Muzzle coning with a file?

[longrifle54]

I read, saw pictures somewhere of a muzzle/barrel, that was coned with a file. On the inside of the bore)not the outside)  It looked very cool and different. Anyone know who does it?   I want to say Mike Brooks? or Mike Miller?   I have been looking for the magazine for days now, and cant seem to find the right issue, or book.   Help?!

[Acer Saccharum]

Don Getz files the riflings to look very cool at the muzzle. But the filing doesn't go very far down the bore. I have not seen a muzzle cone with a file, but why not, if your'e a good hand with a file?

[Hawkeye]

I read, saw pictures somewhere of a muzzle/barrel, that was coned with a file. On the inside of the bore)not the outside)  It looked very cool and different. Anyone know who does it?   I want to say Mike Brooks? or Mike Miller?   I have been looking for the magazine for days now, and cant seem to find the right issue, or book.   Help?!

There was an article in Muzzleloader a year or three ago about it. I am at work and can't go through all my back issues to narrow it down more than that.

[Dancy]

I believe you are refering to an article by Mark Baker about a rifle Mike Miller built for him (and hand coned). I will look for it, seems like it was about three years or so ago.

James

[Dancy]

If I remember correctly, Mike Miller filed down the lands.

[Roger Fisher]

Young Bobby Pollock out of Danville, Pa does that job -= Makes her look as if she has been out behind the barn a time or two; but by God he can shoot them that way!

[rsells]

Mike Miller was the maker the article was about.  I have been trying to find the article myself for the last few days.  If anyone can pin down the date please post it.  I talked to Mike about the process a long time ago, and he has seen no issues as far as accuracy and it makes it easy to load.  If my memory serves me right, he files th lands down and puts a grove in the bottom of the valley.  Mike said it only takes a few minutes to do the process, but I have not been clear on how far down into the barrel  to go and how deep to make the cuts.
                                                                                        Roger Sells

[Kevin G]

The article in question is in the July/August 2007 issue of Muzzleloader and in it Mike Miller explains how he does the crown with files ... also I believe Taylor here on the forum showed a muzzle of a Virginia rifle that he did. Hope this helps,

Kevin

[smallpatch]

Here's one.  It has been cleaned up since then. 

The barrel is coned, then the decorative filing is added.  That way you don't destroy the integrity of the rifling at the muzzle.

[Mike R]

The article in question is in the July/August 2007 issue of Muzzleloader and in it Mike Miller explains how he does the crown with files ... also I believe Taylor here on the forum showed a muzzle of a Virginia rifle that he did. Hope this helps,

Kevin

Ironically, this discussion [part of a Mark Baker article] was in the same issue as part 3 of a series on coning muzzles by Fred Stut...however you spell it  ...the conclusions he made from extensive tests were mixed as to the affects coning has on accuracy, blown patches, etc.  Been awhile since I read the series. He tested true coning vs straight vs "relieved" barrels [short cylindrical smoothing at the muzzle rather than tapered 'cone'].  Worth a read if you are a target shooter.

[smallpatch]

I'm sure this is going to start another war, but here goes.
Yeah,  I've read the article.  Don't agree with most of the conclusions.  I won't get into the details, but just to say.... I've coned at least 10 barrels with absolutely no ill effects ( unless you call easier to load an ill effect.
Below, is the first 5 shots out of that brand new, freshly coned  barrel.  Before working up a patch/ball combo, powder charge, or regulating sights.

[BJH]

Reply to #9  My bet is if a fellow was to take advantage of the coned muzzle and use a bit thicker patch and maybe a bit larger ball the blown patches will go away. My favorite hunting rifle has a coned barrel, no blown patch problems. A number of dead deer to it's credit. It was coned in Getz's shop a number of years ago when it was made.

[Acer Saccharum]

When a gun starts to shoot erratically, I look to see if the muzzle is worn, or bell-mouthed. I use plug gages to determine if the lands are worn more at the muzzle.

It is my belief that a poorly coned (ie: off center, or irregular) muzzle would replicate a worn out muzzle.

