Huge Crown? Cone?

[Flint62Smoothie]

Any thoughts on whether or not the Joe Wood coning tool would produce historically correct coning?

I've seen more evidence to support that original longrifles were coned, than were not ...

Wallace Gusler and Peter Alexander have displayed many an original rifle with coned muzzles.

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

I see, but someone said in a different thread it wasn't the same kind of coning... I am just really confused. I'd like to do it to my squirrel rifle to avoid having to carry a ball starter in my hunting pouch. I would like to keep my kit as authentic and simple as I can for hunting squirrel and rabbit and woods plinking.

 

[jbwilliams3]

I see, but someone said in a different thread it wasn't the same kind of coning... I am just really confused. I'd like to do it to my squirrel rifle to avoid having to carry a ball starter in my hunting pouch. I would like to keep my kit as authentic and simple as I can for hunting squirrel and rabbit and woods plinking.

Looking at the bores of old rifles, you don’t see the modern smooth crown that so many folks use today. As other have pointed out, however, there is evidence of “coning” or “relieving” of the muzzle on many old guns by filing back the lands a bit. Mike Miller wrote about his process of hand coning in this fashion a few years back. I had one rifle with a hand coned muzzle.

I did use Joe Woods coning tool last fall on a gun that was rifled with a tapered reamer. I didn’t go crazy at the muzzle, but it’s now relieved enough to thumb start. I don’t think that level of coning (as in one to two inches down the bore) was common, but it’s also not really perceptible, unless you’re taking the rifling down almost to the level of the lands, which I did not. I’ve seen some rifles cones that way and it looks almost like a smooth rifle for the first inch.

So, does Joe Woods’ coning tool produce a historically accurate muzzle? It will probably LOOK more accurate than a rifle with a modern crown. The most historical muzzle would be rifled all the way to the end of the muzzle, with the last inch or so of the lands filed down or “relieved” to make loading a patched ball possible. Rifles with a fancy muzzle treatment (as Don Getz called the “hiney treatment”) look cool, and is historical, but probably wouldn’t have been all that common on colonial guns. Maybe more so on high-end euro guns?

 

[Artificer]

I see, but someone said in a different thread it wasn't the same kind of coning... I am just really confused. I'd like to do it to my squirrel rifle to avoid having to carry a ball starter in my hunting pouch. I would like to keep my kit as authentic and simple as I can for hunting squirrel and rabbit and woods plinking.

Modern “Coning” Tools, as made by Jim Wood (caliber specific) and Ed Hamberg (“Universal” due to a very long taper), was not the way Muzzle Relief/Relieving were done in the old days. These require a fine grit Emory Cloth (sand paper for metal) that was not available before or during the 18th/ and most of the 19th centuries. (Yes, I know “glass paper” and some types of abrasive paper were available, but not the same thing as Modern Emory Cloth.) Also while they could have made long tapered tools like the one made by Ed Hamberg, making “caliber specific” tools was not practical, even if it might have been possible in the period.

Barrel Crowning tools are different than “Coning” tools. Since I’m not sure most people know what a modern crowning tool looks like (that can be used on ML’ers as well as modern guns), I have provided the link below. The cylinder part on right end of the tool is the pilot that has to pretty precisely match the bore diameter. It is removable and can be replaced by other diameter pilots. Different pilots are turned to match the bore sizes for different calibers. The cylinder part in the middle with the cutters on it is the actual crowning tool. The cross bar on the left end is the handle to turn the crowning tool by hand. (Oh, this tool far less often known as a “Muzzle Chamfering Tool as well.) http://www.brownells.com/userdocs/Products/p_080588454_1.jpg

Now, what is important to know about Modern Crowning Tools is that they won’t make it easy to start the PRB unless they are used to cut so much metal away that it would look nothing like a period barrel crown.

18th century and earlier barrel makers/gunsmiths DID have a tool that would cut a flat and angled edge all around the interior of the bore at both ends, similar to what we call “Muzzle Crowning” today, though not quite the same thing. That tool is illustrated as “fig. 33” on this page of Diderot’s Encyclopedia from the link following this paragraph. This tool would have been used to cut into both ends of the barrel a few thousandths of an inch in what modern machinists call “breaking” or “relieving the edge” to remove the sharp edge around bore. However, this was not today’s precision crowning tool, as it has no pilot to ensure the cut angle in the barrel metal was consistent all around the bore. This tool was also used to “break the (sharp) edge” of other holes drilled through metal as in the lock plate holes and side plate holes. http://artflx.uchicago.edu/images/encyclopedie/V18/plate_18_9_4.jpeg

18th century through at least early 19th century rifle muzzles were “relieved” by hand using hand files. This meant the edges of the lands and grooves were rounded so the edges would not cut/tear the patching material as the PRB was loaded. What we don’t know for sure is how far back into the bore from the muzzle that this filed rounding COULD have been done. Many original barrels show it was 1/8 inch or less, if it was done that far in. What we do know is the funneling could not have been far back into the muzzle, though, and still remained uniform. I personally don’t believe they used hand files to “cone” or “funnel” the bore back ½” to 1” as some suggest. Too difficult to do it evenly and uniformly. (If you doubt this, take some needle files and see what it would take to do that by hand on a scrap piece of cut off barrel.)

