Coning tool

[Artificer]

"My own original barrel shows the same .02 widening at the muzzle"

May I ask what caliber it is? Also do you mean .02" on each side of the diameter of the bore or .01" on each side of the bore?

Also, do you have a general idea of how concentric the coning was on original rifles you have seen and heard about? The reason I ask is because Diderot shows examples of both "triangular" shaped chamfering reamers as well as piloted reamers.

Gus

 

[Black Hand]

Gus,
Has something changed since you posted the message seen below?

11/10/17 07:32 AM - Post#1651181

In response to Smokey Plainsman

Smokey Plainsman Said:
Gang I've got some people telling me the old timers coned their rifles and never used a ball starter. They say starters are a modern invention.

Short Starters are a "fairly" modern invention that showed up in the percussion era.

There is no documentation generally available that shows short starters were used in the 18th century and the very early 19th century.

However, that doesn't mean the 18th century rifles were coned in the modern way they are coned. At most in the 18th century it seems they rounded the ends of the lands and grooves by hand with files and period abrasives.

There is also nothing in the historic record showing an 18th century Gunsmith's tool that could have done the modern deep coning.

Gus

 

[Bo T]

I just finished reading a post that indicated the use of a wooden rod without a muzzle protector would ultimately result in off center wear of the muzzle. Perhaps coning would have one purpose to restore the centricity to the bore at the muzzle, and after recrowning, restore accuracy to the piece?

 

[Rifleman1776]

Nathan, give it up. Black Hand will not concede. He has obsessed about "proof of" forever,, and rightly so.
"Coning" and "Short starters" are his personal triggers.
He's right. There is no American/stateside record found to date.
Nobody can prove a negative.
There's another topic in this section about birch stocks,, we can't prove a negative.
Back on topic.
In my 30+yrs of ML experience,, I have conned 2 rifles and 2 pistols. All 50 cal.
I saw no change in accuracy with those guns,, nor did I find it to be an advantage or disadvantage to the loading regime.

Gee!! Ya would think someone said "WD-40" here to cause all this flap. :shocked2: :rotf:

 

[Black Hand]

Let us remember that Wrought Iron was the original material used for gun barrels. Some say it is softer than modern barrels while others mention it is less prone to rusting than steel. Wrought may be more resistant to wear due to the Silica inclusions. I can't get a good line on its properties...

Anyone have metallurgical data on Wrought vs. Steel barrels? Zonie?

 

[BrownBear]

Visiting my sainted elderly mom late in her 10th decade right now, and she's telling stories of her granddad, born 1860. Guy evidently was a wise old man with lots of sayings from back in the day. Her favorite of his is this: "The guy knows everything in the world except that he's an idiot, and even I know that!"

 

[Black Hand]

As for the accusation that I am advancing a claim without evidence, I'm kind of stunned.

Not an accusation, a request for more information.

To the best of my knowledge there are no period treatises on building rifles from America at all, much less those discussing crowning techniques in detail, so the notion that the silence of period sources on coning is significant is preposterous. The only evidence we have are the original rifles themselves, and the only way to discuss them are to report what those of us who have actually handled and measured originals have to say.

So no treatises, rather descriptions of the rifle-building process. Without documentation, one must lean towards not accepting the premise. My worry is that period barrels may have worn at the muzzle and this was misinterpreted, as it is easy to see how a last few inches of the bore could wear due to flexing of the rammer (we have evidence this happens). As to measurements, are they concentric and have the bores been inspected for evidence of toolmarks indicative of some sort of purposeful enlargement?

I don't think that the commonality of coning for the 18th century is seriously disputed among collectors - when I got done measuring the Humble rifles I mentioned my findings regarding coning to Mel Hankla, and he seemed amused and said something to the effect of, "yeah, those early rifles are pretty much all coned." If you don't like what I have to say you can go talk to them, or read what John Baird wrote on Hawkens, or whatever.

I won't dispute this is the belief, but evidence to confirm is what I am searching for. Every tool leaves some sort of tell-tale mark....

As to the rest, we know that people can be wrong even if they have published a book.

 

[Artificer]

Gus,
Has something changed since you posted the message seen below?

11/10/17 07:32 AM - Post#1651181

In response to Smokey Plainsman

Smokey Plainsman Said:
Gang I've got some people telling me the old timers coned their rifles and never used a ball starter. They say starters are a modern invention.

Short Starters are a "fairly" modern invention that showed up in the percussion era.

There is no documentation generally available that shows short starters were used in the 18th century and the very early 19th century.

However, that doesn't mean the 18th century rifles were coned in the modern way they are coned. At most in the 18th century it seems they rounded the ends of the lands and grooves by hand with files and period abrasives.

There is also nothing in the historic record showing an 18th century Gunsmith's tool that could have done the modern deep coning.

