Traditional muzzle crowns...

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Traditional muzzle crowns, at least on the late Hawken rifle appear to be nothing but a simple careful filing of the muzzle to partially create a funnel.  This same type of crown is often seen on European rifles, particularly, German rifles.  I studied the images at length, but could not understand how a man could load a tight combination into that type of a muzzle, me being used to the gentle tapering rounded radius that I and Daryl have always used.  It seemed to me that there were too many sharp corners, and the patch must surely be compromised.


So, I did an little experiment.  I took the two inch stub of a .62 cal GRRW barrel, faced both ends off square, and cut three different crowns - the third after # 2 was given it's trials.

The first crown I cut I did on the lathe, and will call my modern crown - nice and polished and rounded.  Placing the stub in the vise, I started a .610" pure lead ball on a pillow ticking patch lubricated with neatsfoot oil.  It loaded with one smart smack of the starter.  The patch was not stretched or torn in the least...perfect, as I predicted.  Now I had a standard to use as a measure.


The second crown, I filed the GROOVES on an appropriate angle to produce what I thought the original Hawken crown looked like.  Those corners looked awefully sharp, so I put the stub in the lathe and with 400 grit, polished off the corners, then reversed the spin, and repeated the polish.  I was unable to start a patched ball.  The patch is stretched and cut, and the lead simply piled up into a lump, refusing to swage into the bore.  Frustrated.


Daryl and I, and our small group shot the trail today, and he and I discussed this process.  He suggested that the LANDS need the filed, not the GROOVES, so tonight, I faced off the one end of the stub again, and then marked a ring to give me a reference on how much to cut the notches to look like the original Hawken muzzle.  I did this very quickly with a needle file, and then started a patched ball, as before.  It started with one smack, and the patch was not torn in the least!  Eureka!  Le voila!!  I have re-discovered 500 year old technology.


All that being said, I am still going with the polished up factory Rice crown on this Hawken build.

[longcruise]

Taylor. interesting stuff.  Since I started crownng my barrels to a nice rounded taper I can load a thicker patch and get better accuracy.  Your experiments pretty much support what I've been doing.

Also, nice to have photos taken in the future.

[greybeard]

Very intereating Taylor. Back in the 70s I was shooting a .45 half stock, my second build, with a coned muzzle . I thought I could crown it with a cheap hdware tapered stone. All I did was to grind a ring about 1/4 inch or so down inside the bore. I split a dowel and with a piece of medium emery cloth I polished till the ring was gone and so was most of the lands.  Naught to lose . Turned out it shot near one hole groups off a rest at 25 yds. It was easy thumb pressure  loading as well. Never tried that again.. I had never heard of a coned  barrel at that time
 The lock & set triggers were made in Wash state by a chap named "Luft"
All the thread sizes  were stamped inside the lock plate and the temper colors  were not polished back to bright. Very pretty .  Bob

[Don Getz]

Taylor.....this goes back to my first rifle.   45 cal. Douglas barrel.    I crowned the barrel by using needle files and merely
rounded each land and groove, individually.   Gun shot great..........Don

[Ben I. Voss]

Taylor, this is one of those mysteries that has bugged the heck out of me for a long time! Virtually any original rifle that I've ever seen that had a muzzle in good shape just looked like it was cut off square and sharp with no bevel or crown whatsoever. Maybe you've found the answer. Thanks for the info!

[T*O*F]

could not understand how a man could load a tight combination into that type of a muzzle

The simple answer is that they weren't as obsessed with tight patches.  They couldn't go to JoAnn Fabrics and select a certain patch material that was .0xx thick.  They used whatever was available in the field, which would be from a variety of sources and materials.  Cloth wasn't loomed to a precise thickness as today.  Also, it is likely that their balls weren't sized as tight as we use today, which allowed for a variety of patching materials....which could probably be thumb-started.

Guns were survival tools which had to be adapted to whatever situation existed far from civilization.  Which raises another question....what did Indians patch their rifles with?  It's a mistake to apply 21st century mindset to 19th century conditions.

I have re-discovered 500 year old technology

You only found a 21st century solution to a problem that didn't exist then.

[RonT]

"Guns were survival tools which had to be adapted to whatever situation existed far from civilization.  Which raises another question....what did Indians patch their rifles with?  It's a mistake to apply 21st century mindset to 19th century conditions."
Bingo! 
R

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

You are absolutely correct about the use of firearms and the likely conditions in the 18th and 19th centuries.  But here I am in the 21st century, and have, as Dave points out, an obsession with accuracy.  I confess - I'm as concerned with accuracy in both the look and the performance of my rifles.  I'm hopelessly competitive.  I can not just go out and shoot my rifle and have fun - fun is hitting the targets, not just having the rifle go boom.