OK, Diderot’s Encyclopedia and other original documentation on gunsmithing do not show all the tools that gunsmiths used. There is no doubt some gunsmiths thought up and made some tools that other gunsmiths did not think of. So we can’t rule out some other kind of tool to funnel (cone) the end of a rifle bore just because it isn’t listed in the very few period sources we have.

There are two period ways I can think of to “funnel” or deeply “cone” the muzzles, as we think of it from using modern coning tools.

One way is that a tapered mandrel was inserted or driven into the bore to form the funnel while the barrel was forge welded. The problem with that idea is the funneled/coned area would not have been uniform to the finish reamed bore. As carefully and as finely as they could finish ream a barrel bore, I highly doubt they would have done it that way.

The second way would be more likely, IF it was done at all and I have to say I’m not convinced funneling was often and deliberately done for a number of reasons. They could have taken a wooden rod with finishing reamer cutters and mounted the cutters at a very small angle. This could have been done by placing a paper shim under just the rear of the cutters. We know they used paper shims under the cutters when they finish reamed the bores. This funneling/coning reaming would almost have to have been done during or after the barrel was finish reamed, but before the barrel was rifled. The problem to prove that is there are no period references to anything like that funneling/coning procedure having been done.

There is another problem with the whole idea of them funneling or coning the bores of rifles in the period. For there to have been a need or desire to have it done, the ball sizes and patch material would have to have been much more precise and tight fitting then they were capable of making without precision tools and gauges. IOW, I believe we are looking for a way to justify our modern tighter fitting balls and patch material while hoping to find a period method that would allow them to be started in the bore without a short starter.

Finally, I personally believe that what some folks believe is “funneling or coning” in original barrel muzzles is actually wear/burning on the Dead Soft Iron of the barrel from the gasses inside the barrel igniting into the “muzzle flash,” when those gasses hit the oxygen rich environment of the atmosphere. We KNOW that the touch holes burned out larger from this, but we don’t tend to think about it being done at the muzzle end. The burning/wear would not have been as great as at the vent hole, but it still would have been there even as it burnt/eroded the muzzle slower than the vent hole.

Gus

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

I see. So today's shooters use a tighter patch and ball combo than the men of the old times... so we see these "artifacts" at the muzzle of old guns and warp that into things like the Joe Wood Coning Tool, because we also know that short starters were fictional during that time period so we want to avoid them. But the old timers had none of that and just used looser patch and ball?

 

[Artificer]

We can't be absolutely sure that none of the 18th century rifle shooters had an extremely tight fitting ball and patch combo because there does not seem to be an original 18th century rifle in "new in the box" condition and with the original mold supplied by the rifle maker. It is possible that such an original rifle may have had a fairly tight fitting ball/patch combo, but it does not seem likely many had them.

Further, there is not much documentation on how rifles were loaded. Please note the one great documentation that forum member Elnathan originally provided:

"James Audubon, c1810, describing his host preparing to go raccoon hunting:

"”¦ He blows through his rifle to ascertain that it is clear, examines his flint, and thrusts a feather into the touch-hole. To a leathern bag swung at his side is attached a powder-horn; his sheath-knife is there also; below hangs a narrow strip of homespun linen. He takes from his bag a bullet, pulls with his teeth the wooden stopper from his powder-horn, lays the ball in one hand, and with the other pours the powder upon it until it is just overtopped. Raising the horn to his mouth, he again closes it with the stopper, and restores it to its place. He introduces the powder into the tube; springs the box of his gun, greases the "patch" over with some melted tallow, or damps it; then places it on the honey-combed muzzle of his piece. The bullet is placed on the patch over the bore, and pressed with the handle of the knife, which now trims the edge of the linen. The elastic hickory rod, held with both hands, smoothly pushes the ball to its bed; once, twice, thrice has it rebounded. The rifle leaps as it were into the hunters arms, the feather is drawn from the touch-hole, the powder fills the pan, which is closed. “Now I’m ready,” cries the woodsman”¦.
Journals, Vol. 2, (1972 reprint), page 492."

Some forum members in this thread and others have mentioned using their knife handle to get the ball below the surface of the muzzle, as in this original quote above, and then using just the wood ramrod to get the PRB down the bore. Some of these members have reported using very tight fitting patch/ball combinations they normally use today and successfully with this procedure to start and then ram the ball down.

