AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Black Powder Shooting => Topic started by: yip on November 10, 2013, 04:23:29 AM
-
I hope this hasn't been asked before, but should a short starter be used on a coned barrel? I've been using a short starter for years. just wondering,
-
I have 2-3 guns that are coned. No need for a SS if properly done. one less item to carry in the shooting bag.
-
There is certainly no reason why you can't use a short starter with a coned barrel, it won't hurt anything. If you're loading a very tight patch and ball combination and you find it difficult to load without a short starter, go ahead and use it whether or not the barrel is coned. Some barrels I've seen that are deemed "coned" by the rifle owner are really little more than a slightly enlarged crown and still require a short starter for loading a tight ball and patch combination. If you need to use a short starter, use one. It's your call and no harm done.
Mole Eyes
-
All my rifle barrels are coned therefore I dont have a need for a short starter. To me its just a personal preference. If you want and like using one then by all means get er done ;D
-
The reason for coning the muzzle, is to eliminate the short starter, so why would you cone the muzzle, and then elect to use a short starter? It just seems a lot like the department of redundancy department, to me.
Hungry Horse
-
my barrel is an Ed Rayl 44" long and I use a .490 ball with a 16 thousand patch, any ideas?
-
"Should?" "May," maybe, but not "should."
Your ball/patch combo should work fine w/o a short starter in a coned barrel. If you are a member of the Taylor & Daryl Really Tight Fit Club, you may still find a short starter effecatious.
-
Kermit, are you 'dissing' the "Never have to wipe all day Society"? Ha!!
-
If you are a member of the Taylor & Daryl Really Tight Fit Club, you may still find a short starter efficacious.
Exactly,
While a conned muzzle may well facilitate a thump pressure seating for the required "cut at the muzzle" or getting the PRB below muzzle,,
A short start may still be needed to begin that "rifling impartment" of the lands through the patch to the ball.
Once the initial "crush" of a tight fitting combo has been made the main rod will be easier to use.
There is no "Should" rule here, it's all about what's easiest for the individual and how he wants to load.
-
O.K. now you guys really have me confused. I have been led to believe that the coned muzzle is the method used in the past to load a "hunting" rifle without a short started. I personally have never seen an antique target rifle with a coned muzzle. In fact, I have seen several old target rifles that have no crown at all. Why then would you need to generate a load that is so tight that you need a coned muzzle, and a short starter to make it work? This sounds a lot like the shooters I shot with 35, or 40 years ago that had to have a short starter, and a mallet, and a rigid metal range rod, and heaven knows what else, to get their load down the barrel. This is starting to sound like its a lot more about all the junk you drag to the range, than it is actual shooting.
Hungry Horse
-
I see what you're saying, HH...
I don't use coned muzzles myself. Don't even know for sure if they are truly authentic, and if so, to what time period?
Makes more sense to me that if you were hunting local in friendly territory you might just use a tight patch & ball combination.
If hunting in questionable territory where danger is always a real possibility (man or beast) you might just use a looser patch and ball combination to speed up loading while laying low behind that log trying to load, or trying to load on the run. Or - simply use no patch at all if danger presents itself?
So, this brings up another thought. Who in their right mind would venture into dangerous territory with the tightest fitting patch and ball combination they can come up with? I wouldn't... I believe it's a trade off of giving up some accuracy for quick loading self protection follow up shots.
It's very possible that first load in the barrel is a tight fitting patch & ball for best accuracy, but what about the following loads???
So if any of this is the case, why have a coned muzzle?
Just my .02 worth.
-
O.K. now you guys really have me confused. I have been led to believe that the coned muzzle is the method used in the past to load a "hunting" rifle without a short started. I personally have never seen an antique target rifle with a coned muzzle. In fact, I have seen several old target rifles that have no crown at all. Why then would you need to generate a load that is so tight that you need a coned muzzle, and a short starter to make it work? This sounds a lot like the shooters I shot with 35, or 40 years ago that had to have a short starter, and a mallet, and a rigid metal range rod, and heaven knows what else, to get their load down the barrel. This is starting to sound like its a lot more about all the junk you drag to the range, than it is actual shooting.