Gus

Hi Blackhand,

The "triangular" pointed reamer shown in Diderot was most likely for chamfering the tops of screw holes, so the heads would go down flush or near flush - such as on the barrel tang and patch boxes. It also could have been used to slightly chamfer the bore at the muzzle to "break the sharp edge" left by cutting/filing the muzzle of the barrel. It appears too large to cut the shallow kind of "cone" in a muzzle, though. The piloted reamer shown would have cut a flat face perpendicular to the hole. It looks like it was used to cut the "flats" on rounded side plates for the heads of what we call the side lock screws or what they usually called the "side nails."

Now Diderot does not show a piloted reamer that "jumps out at you" as what we would call a "coning tool," though. (Honestly, I didn't expect to see one as most French guns in the period were smoothbores.)

I brought the information up because piloted reamers were known in the period for use on guns, though I don't have documentation they were used in the American Colonies with Rifles to "cone" them.

Gus

 

[Bo T]

Because of the non homogenous nature of wrought iron relative to modern steels, the increase of inclusions due to phosphorous and sulfur in the metal, and the fact the protective coating provided by such contaminates would be disrupted by firing and cleaning. I would guess the wear would be faster for the wrought iron. Wrought iron has been purported to weather much better than low carbon steels.

 

[Black Hand]

Thank you.
When you mentioned piloted reamer, it did bring to mind a picture of a coning tool with a bore-sized guide to keep it centered.

 

[Artificer]

I just finished reading a post that indicated the use of a wooden rod without a muzzle protector would ultimately result in off center wear of the muzzle. Perhaps coning would have one purpose to restore the centricity to the bore at the muzzle, and after recrowning, restore accuracy to the piece?

That is a possibility, but in the period to restore accuracy, they seem to have most often mentioned "freshening the bore or the rifling," which sometimes meant the scraped the lands and cut the grooves a bit deeper and that may or may not have included reaming the bore out to a slightly larger caliber - it all depended on how bad the shape of the bore was.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Thank you.
When you mentioned piloted reamer, it did bring to mind a picture of a coning tool with a bore-sized guide to keep it centered.

The point I was trying to make was they had the technology to make such a "coning reamer," even though I have never run across a reference for one.

That's the reason I asked about how concentric were the coned areas that Elnathan mentioned.

Gus

 

[Black Hand]

That's the reason I asked about how concentric were the coned areas that Elnathan mentioned.

I asked the same (above).

 

[Artificer]

That's the reason I asked about how concentric were the coned areas that Elnathan mentioned.

I asked the same (above).

Indeed and your question on tool marks was also excellent, BTW.

However, hand filing the lands and grooves and of course the wear and tear on the bores from use, could well obliterate tool marks made by a coning tool.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Let us remember that Wrought Iron was the original material used for gun barrels. Some say it is softer than modern barrels while others mention it is less prone to rusting than steel. Wrought may be more resistant to wear due to the Silica inclusions. I can't get a good line on its properties...

Anyone have metallurgical data on Wrought vs. Steel barrels? Zonie?

Hope Zonie has the material.

Maybe we can infer something by how commonplace "freshening" was in rifles? There was an Artificer or Gunsmith with the Lewis and Clark expedition who was recorded as having done some "freshening" to some of their rifles along the way.

Gus

 

[Black Hand]

However, hand filing the lands and grooves and of course the wear and tear on the bores from use, could well obliterate tool marks made by a coning tool.

I agree this is a possibility. Multiple types of supporting evidence would certainly help with this question...

 

[Zonie]

Engineeringnotes.com has a good description of wrought iron.

...Preparation of Wrought Iron:

It is prepared from pig iron by burning out C, Si, Mn, P and sulphur in a puddling furnace. So wrought iron is a purer form of pig iron. Pig iron contains 6% or more of these impurities but their percentage is reduced to about one per cent in wrought iron. Carbon content is reduced to about 0.02%.

In the process of purification of pig iron into wrought iron, a minute quantity of slag is incorporated into wrought iron and is uniformly distributed in it. The presence of slag gives fibrous structure to wrought iron.

Properties of Wrought Iron:

It can be readily worked and welded at temperature close to its melting point. It is ductile when cold and has good forming qualities. In resistance to corrosion, it is superior to mild steel. It has many practical applications owing to its ability to take on and hold protective metallic and paint coatings and its good machining and threading qualities. The mechanical properties of wrought iron are dependent upon the form of finished product.

Wrought iron does not contain impurities and is thus intensely soft. Due to very low carbon content its melting point is high and it cannot be used as casting alloy. Due to poor strength it has very little use. It cannot be heat treated for changing its physical properties.

Due to the presence of slag in wrought iron, it resists corrosion. It can be obtained in the form of plates, sheets, forged billets, structural shapes, bars, piping and tubing. The fibres tend to halt the crack slightly, rather than fracture outright if overloaded, and so give a warning of danger...

http://www.engineeringenotes.com/m...s-and-uses-metals-industries-metallurgy/20663

It's chemical makeup is


Element Content (%)
Iron, Fe 99-99.8
Carbon, C 0.05-0.25
Phosphorus, P 0.05-0.2
Silicon, Si 0.02-0.2
Sulfur, S 0.02-0.1
Manganese, Mn 0.01-0.1

It's mechanical properties are


Properties-- Metric-- Imperial
Tensile strength-- 234-372 MPa-- 34000-54000 psi
Yield strength-- 159-221 MPa-- 23000-32000 psi
Modulus of elasticity-- 193100 MPa-- 28000 psi
https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=9555

Typical yield strength of Hot Rolled AISI 1020 is 30 Ksi and tensile strength is 55 Ksi.

