of my carry guns, not necessarily because of increased flash but because I really don’t want additional blast and lead/powder residue peppering my eyes, face or body from the ports if I have to hold a gun in tight to shoot.

As for the recoil impulse of the semi-auto, I also find these guns rock upwards off target as much or more than similar-powered revolvers ported or not... but that’s clearly from the slide mass moving back over my wrist.

Stay safe.

I've found porting to be a good thing for heavy hitting revolvers, especially with short bbls. my 640-1 was a beast to shoot a 50 round qualification course, until I sent it in to MagNa-Port.

My favorite means of "life insurance" involves my Glock 23 .40 S&W pistol. Once I received this pistol I figured I'd shoot the snot out of it and then decide what I like and then what I wanted to change. First was the sights. I replaced the rear sight with an adjustable version to accommodate all the various changes involved with bullet impact for the various .40 S&W rounds I wanted to try. Next was the fiber optic front sight, so I could get that acquisition as quickly as I could. Works OK.
Then I found that long sessions involving practice beat up my shooting hand, so I then went with the Pachmayr grip sleeve to make that a more comfortable endeavor. Next, I found that the loads I wanted to use during CC, created quite a snappy muzzle flip and then slower recovery onto target. So, I sent the barrel and slide off to Mag-Na-Port. I'm very happy with the outcome, and although I hope to never get involved with a group of "slugs" like Antifa, I do know I can get recovery much more quickly now:

Have a number of comps and ported barrels, couple of Magna-Ported units as well. Not sure I'm either for or against....but they are a pain to keep clean.

The only ported revolver I ever owned 686-4 from the S&W Performance Center.
I also had a Glock17c. Both are gone to new owners. I'm not going to say I disliked either but 9mm isn't all that hard recoiling and too much velocity is lost in 357MAG. I'll stick to the 681 (middle) for 357MAG shooting.

I have a Glock 19c and 23c
Yes, ported guns are louder; but, a 23c aint much different in blast than a 32 (357 Sig).
Porting does reduce muzzle flip.
Flash is different depending on the load, some have low flash powder.