Hungry Horse
First if you shot against the people I do you would KNOW why you need a tight load. And tight is apparently in the shooters mind in many cases. For years I loaded with most people call tight loads in 50-54 calibers with no starter at all still do with one rifle.
Second most hard loading has little to do with the ball/patch fit once started but with the lube used. Lube can also effect hard starting.
Second as you point out the funneling done today as "coning" is a modern construct invented for people who, frankly, don't know how to load a round ball rifle or apparently HOW it should be loaded for best accuracy. A considerable number of the people shooting ML rifles today are re-enactors not riflemen.
Many of the old "no crown" rifles are actually crowned but in a manner that is described in John Baird's "Hawken Rifles..." and are choked as well.
Dan
-
I see what you're saying, HH...
I don't use coned muzzles myself. Don't even know for sure if they are truly authentic, and if so, to what time period?
Makes more sense to me that if you were hunting local in friendly territory you might just use a tight patch & ball combination.
If hunting in questionable territory where danger is always a real possibility (man or beast) you might just use a looser patch and ball combination to speed up loading while laying low behind that log trying to load, or trying to load on the run. Or - simply use no patch at all if danger presents itself?
So, this brings up another thought. Who in their right mind would venture into dangerous territory with the tightest fitting patch and ball combination they can come up with? I wouldn't... I believe it's a trade off of giving up some accuracy for quick loading self protection follow up shots.
It's very possible that first load in the barrel is a tight fitting patch & ball for best accuracy, but what about the following loads???
So if any of this is the case, why have a coned muzzle?
Just my .02 worth.
Loading a tight load is no different than a loose one if the patch lube is correct at least not for the amount shooting needed for hunting. For match shooting? I generally wipe.
The time needed to load a tight load vs a loose one is not significant. In the modern context the fastest ACCURATE reload is often something like this rather than fumbling with patch and ball and powder measure.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FML%2520Guns%2FP1020710.jpg&hash=ef0430736e3b0e2bcea2a6057ce2a3e850da5250)
I can't believe these were no used in rifles back in the day. Though they are only good for 2-3 repeat shots at least if the paper is not greased. I have not tried greased paper for these.
The British used to sew the patches to the balls for the Baker rifle . Just a couple of stitches to keep it in place until loaded. They also used 2 different ball sizes one for precision use and one for rapid fire. But this is impractical.
I now and then hunt in occupied Gbear habitat and I don't change my load. I do carry a paper cartridge or two since Daryl told me about them and I tried them.
Dan
-
Kermit, are you 'dissing' the "Never have to wipe all day Society"? Ha!!
Absolutely not! I figure to each his/her own ball/patch devices. I don't have a dog in this fight, and don't want to. Each to his/her own, just so long as it doesn't involve discussion of inliners, stainless barrels, plastic stocks, pelleted propellants, saboted slugs...
;D :D ;D :D ;D
-
For target shooting, I often use a short starter and a rubber mallet, plus a range rod; if I had a coned barrel that needed one or all to be comfortable, I'd use them. The mallet isn't strictly necessary, but my hands are so messed up (various causes) that whacking the short starter is just an additional irritant I don't need most of the time. Offhand shooting at targets in line matches is most likely not exactly authentic to the long rifle period, either, so what difference does it make? In the woods, etc., I load with the rifle's own rod and can load my "match combination" that way, although I have adequately good shooting alternatives that load much easier.
If the barrel isn't coned and loading is hard, I would recommend checking out Daryl's various post on slightly relieving/smoothing the muzzle crown. It will cut down on torn patches and make tight loads fairly easy. I don't see it causes any problems with accuracy, but I cant say I'd trust coning, which is much more radical.
-
This sounds a lot like the shooters I shot with 35, or 40 years ago that had to have a short starter, and a mallet, and a rigid metal range rod, and heaven knows what else, to get their load down the barrel..
Uhm, ::)
maybe it's time to step out on the range again,,,,
Sorry, I didn't read into the topic that it was HC or PC,, I thought it was about using a short starter or not.
If Henry, Tom and Dan don't want to use a short starter,
and
Fred, Jeff and Bill do use a short starter,,
Which of the two groups is right about how John loads his, rifle?