Gus

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

Than you, Gus. That is very informative! So it seems as if wants to do it "as they did", one historical method would be to use one's patch knife to seat the ball with the knife then use the knife to cut the patch strip, then use the ramrod to seat the ball fully?

Perhaps I need to invest in a good patch knife with a flat end for seating balls...

 

[Artificer]

Than you, Gus. That is very informative! So it seems as if wants to do it "as they did", one historical method would be to use one's patch knife to seat the ball with the knife then use the knife to cut the patch strip, then use the ramrod to seat the ball fully?

Perhaps I need to invest in a good patch knife with a flat end for seating balls...

The problem with the original quote about pressing the ball with the handle of the knife is there could have been TWO ways of doing it.

The first is if the knife had two wood scales and the ball was pressed with the flat of one side. Some forum members have tried this with success and Wick Ellerbe has even made one knife handle that has a rounded impression that matches the diameter of the ball.

Now, many, many 18th/early 19th century trade knives of the butcher or scalper variety had solid wood handles. The knife makers hand saw cut a slit along the length to insert the 1/3 or 1/2 tang of the knife blade and the blade was affixed with iron pins and cutlers resin. IOW, these knives often did not have a full length tang that would be covered by handle/grip scales. That would have made the rear end of the knife handle solid, so it could be used to press the ball in the muzzle when the cutting portion of the blade was vertical to the ground. I am not sure, but I don't think anyone has reported they did it that way, unless this is how Loyalist Dave means he does it. (Never quite figured out what he meant by making the rear of his knife so it would push the patched ball just below the muzzle of his barrel.)

Oh, having written all this, I have to admit I have never used my knife or knives to press in a PRB into the muzzle of my rifle. I cheat and use a short starter when hunting or target shooting and just leave the short starter in the car or at home when doing living histories. However, I'm thinking about trying it once my eyes get a little better.

Gus

 

[ZUG]

This is how I do my barrel crowning/mild coning. The abrasive stone enters the barrel about 1/2" or just enough to remove the lands from the bore's face at the end of the barrel. I finish it off with 400 grit paper. I have not noticed any accuracy degrading from this style of muzzle treatment but it DOES make loading much easier.

 

[George]

The problem with the original quote about pressing the ball with the handle of the knife is there could have been TWO ways of doing it.

Or maybe three...the flat of the handle, the end of the handle, or the flat of the blade. I use either the flat side of the handle or the flat of the blade of my belt knife, or the flat of the blade of my patch knife, if I'm carrying one. When I do it, I don't push the the into the muzzle, I lay the knife on the ball at the muzzle and give it a sharp bump with the heel of my hand. That pushes it mostly into the muzzle and does all the hard part of loading it, the deformation of the ball, if that's going to happen. I then use the end of the handle to push it down a bit more, just to complete the engagement with the rifling. After that, you don't have to bend any lead, the only resistance is from the friction of sliding the patched ball down the bore,, and the ramrod, choked up short, is OK for that.

OT Warning: These discussions of coning remind me of the old original smooth rifle I have. It has a hammer-forged barrel from late 18th century, and demonstrates a form I see described in the literature from that time. In 1790 Cleator said: "Some make the barrel wider for three or four inches at the muzzle ; and this bell-mouthed form is of very ancient date.", and describing Spanish barrels: "At ten or twelve inches from the breech is placed a sight, such as is usually put upon rifle barrels, or upon those intended to shoot ball only, and the muzzles are in general a little bell-mouthed." In The Perfect Gun of 1718, the Portuguese authors say: ".... this width ending in diminution at the aforesaid distance, to be followed by the equality of the barrel as far as the last three fingers of the muzzle, which shall also have the width of exactly one adarme, and this shall diminish inside the muzzle, finishing at the end of three fingers." In other words, the bore is even until it gets to within three fingers of the muzzle, then it expands.

My old gun is a 28 gauge, .55 caliber from the breech to within about 1 3/4 inches of the muzzle, then it expands to 20 gauge, .615 caliber. It was interesting learning to load it using the various methods I'm played around with. Any soft wading, tow, hornet nest, cedar bark is easy, just dump it in the bell mouth and ram it down. Same for shot or bare ball, just dump them in and down they go. Those old boys knew a thing or two.

With patched ball it's a different story, and that may be a clue to answering the question of whether they ever did use PRB in smoothbores in the day. If you try to load PRB and cut at the muzzle, you get nowhere. The .54 ball lying on the patch at the wide muzzle just rattles around in the big hole when you try to cut the patch, doesn't really work. The only way I've been able to use PRB in the gun is with precut patches. With those, if you are very careful, you can center the patch, then the ball, then push them down a bit with your finger until they engage, then you can ram it home. It works, but it's slow and fussy.

