Crowning vs Coning THE FINAL RESULTS

[MuskratMike]

A few months ago I posted a thread asking the pros and cons of crowning vs coning. After a lot of reading on this thread and previous ones I came to a conclusion. I shoot at 3 club events a month (trail walks) and am a hunter vs a bench shooter (although I do a fair amount of this also).  It became apparent it is more important to me to be able to easily reload the rifle on the walk or in the field than it is to see just how tight of a patch I can get to go down the barrel and how small of a group I can squeeze out of my rifle. Therefore I made the decision to cone my .54 caliber Lowell Haarer rifle and matching pistol (my hunting guns) and my Jim Kibler .40 caliber SMR (my favorite trail walk rifle). I had trouble deciding on whether to use the Ed Hamburg or Joe Woods tool. That decision became moot when my 'ol buddy Bob McBride offered up his coning set up with the Ed Hamburg tool.
Observations: 1. It is a little harder, fussier, and time consuming than the videos and photos depict. 2. I used 180 grit to start followed by 320 to polish and finally 400 grit to polish the bore to a mirror finish (remember the "Muskrat" is more than a little obsessive compulsive than most). 3. It is something anyone can do if you take your time and pay attention. 4. I now can thumb start my balls where before I absolutely had to use a short starter. 5. I found I still like and my still use just the ramrod portion of my short starter (mine are shorter than normal measuring only 3-inches) to help getting the small ramrods started down the barrel.
Accuracy: I fired several 5 round groups with both the rifles and found no difference in accuracy or change of impact from just a crowned muzzle. I did all the reloading with bag and horn hanging as I would on a trail walk or hunting but did find it made loading easier, faster and less tedious.
I hope this is of some help to anyone who is contemplating coning their barrels. Again this is just one old man's opinion but is submitted without bias.
God bless, and be safe out there,
"Muskrat" Mike

[David G]

I appreciate your assessment and efforts with this. Are you able to load a relatively snug patch/ball combo ?

[MuskratMike]

Oh yea. The real difference is my favorite loads can still be used they are just much, much easier to get started down the barrel. The real proof will be tomorrow when I shoot the new ALR postal shoot.

[Mike from OK]

Thank you for the update.

If I may ask, what is your preferred ball/patch combo for this particular gun?

Mike

[hanshi]

Coning was something I considered at one time but finally dismissed.  When I discovered how easy it was to polish the sharp corners of the muzzle/rifling I went that route.  I have to use a short starter (no big deal) but tight loads go down much easier than they did before polishing.  I used to patch with ticking because it was pretty easy to seat prb.  After polishing I was able to use heavier canvas patches for easy loading.  I have no opinion either way concerning coning; I just would not trust myself to do it correctly.

[MuskratMike]

Hanshi: I too "thumb' polished the crowns on my rifles and loved the results I just wanted to be able to seat them a little easier and it does work. If a simple old guy like me can accomplish this an expert like you should have no problem. On a second note I love reading your posts (keep them coming).
As to the ball and patch: the .40 caliber SMR with a 46-inch swamped barrel gets .395 balls and .015 ticking patches (either "spit" or Neatsfoot oil) the .54 caliber Lowell Haarer rifle with a 37-inch swamped barrel uses a .530 ball and .020 patching. Thanks for asking.
God bless, and you all be safe out there (but lets get things going SOON).
"Muskrat" Mike

[smylee grouch]

Having owned two rifles with coned muzzles I remain skeptical about the accuracy being equal with a good smooth crown. It would be a good before and after test, 10 shots with the best grouping load in the smooth crown and then cone it and shoot 10 more for group.

[Daryl]

I did that test with my .45 Smylee.  I did not like the results, however, I did use exactly the same load as was the accuracy load
with the crowned muzzle. However, giving or taking 5gr. of powder made no difference at 50yards. Further out, that little
did make a difference in the crowned barrel.  My groups doubled in size at 50 yards, with coning. Groups went to well over an
inch with coning (4 out of 5), whereas before coning 1/2" was the rule for 4 out of 5 balls.
The cone I made, was only about 3/4" deep as well. I used the same .022" patches and .445" balls as with the crowned barrel.
Loading seemed the same, however in a friend's .40 cal. rifle, the longer 1" cone was difficult to load, whereas the same load in the
my .40 crowned barrel, loaded easily.
In the shorter cone, I noticed no difference, perhaps because I give the patched ball on the muzzle, a pretty good smack - much more
than necessary - just a habit so I don't have to hit it more than once. That causes damage.

[MuskratMike]

As I said in the beginning "each to their own". I did shoot both right after doing the coning and found no difference in accuracy with either rifle. I did not have a chronograph to test velocity but will do it soon. Even if the accuracy is no better (and it wasn't just the same) if you are a hunter coning in my humble opinion is worth while. I am not trying to talk anyone into doing it. Object was to show it can be done and my results.

[Daryl]

Yes, of course. Each to his own.

[bob in the woods]

I too thought long and hard about whether or not to cone the barrel of my .54 hunting rifle. In the end, I opted for a different approach, and am very happy with the results.  Nothing I thought of on my own; just came across an article in Muzzleblasts one day.  I simply used an appropriate sized chainsaw file to carefully cut grooves in the lands of the rifling at the muzzle. This gives twice the room for the patch to displace, which greatly eases the loading process.

[Daryl]

I seem to recall an article like that - with deep grooves where the lands were and shallow grooves where the grooves were.

[wolf]

I seem to recall an article like that - with deep grooves where the lands were and shallow grooves where the grooves were.

can we see a photo of what you did?

[MuskratMike]

Wolf: Go to the ALR member services and items for sale header (one of the first headers). Go to the bottom of the page and find the ED Hamberg coning tool thread and open it. On that page there is a link to his original post. Better pictures than I could ever take and step by step directions. If you would like further information feel free to message me.

[Daryl]

I seem to recall an article like that - with deep grooves where the lands were and shallow grooves where the grooves were.

can we see a photo of what you did?

I used a coning tool, after I did this. The filing (superficial) changed nothing of the shooting, from my normal crown. The coning of which I have no
pictures, is what changed the accuracy.  This had to be cut off and re-crowned to again achieve the accuracy of prior shooting, which was 1/2" at
50 yards, rest shooting.

[bob in the woods]

Here is a photo :  Colerain .54 round bottom rifling grooves .  The lands are filed /grooved with a small triangular file at the muzzle, and then with a small round file into the bore.  This allows much more space for the patch to displace, resulting in easier loading in the field. I can load without a short starter , even when using paper cartridges. This is not really "coning " and has not affected accuracy as far as I can determine.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I filed the muzzle of my Chambers' Virginia .50 cal rifle for no good reason...just thought it'd look neat.  It made loading easier but it wasn't difficult prior to the filing.  It made no difference in the accuracy of this great shooting rifle either.  The target posted with the muzzle is a 50 m. plank shoot turkey target.  Unfortunately, I shot an inch low for a good score.  The following year I did much better.