-
Either group can tell John how to load his rifle. John will likely try both ways. Then he'll see that Fred Jeff and Bill place first second and third in the winners' circle, and that may or may not influence how he loads his own rifle.
-
all replies are appreciated, I plan to erase one move from my loading procedure, and hate to not use my coned muzzle as intended, but??????????
-
And so the argument continues........... Funny how no one ever changes sides.
-
Either group can tell John how to load his rifle. John will likely try both ways. Then he'll see that Fred Jeff and Bill place first second and third in the winners' circle, and that may or may not influence how he loads his own rifle.
X2
TC
-
It is a never ending discussion. I don't understand the need to eliminate a step in loading a muzzleloading rifle. One could take this to extreme and use a.470 ball in a 50 caliber, eliminate the patch, then you wouldn't even need a ramrod- eliminate another step! Of course, accuracy would suffer, but, hey, we're reenacting; who cares if you can hit anything.
More seriously- I have been shooting muzzleloaders for over forty years- most of them .32, .36, .38 and .40 caliber. In all of them, I use a bore size ball, .017 patching lubed with saliva for match shooting and olive oil for hunting. I have always used a short starter and have never felt the need to eliminate that step in loading.
Be Well,
Bill
-
The use of a starter is so routine, that when I used paper ctgs. for backup loads for hunting, I had to practice using them until I stopped grabbing my starter from my bag's strap. In my 14 bore, I found I should shoot 10 shots with paper ctgs. before I had to clean the bore. The easiest way of doing that, was to load 85gr. 2F and a spit-lubed .022" patch with the .684" ball - using the short starter to get it started and the rifle's hickory rod to send it home. Firing this effectively cleaned the bore and allowed another 10 ctg.s to be fired - which - BTW - gave identical accuracy to a tight ball and patch combination - to 100yards. The rifling actually engraved in the paper patch and the rod had to be choked up on, to get that started. Once started, a single push would seat it easily. Including capping, aiming and rifling, they gave an 8 second reload & second shot.
No cone!
LB had a coned barrel - on his first .40 rifle. I gave him some of the .400" pure lead round balls (Lyman mould) that I was using and even with a starter, he had a LOT of trouble starting and loading them- indeed, complained about it. I assume his difficulty loading was due to the long tapered angle of his coned muzzle.
A long gentle taper is not the correct shape for the "drawing" process of forming the ball and patch into the rifling. Corbin shows this very aspect of cold forming tapered and angles in their written documentation on the physics of what is required for the drawing of metals. Those .400" balls were quite easily and still are quite easily loaded in my non-coned .40 barrel- with it's short radius'd crown.
Related directly to this subject of drawing angles, was a die I modified for reducing .375" bullets to .366" bullets. I used a commercial ctg. sizing die with long gentle taper that produced the end result I required - changing a .375 bullet to a .366" bullet- however the pressure needed was too much for the compound bench press I was using - indeed, I was afraid the die itself would explode, it took so much pressure to operate. I read Corbin's literature then used a reamer I had, to introduce a shorter, 45 degree, finishing in a very short 3 degree section from the .375" measurement to .365" measurement. This 'tiny' alteration made a huge difference in the pressure required to 'draw' the .375's down to .366" (.001" spring-back), indeed, no more pressure than FL sizing a magnum ctg. in that press. That was a huge difference and merely the length of the step-down made the difference. thus, I could now use cheap, easy to find .375's in my European 9.3 rifles.
What has this to do with coned muzzles vs. crowned ones? The angle of the crown makes ALL the difference. If too long a taper - the effort required is actually increased over that needed for the short angle - ie: crowning as "WE" now use.
I freely admit that a loose combination might be more easily loaded in a coned muzzle- maybe - but a tight combination that needs a starter (easier on the rifle's wrist), is more easily loaded if the angles are shorter.
imho, of course.
-
...Daryls,
My latter "Packdog" rifle is coned too, but only about a 1/2 inch. With a .020 patch,.395RB, I still use a starter and precuts.I find cutting at the muzzle with a cone a PITA. Takes some effort to load tight,but the end results are favorable. Daryls, I told you, we should've kept this a secret. Imagine the ass we could kick in competitions down in Yangeze land? Oh well,the cats outta the bag. Now all these southern miscreants can shoot good too,$#@*!