It looks like a properly coned muzzle will shoot just fine, judged by your target results, Smallpatch.

Tom

[Daryl]

Coning, crowing by eroding and/or filing a fancy muzzle are all different treatments.

 A cone is a tapered cone - ie: deep - can be up to 2" or more by some makers, where the lands are tapered from smallest diameter, out to just larger than groove diameter - very gradually.  This is coning as I understand it.

 Crowning is a muzzle end treatment where a tool or a tool and emery or simply more time and emery is used to radius or angle cut the muzzle's very end, to allow easier loading, but does not extend down the bore more than a very short distance, ie: 1/16" to 3/16" deep.

 Most filing, as in a fancy 'hiney' muzzle is an 'after-treatment' - done after conding or crowning.  This is typical of most ALL original Jaeger rifles.

I recall the article in MB, where the writer filed the lands out to deeper than the grooves, then notched the grooves with a sharp V file as well. Pretty cool looking - so- what he did was crown the rifle with a file, not cone it.

[Mike R]

Coning, crowing by eroding and/or filing a fancy muzzle are all different treatments.

 A cone is a tapered cone - ie: deep - can be up to 2" or more by some makers, where the lands are tapered from smallest diameter, out to just larger than groove diameter - very gradually.  This is coning as I understand it.

 Crowing is a muzzle end treatment where a tool or a tool and emery or simply more time and emery is used to radius or angle cut the muzzle's very end, to allow easier loading, but does not extend down the bore more than a very short distance, ie: 1/16" to 3/16" deep.

 Most filing, as in a fancy 'hiney' muzzle is an 'after-treatment' - done after conding or crowning.  This is typical of most ALL original Jaeger rifles.

I recall the article in MB, where the writer filed the lands out to deeper than the grooves, then notched the grooves with a sharp V file as well. Pretty cool looking - so- what he did was crown the rifle with a file, not cone it.

Yes, I have tried the "crowning" with a file treatment and it is not coning, but it does help finger start a ball. The first rifle I tried was a .45 whose crown [or lack of it] was so tight I had trouble balancing the ball on it before seating. Now I can thumb start it half way and it holds in place for the rod.  Same with the last one I did--a .50 which had been crowned but was still too tight to thumb seat--again, the file technique only allows me to get the ball halfway in, then  I seat it with a knife butt or the hated short starter.

[Daryl]

Hmm - been using a short starter for so many years, I grab it instantly without thinking, even when shooting the shotgun, which doesn't need it.

[Mike R]

Hmm - been using a short starter for so many years, I grab it instantly without thinking, even when shooting the shotgun, which doesn't need it.

me too, or rather in my early years of MLing...now that I am more heavily into 18th cent reenacting I try to leave the short starter behind--it is a 19th cent thing & probably late 19th at that. It is the tool of late target shooters and likely all of us moderns were taught to use one, as we learned, by and large from the target shooters that kept MLing alive into the 20th cent. Having to load such tight barrels [or tight ball/patch loads] in the 1770s in Kentucky might cause one to lose his hair...

[bgf]

me too, or rather in my early years of MLing...now that I am more heavily into 18th cent reenacting I try to leave the short starter behind--it is a 19th cent thing & probably late 19th at that. It is the tool of late target shooters and likely all of us moderns were taught to use one, as we learned, by and large from the target shooters that kept MLing alive into the 20th cent. Having to load such tight barrels [or tight ball/patch loads] in the 1770s in Kentucky might cause one to lose his hair...

I've come to the same conclusion about short starters, although they are necessary for loads with really good accuracy so far.  Even if the first load was a tightly patched combination, the second one most often had to be quick:).

[Mike R]

me too, or rather in my early years of MLing...now that I am more heavily into 18th cent reenacting I try to leave the short starter behind--it is a 19th cent thing & probably late 19th at that. It is the tool of late target shooters and likely all of us moderns were taught to use one, as we learned, by and large from the target shooters that kept MLing alive into the 20th cent. Having to load such tight barrels [or tight ball/patch loads] in the 1770s in Kentucky might cause one to lose his hair...

