Huge Crown? Cone?

[nkbj]

I suppose this is going to be a theoretical subject matter because no one is going to claim to have improved their accuracy after rifling a blunderbuss but for shooting patched round ball, how big and deep do you think a crown gets before it becomes a detriment to accuracy?

Photos of your coned muzzles with info on your accuracy would be welcome as well. I do the typical minimal smoothing (as little as I can get by with) and would appreciate seeing what others have found works for them.

Meanwhile, as far as the size of the crown before it becomes detrimental it's really more a question of angle. Maybe a 45 degree angle would be OK no matter how big the "chamfer". How about a 60 degree? What do you think?

 

[Claude Mathis]

My flintlock is coned (using Joe Wood's coning tool), just enough to push the ball into the barrel, but still be snug. I don't know why anyone would do more than that?

 

[George]

You seem to be using "coned" and "crown" interchangeably. I don't think of them that way, so I'm not sure what you are looking for. The traditional. and I assume standard, muzzle treatment is to break the sharp edge of the bore at the muzzle so as not to cut patches, for instance, at least as I understand it. I think of coning as a widening of the bore by grinding the lands on a long taper reaching well into the bore, a couple of inches, maybe, widest at the muzzle.

I don't have a coned rifle, but can show a crowned one, if that will help.

Spence

 

[Rifleman1776]

You seem to be using "coned" and "crown" interchangeably. I don't think of them that way, so I'm not sure what you are looking for. The traditional. and I assume standard, muzzle treatment is to break the sharp edge of the bore at the muzzle so as not to cut patches, for instance, at least as I understand it. I think of coning as a widening of the bore by grinding the lands on a long taper reaching well into the bore, a couple of inches, maybe, widest at the muzzle.

I don't have a coned rifle, but can show a crowned one, if that will help.

Spence

Yep. That is how most understand the words are used. BTW, coneing is one of those never ending debate issues. Some claim it does not affect accuracy. Others feel much differently. I dunno, never had a coned barrel.

 

[hanshi]

Never had a "coned" barrel, either. I do round off the crown so it's a smooth start for the prb; and that does make a difference.

This is a "crown in progress". Still more work is needed to finish but it's well on the way.

 

[Zonie]

I make the crowns in the barrels I have used using a 45° coned grinding wheel.
I use this only using my fingers to rotate it and to provide the pressure needed to remove the material. I would never use a powered drill to power it even though that is what it was made for.

The coned stone and my fingers were all that was needed on this .54 caliber barrel after I cut the muzzle end off.



To my way of thinking, a 45°chamfer with its sharp edges remaining is a problem waiting to happen so after forming the crown I always use small squares of black, silicone carbide, "wet/dry" sandpaper and my thumb to round off any sharp edge where the chamfer meets the bore or the rifling grooves.

This is done by pushing the sandpaper down into the muzzle with my thumb and then rotating my hand back and forth while I slowly rotate the barrel with my other hand.

As there are no sharp edges remaining, the risk of patch cutting is eliminated.

 

[nkbj]

You seem to be using "coned" and "crown" interchangeably. I don't think of them that way, so I'm not sure what you are looking for. The traditional. and I assume standard, muzzle treatment is to break the sharp edge of the bore at the muzzle so as not to cut patches, for instance, at least as I understand it. I think of coning as a widening of the bore by grinding the lands on a long taper reaching well into the bore, a couple of inches, maybe, widest at the muzzle.

I don't have a coned rifle, but can show a crowned one, if that will help.

Spence

Yep. That is how most understand the words are used. BTW, coneing is one of those never ending debate issues. Some claim it does not affect accuracy. Others feel much differently. I dunno, never had a coned barrel.

Yep, hence my asking. There's enough experience running loose on this board to figure out how much is too much if only in the broad and general anecdotal terms of where one noticed a difference in accuracy.

I've used conical stones, emery paper under my thumb, even made up a conical wooden plug once upon a time slit to hold the paper that worked pretty good. But I haven't really "coned" one (yet :wink: ).

Any how, thought I try to get a cooperative discussion going on the matter. :v

 

[Billnpatti]

I have coned a couple of my rifles and it did not seem to effect the accuracy in any way. When doing anything to the muzzle of your rifle, such as coning, it is imperative that you not get the crown off center in any way. That can effect accuracy in a negative manner. The coning device that I have is made of solid brass and is conical in shape. I do not know the angle but it is a long cone. To make sure that it is properly aligned in the bore, it has the tip of the cone tapped for a jag that properly fits your bore. In use, you will wrap varying grades of emery paper around the cone and use a tap wrench to turn the cone in your muzzle. It is a slow process but in the end, the loading will be easier and smooths the rifling at the muzzle so that you will not cut patches when you start the ball down the bore. I still need to do my other rifles.

 

[stubshaft]

Go to the "stickies" at the beginning and click on "Coning".

 

[coloradoclyde]

Go to the "stickies" at the beginning and click on "Coning".

Here's the link...
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/223037/

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

Thanks, guys. I just sent Joe Wood an email to get one of his coning tools for my Lyman GPR. I'd love to be able to dispense with the short starter for target shooting and hunting.

 

[hanshi]

It seems, then, that we do the crowning the same way. And it really does work.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

Guys before I order this rather costly tool ($50) to cone my rifle, I have a question:

Will it allow me to ditch a short starter when hunting and target shooting? Especially if I swab the bore every couple or three shots?

 

[FishDFly]

Ask the vendor when you order, what is his recommendation and backup gurantee?????

 

[Loyalist Dave]

I have such a tool, and I've coned two barrels for friends, but not my own. It does allow for thumb starting. They say accuracy didn't suffer, but I have only their word that accuracy was what I'd call "good" or "great" before I started.

I was at first going to do my own rifle, but found I could force the ball level with the muzzle with my knife. So I carved the butt of my knife like the tip of my ramrod, and the balls go just below the muzzle, and I can cut my patches.

:idunno:

LD

 

[nkbj]

Could you post a photo of the tool you use?

 

[Loyalist Dave]

That's a good question..., I will see if my teenager (the computer hardware/software whizkid) can help me with that...,

LD

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Will it allow me to ditch a short starter when hunting and target shooting? Especially if I swab the bore every couple or three shots?

It sure will - ditch it! FWIW I cone all my MZL rifles and haven't touched a short starter since ...

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

Sounds good. I read a member in the thread I made about short starters and bullet boards say that this style of coning was not a real thing in the 18th-19th century. Any thoughts on whether or not the Joe Wood coning tool would produce historically correct coning?

 

[OldNo7]

My flintlock is coned (using Joe Wood's coning tool), just enough to push the ball into the barrel, but still be snug. I don't know why anyone would do more than that?

I coned my T/C .45 Cherokee using my twin's "Joe Wood's tool" and there was no negative impact on the accuracy at all.

If it shot any better, then it was because I had more confidence in the rifle and/or the patched ball entered the rifling easier, rather than being punched-in with the short starter.

Will it allow me to ditch a short starter when hunting and target shooting? Especially if I swab the bore every couple or three shots?

That's why I did mine -- for easier loading without a short starter.

Back when I did mine, I was running on rawhide snowshoes in Primitive Biathlon's (Dalton NH) and the coning saved time while loading at the shooting station.

(There was no "undersized lead balls held in the mouth with loading on the run" like they did in the old days allowed on that course; then again, there were no in'juns chasing us...)

Old No7