-
True - LB - but only IF they weren't stuck on thumbing the ball into the muzzle & HAVING to wipe every shot due to fouling buildup.
-
The use of a starter is so routine...
Related directly to this subject of drawing angles, ... The angle of the crown makes ALL the difference. If too long a taper - the effort required is actually increased over that needed for the short angle - ie: crowning as "WE" now use.
... but a tight combination that needs a starter ..., is more easily loaded if the angles are shorter.
imho, of course.
this is good information. thanks
-
When people start talking about coned muzzles I ask about group sizes.
Seldom is there an answer.
I know that a decent barrel on a windless day will shoot into 1" or a little more at 100.
A really exceptional barrel like those Jim McLemore makes will almost shoot through a ball sized hole at 100.
So if someone wants to know about coned barrels ask a barrel maker. OR take a barrel, work up a load using a 8 or 10X scope till the accuracy is maxed out. Record the groups. Then cone it in stages and see how the accuracy goes. This is assuming the shooter has a good benchrest technique and can shoot small groups.
Until someone does this I will stand by the opinion that coning hurts accuracy. I MUST based on everything every precision shooter knows.
Here is another factoid, the flat muzzle found on false muzzle MLs also shoots best in a BPCR. No crown. The crown on a breechloader (other than those that have to be cleaned from the muzzle) serves no purpose other than to prevent the lands and grooves being dented by accidents or careless handling.
MLs must have a crown that allows loading without damaging the patch. This is their only function and unless really poorly done or damaged will not affect accuracy other than by cutting the patch.
Now someone is wondering how a deep crown hurts accuracy in a BPCR. A "target" crown in particular collects fouling as after maybe 5 shots the fliers start since the gas escape at the base of the bullet is interfered with the it throws the bullet "off".
If the bullet is not supported uniformly at the muzzle it will not fly as straight as it should.
A deep "cone" must allow the ball and patch to "drift" while still in the barrel. If there is gas escape on one side of the ball significantly more than the other it will suck the ball to that side, THEN the increased gas escape on the other side pulls it back the other way. See Bernouli's theorum, actually its not a theory anymore. Its what keeps 747s and such from falling like rocks.
It is thought that a "naked" ball in a musket, no patch or wadding, does this ALL THE WAY TO THE MUZZLE.
How this is magically does not occur in a coned barrel where the muzzle is perhaps .030" larger than the bore size (the lands completely cut out) I cannot say. Even the slightest irregularity at this point and accuracy will suffer.
Dan
-
I tend to agree with Dan on this one. The modern centerfire match shooters use a target crown, that is nothing more than a rebated muzzle milled into the muzzle of the barrel. The only reason it is used is to protect the exposed rifling. If it didn't work they wouldn't use it.
Hungry Horse
-
I have three flintlocks from different makers that have three different muzzle treatments:
The first is a .54 Rice barrel that I eased the muzzle crown as Daryl and Taylor do. This gun is very easy to load. I use a short starter because of a hand issue. I don't wipe this gun between shots.
The second is a Rice barreled custom rifle on which the maker eased the muzzle with file work. He knew of some of my problems when he did this. This gun also loads easily - comparable with the one above.
The third rifle is a Getz barreled custom gun that I bought second hand from the first owner. It has a long tapered cone with almost no crown. I did not know the rifle had a cone when I bought it. This gun is the hardest for me to load. The ball fits completely into the muzzle with thumb pressure. The difficulty comes in pushing it through the cone. I know part of it is my hands, but it is much harder to load than the other two. It is work to load, and that's a shame - it's a beautiful gun.
I shoot the first two the most. I use short starters with everything. I suspect that if I handed the these guns to Dan, he would have no trouble loading without a short starter. I don't think the muzzles of the first two prevent me from loading without a short starter, I'm just not one of the "good hands people" (with apologies to Allstate).
Regards,
Pletch
-
Well presented, Pletch - and Dan.
-
... The difficulty comes in pushing it through the cone. I know part of it is my hands, but it is much harder to load than the other two. It is work to load, and that's a shame ...