The slag inclusions typical of wrought iron are, according to some data, evenly distributed through out the material and give it its fibrous appearance. It is believed that these inclusions add to the toughness of the material.

Hardness testing of a number of wrought iron bridge components ranged from HRB 46 to 82 or Brinell 82-152.
Hot rolled AISI 1020 hardness is Brinell 111.


For the paper this information came from follow this link to a PDF file http://www.ecs.umass.edu/~arwade/iron.pdf

I didn't find any information on wrought irons elongation properties.

 

[Elnathan]

"My own original barrel shows the same .02 widening at the muzzle"

May I ask what caliber it is? Also do you mean .02" on each side of the diameter of the bore or .01" on each side of the bore?

Also, do you have a general idea of how concentric the coning was on original rifles you have seen and heard about? The reason I ask is because Diderot shows examples of both "triangular" shaped chamfering reamers as well as piloted reamers.

Gus

.01 on each side, .02 total widening. That is an rounded number, but it seems pretty consistent. The only barrel I have checked for concentrically is my own. That is something to add to my list of things to check, I guess. My method is to take a measurement just inside the bore, 1/32-1/16" so I get beyond any damage to the bore, and then take another measurement as deep as the internal readers of my calibers will read, and compare the two. Hard to get a good number, which is why I'm rounding to the nearest hundredth. Plus, with seven grooves I'm usually measuring from land to the bottom of a groove, so getting an actual caliber is surprising difficult. Evidently other people have the same problem.

Mine is a .38 mid-19th century cast steel barrel, and the rifling seems completely worn away - looking down the bore with the breech out I can see spirals but there hardly seems to be any height difference between lands and grooves, so it almost looks like the rifling is just drawn onto the bore. Very odd. If it wasn't so small in the bore, I'd suspect that it was deliberately bored out smooth. I was rather surprised to discover that it was coned, and I'm still open to the possibility that it is the result of wear, though I think wear over an deliberate cone is also a possibility.

Mine doesn't have the rifling filed out on the ends like the 18th century rifles I was looking at. In those, the rifling has been enlarged too, and a casual glance would make it look like nothing had been done at the muzzle. Had the barrel been worn by the rod sufficient cause an .02" funnel at the muzzle, the rifling would be near eradicated, and had been due to gas erosion (your suggestion that I was specifically looking for at the time) the ends of the rifling wouldn't look as crisp as they do. It was the very visible rifling and the consistency of that .02" that convinced me that I was looking at a deliberate feature and not wear. Up to then I considered it more likely that coning was the result of gas erosion and that the 18th and 19th century filing of the lands allowed them to loads easily despite the lack of crown.

I don't want to post my own pictures on the 'net, as I have been specifically asked not to do so by one man as a condition for allowing me to photograph his guns, and while others have not specifically made the same condition I'd rather be safe than sorry. Here are two pictures posted elsewhere, though, that illustrate what I am talking about:

Bridger Hawken

Dickert

I'm pretty sure that the Hawken is coned at .02", as is typical of Hawkens I'm told, but can't find that info just know. Not sure about the Dickert.

Nevertheless, for the moment assume that they have that .02" widening, and you'll be seeing pretty much what I have been looking at. No real crown, just a gentle rounding at the join, and visible rifling. Outside of assuming freakishly deep rifling, I can't see any way that cone could have been produced by wear and still leave that rifling intact.

I had a different theory until I went and measured inside some bores myself.

 

[necchi]

Bridger Hawken

I'm pretty sure that the Hawken is coned at .02",

Wow, so all of your argument of conning of historical arms as a professional that can't post his own photo's (as requested),, is based on 0.02 as shown in the photo above as historical evidence of "conning" by measurement?
That's not "conning". It's rubbing off the abrasive edge. I'm pretty sure I could do that with a dirty rag and thumb pressure as an apprentice.

 

[Elnathan]

Wow, so all of your argument of conning of historical arms as a professional that can't post his own photo's (as requested),, is based on 0.02 as shown in the photo above as historical evidence of "conning" by measurement?

Nope. The picture is there as a example of rifling and lack of crown. You can't see the cone in pictures, obviously.

I don't claim to be a "professional" either, just someone who takes a set of calipers and a notebook with him to gun shows. This is apparently unusual.

That's not "conning". It's rubbing off the abrasive edge. I'm pretty sure I could do that with a dirty rag and thumb pressure as an apprentice.

As a matter of fact, people do it now with a thumb and a bit of sandpaper.....