Left handed attempts at humor aside, I dive into the conceptual side of the discussion re: crowns, accuracy and precision. I understand the common usage of the latter terms, but as pointed out earlier and quite properly, accuracy and precision are not the same things. They are defined terms. I think this has been properly presented conceptually, so I add this little bit of icing to the cake for the record.
There seems to be some debate about just what a crown is. A muzzle crown is also a defined element of a barrel, that being the juncture of bore and air. Shape has nothing to do with it. It is an interface. The geometric precision of the crown has great influence on the barrel's performance and speaking strictly from a machining perspective, it is easier to produce a quality crown of 90* than any other angle. Peter Reinhard understood that when he built the picket rifle I fiddle with these days, the build occurring in 1876. That does not mean that coned barrels cannot deliver wee groups, but on statistical average, such barrels will probably almost certainly display greater dispersion than those unconed, all else being equal.
With that said, the subject is largely irrelevant to me for day to day shooting. I do not shoot off a bench while hunting and I know in general terms how close I have to be to make the shot on a consistent basis, even if using a shotgun. I would suggest that those taking their long rifles afield may find merit in the coning process, while those dedicated to cutting paper may not.
I submit that "inaccurate" rifles can be interesting too, but a hunter necessarily needs to get closer with them. Those of you hunting with smoothbore muskets understand that point I'm certain. It's more of a thrill to me to do that than plinking away at something in the next county. All guns are capable of the same precision, but the question is at what range are they equal?
My .02 worth on the subject and wishes to you and yours for a peaceful Easter.