Pletch
that ties in exactly with the information Daryl presented above with regard to (WRT) a _steeper_ drawing angle requiring _less_ pressure to reduce the ball/patch down to internal dimensions. I might never have grasped that concept otherwise, but now understand just why your coned rifle presents the challenge you state.
-
I know that a lot does not transfer from Modern High Power and Bench Rest shooting to RB muzzleloaders, but some things certainly do.
In modern high level competition barrels we separate what is normally called the “muzzle crown” into the “muzzle face” and the “crown of the actual rifle bore or bore crown.” This last is also often called the “muzzle crown” and is what piloted crowning tools cut on rifle bores.
Dan is correct the “muzzle face” is basically to prevent damage to the muzzle/bore crown and especially if the barrel is dropped on the face of the muzzle. That’s why G.I. M1903, M1 and M1 carbine barrels were made with a slightly humped or rounded muzzle face – to protect the bore/muzzle crown if the rifle was dropped or hit against something hard like a rock or jeep or truck, etc. at the front end of the barrel.
Modern Bench Rest shooters have experimented with almost every imaginable shape of the muzzle face of the barrel. Some are made with a slight taper going straight down into the bore. Some have an indented surface from the rest of the muzzle face that is near to the bore. They and we found it really didn’t make much difference what the shape of the muzzle face was AS LONG AS it was extremely uniform all the way around the barrel. Uniformity is key as the when the bullet JUST completely escapes the bore, gas coming out behind it can STILL throw a bullet off if that muzzle face surface is not uniform. This because the gas will push the bullet slightly toward the part of the crown that is lowest and thus has the least resistance to the gas coming out of the barrel. Now this may not sound important, but it is. So much so that we learned to crown the very front of M14 flash suppressors on NM rifles for the best accuracy and that spot is well beyond the barrel muzzle.
Once there is a uniform muzzle face, the next thing to address is the bore/muzzle crown. The most accurate way to cut that angle is with a piloted and angled reamer to get absolute uniformity for better accuracy. This is short work on a new barrel, but requires more attention on used barrels because the ends of the lands and grooves do not wear evenly. This is why one MUST be sure that each and every land has a fresh cut all the way across each land for the best “crowning job.” If one leaves even the end of one land where it does not have a full fresh cut, the bullet will go off center towards that worn/uncut spot.
I fully believe this all applies to muzzle loaders because I have used piloted crowning tools this way to improve worn round ball barrel muzzles, including for members of the U.S. International Muzzle Loading Team.
Most of us know to try to put the sprue of the ball in the center of the patch and bore when we load it. Many of us know that sprues are usually not uniform and that introduces a different rotation in the ball from shot to shot and that hurts accuracy. It doesn’t show up much at 25 yards, but it does begin to be noticeable at 50 and especially 100 yards. This is why many of the “Tin Tipi” shooters and International Shooters JUMPED at the chance to use swaged round balls when they became available, that have no sprue and are much more uniformly round, for the most uniform ball rotation in flight and best accuracy – as long as there is a size of swaged round ball that fits your rifle well.
One thing that we are “stuck with” using patched round balls is the patch is not uniform all the way around the bullet, especially in the grooves. This is why we see various non uniform creases in patches that are picked up after firing. This means propellent gas does not push against the patched ball, all the way around it, with the most uniformity. A GREAT advance with some of the earliest breechloading bullets was to “patch” the bullets with paper that was even more uniform than cloth patches. Paper patched bullets were THE thing in the highest levels of long range shooting for decades until technical advances in barrel and bullet construction made them obsolete.
I still think the fact the coned barrels allow the sprues to be loaded less uniformly is a main part of the reason they are not as accurate. Of course, that doesn’t matter as much if one is using a swaged ball with no sprue.
I do believe Dan made an extremely good point that as the patched ball leaves the tightest portion of the bore at the rear of the cone, the patch that already does not seal the bore uniformly, now allows even more uneven gas pressure on the ball as the patch begins to unfold in the barrel and the ball slips around until it leaves the bore. This is even more important as it will do this even with a swaged ball that has no sprue. Matter of fact, it is probably the main reason why coned barrels are not as accurate.
Gus