I've come to the same conclusion about short starters, although they are necessary for loads with really good accuracy so far.  Even if the first load was a tightly patched combination, the second one most often had to be quick:).

Yes...lots of quotes in the period about loading 'bare' ball, often wetted in the mouth, for quick follow-ups in battle [and hunting].  Meshach Browning in his classic book on hunting remarked that approaching a large bear he put two balls in his mouth so he would be prepared [presumably in case the first shot failed or created a charge]. Randolph [Ozarks] and Kephart [Smokies] both described hunters using the wetted in the mouth bare ball technique for quick second shots.

[Mike R]

So - for guys who don't want to use a load that requires a short starter (non PC), the balls should be carried in the mouth and spit down the bore.  Sounds a bit innacurate and dangerous on several levels to me, but hey, in the desire to be period correct, there are no limits, or are there?

???here and on other sites I frequent there is often a disconnect between those interested in "how it was done" in [your fave period] vs those who want to find the "best" way, historical or not. When I write of my research into "how it was done" I am not necessarily advocating those methods for everyone--even reenactors/living history buffs.  The whole debate about short starters began with folks asking about their use in the 18th cent or from reenactors/trekkers, etc that do use them while trying to "recreate" the 18th cent period of choice.  Despite the total lack of evidence for short starters, many use them with the defense that they 'musta been' used[along with bullet blocks] for quick or easy reloading--the stories about keeping ammo in the mouth are to point out that many old timers had an alternate way to quickly reload when needed.  Since none of us are likley to face a charging Indian [but maybe a charging bear], such methods seem moot, unsafe and archaic.  I for one have been less than impressed with the "evidence" that lead is all that toxic from handling ammo, however, I am not likely to place it in my mouth.  The old timers had no such qualms and that is history for those that care...

[Daryl]

I meant no disrespect, Mike.  As I re-read my post, I see how it could be misconstrued from my original meaning. I'll remove it. Sorry for any hard feelings.

[Mike R]

I meant no disrespect, Mike.  As I re-read my post, I see how it could be misconstrued from my original meaning. I'll remove it. Sorry for any hard feelings.

no hard feelings...I guess I just did not fully state my points.  Sometimes I get too invested in the history of our hobby and forget that for others it is a 'different' sport. I started out with all the bells & whistles of a proper buckskinner--I still own 3 short starters [and have to use them on some rifles]. But there is no doubt that some old timers from the mid 1700s through the backwoods 1920s at least, knew about and used the 'wet ball from the mouth quick load' without patch.  I have several written period descriptions.  Accuracy was good enough for close range defense shots.

[Daryl]

I totally agree that it was done.  Holding balls in your mouth was the main way to load shotguns, handguns or rifles when running buffalo.  I suspect many of those same balls ended up being swallowed. Good to know they loaded this way when in a pinch.  Good thing we aren't 'pinched' that way today.

[B. Hey]

Quite an interesting thread to the uninitiated among us ... myself included. Thanks for sharing so freely. Bill

[Mike R]

Old Black Bill Walker, late 19th cent Tenn gunmaker, told Horace Kephart how he loaded a rifle --he used at least three ways. He had a rifle close to today's .54-- he had only a 60 gr powder measure for it. But he told Kephart he double loaded when needed ['loaded for bear']. He also loaded without the measure by pouring powder over a ball held in the (flat) palm of his hand. But when in a hurry, he said, he poured powder unmeasured down the bore from his horn and spit in a wet ball from his mouth, unpatched--he said the wet ball caused a little powder to adhere and keep it from rolling down the barrel [hmmm?]. For the relatively close range work he said this was accurate enough.  I have several other similar quotes from the lit. Kephart published this account in 1918. I have a similar story from the Ozarks by Vance Randolph ca. 1920. I have a similar story from the early 1800s. Of course there are period anecdotes about the same type loading from the 18th cent.