Sorry for the divergence from the topic, this bell shaped form isn't coning, it just looks like it.

I've never seen anything written in the old days to indicate they coned rifles in the modern sense, would like to see some if it's available.

Spence

 

[hanshi]

I've loaded and shot lots of lead without a short starter in my early years by using the ramrod with a choked up grip and no knife blade to get it started. Hands are too bad to do that nowadays.

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

Good point on a third way to use the knife to initially load the PRB.

VERY interesting info from the Perfect Gun about belling at the muzzle. Just HAVE to ask, does it mention how they formed or cut that belling at the mouth of the barrel?

Oh, and this follow up may be way out there, but could they possibly have used patched balls with that type of bore where the patching material was sewn around the balls? I don't know how early they did that, but they did do that on Baker Rifles at the start of the 19th century.

Gus

 

[George]

VERY interesting info from the Perfect Gun about belling at the muzzle. Just HAVE to ask, does it mention how they formed or cut that belling at the mouth of the barrel?

It has been a long time since I read that book, Gus, and it's a very difficult one. They mention "rods" which I take to be some sort of tool which they worked on the bore with...maybe reamers? The first part of the above quotation discusses the fact that the breech was enlarged, too, as was the ancient custom, larger at both breech and muzzle. They say:

"The barrel of the Gun shall be fashioned for better aim, and range of the shots, both in the forge and with the file, with the circumstances which we recommend, and when it has been wholly completed, everything inside being even, it shall be enlarged by the breech with the same rods to the width of half an adarme, to the distance of two palms forwards, and this width we do not exceed, because use of the fire may increase it, and this excess will not have any worse effect, this width ending in diminution at the aforesaid distance, to be followed by the equality of the barrel a far as the last three fingers of the muzzle, which shall also have the width of exactly one adarme, and this shall diminish inside the muzzle, finishing at the end of three fingers."

Notice that they mention fire erosion of the bore at the breech.

Oh, and this follow up may be way out there, but could they possibly have used patched balls with that type of bore where the patching material was sewn around the balls?

An excellent thought. I have no real early references to leather patches being sewn on balls. Those few are only military, if I remember correctly, and not associated with bell-mouth bores. That would solve my problem with the old bell-mouth smoothbore, though. Hmmmm....my wife is a seamstress, I wonder....Nah.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

Spence,

Thank you! There is actually a lot of interesting stuff there in those very few sentences.

I would agree it would almost have to have been some kind of reamer cutters (on rods) used to bell the breech and mouth, because they talk about the barrel already being uniform before they did it.

This is also a VERY early reference to breech erosion, as you so deftly pointed out. It would seem to suggest they guessed or knew that the powder all burned up near the breech and not the old myth about it burning all the way to the muzzle. That tells me they examined gun bores over a period of use and kept track of such things with an early scientific interest.

More and more I hope I can find a copy of that book.

Gus

 

[Nativearizonan]

On occasions when I did not have a ball starter, I have used the handle of a screw driver, and that was on several occasions. It worked well enough I put off buying a starter for some time. I used the rounded plastic end of the screw driver handle, which will set the ball slightly back from the muzzle, but not nearly as far as a starter will. It was enough so that I was able to push it on down with a ramrod. I never saw any deformation of the ball from doing that, even though I was using a convex, rather than concave surface to push with.

 

[George]

Amazon has one copy, hardback, $65, but I notice in the ad that they have links to "new and used" with one for $15.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

That's interesting.

Since I purchased the accessory kit with my brand new TC Hawken in Jan. 1972, I always had a short starter, so I never tried to load without one.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

Thanks Spence,

I will check that out. I am a little leary of Amazon as I bought my first copy of "A Catalogue of Tools for Watch and Clock Makers" Hardcover ”“ October, 1978 by John Wyke in the early 2000's after looking in vain everywhere else. This was before Winterthur published more copies. I paid $ 119.00 for a very good used one. I found a second almost NEW copy a few months later for $ 42.00.

However, I do very much appreciate you looking it up for me.

Gus

 

[George]

It's a very interesting book, with a lot of surprising detail. Things invented apparently in late 17th century.... the principle of the Ferguson rifle, the screw-barrel pistol, tapered bore, ball wrapped in oiled leather, spiral rifling, crowned muzzle, swamped barrel, proof testing, etc., etc. Everything old is new again.

Spence

 

[Elnathan]

Thanks Spence,

I will check that out. I am a little leary of Amazon as I bought my first copy of "A Catalogue of Tools for Watch and Clock Makers" Hardcover ”“ October, 1978 by John Wyke in the early 2000's after looking in vain everywhere else. This was before Winterthur published more copies. I paid $ 119.00 for a very good used one. I found a second almost NEW copy a few months later for $ 42.00.

However, I do very much appreciate you looking it up for me.

Gus

bookfinder.com