This type of crown has puzzled me for a long time, and I have hesitated to employ it on any of my rifles for fear that accuracy will suffer.  Now I know that I can load the combinations I'm used to with this old style of crown.  I recall an article in either "Muzzleloader" or "Muzzle Blasts" a year or so ago, where a chap discussed filing the crown into the muzzle, and at the time, I was pretty sceptical because he talked about filing the lands rather than the grooves.  Now I know he was right, and I didn't think about it again, until I learned it for myself. 

I would have happily used the old system on my new Hawken, except for that fact that I have soldered on the under-rib flush with the muzzle, and have nothing to dress off to remove the old factory crown...so, next time...

[Roger Fisher]

You are absolutely correct about the use of firearms and the likely conditions in the 18th and 19th centuries.  But here I am in the 21st century, and have, as Dave points out, an obsession with accuracy.  I confess - I'm as concerned with accuracy in both the look and the performance of my rifles.  I'm hopelessly competitive.  I can not just go out and shoot my rifle and have fun - fun is hitting the targets, not just having the rifle go boom.

This type of crown has puzzled me for a long time, and I have hesitated to employ it on any of my rifles for fear that accuracy will suffer.  Now I know that I can load the combinations I'm used to with this old style of crown.  I recall an article in either "Muzzleloader" or "Muzzle Blasts" a year or so ago, where a chap discussed filing the crown into the muzzle, and at the time, I was pretty sceptical because he talked about filing the lands rather than the grooves.  Now I know he was right, and I didn't think about it again, until I learned it for myself. 

I would have happily used the old system on my new Hawken, except for that fact that I have soldered on the under-rib flush with the muzzle, and have nothing to dress off to remove the old factory crown...so, next time...

Now then young fella, I propose that you said it all with your "Fun is hitting the targets" statement.  Anyone can make the old piece go boom (well most anyone)

Competition is what drives this game both in building and shooting.

[T*O*F]

Now I know that I can load the combinations I'm used to with this old style of crown

Taylor,
The answer is, and has always been answered by the difference between two terms...swage and shear.  To load any particular patch/ball combo, you must be able to swage it into the bore.  This means that the patch must be folded around the ball and into the bore simultaneously.  The crown, whatever it's shape, must have a smooth transitions that allows this.  If there are any sharp corners, then it will not swage, it will shear.  The transition needn't be deep as in the coning tools sold, it only needs be sufficient to perform the swaging operation.

Just think of your patch as a piece of metal being forced into a die, except metal does not compress like a patched, lead ball does.  It will either swage, stretch, or shear.

[Dphariss]

John Baird's "Hawken Rifles" has a description of the interior of a barrel reputed to be a Hawken, it was marked Hoffman and Campbell.
It describes the choke and the slight funneling at the muzzle.
But it does not specifically mention the crown.
For those you do not have the book:
"...the bore is a slight taper from the breech to a point 9.5" from the muzzle. Here a choke is apparent got about 8 inches, then from there to the muzzle, a slight flaring is seen. Measuring approximately .0005, about 1/4" from the end of the barrel, this flare suddenly increases an additional .002", giving the impression of a slight funneling from rod wear. Close inspection has revealed that this is not the case, and that it is a deliberate relieving of the muzzle..."

This rifle shot a 5 shot group at 200 yards that measured 3.5 x 7.5 inches so I can't see anything wrong with its accuracy. The testing at 50 yards showed that with 70, 90, 110 and 130 grains it shot a composite group 2" wide by 2.5" high. If the 70 grain load is deleted the group is significantly smaller. This was a 50 caliber rifle with a 48" twist.

Dan

[BrentD]

Dan, was this reverse choke in the lands only or the grooves as well?  I would imagine it was only the lands.

[Dphariss]

Dan, was this reverse choke in the lands only or the grooves as well?  I would imagine it was only the lands.

This was probably just the lands from the choke to the muzzle.

But J Baird and TK Dawson did not elaborate and I never asked John for any more details when I could have.
It is interesting that the "funneling" is less pronounced than what is done by many today.

Dan

[Sean]

Taylor,
I consider myself to be sort of a dork about 1800-1850 "trade" rifles, like Deringers, Gumpfs, Gonters, Dickerts, Dickert-Gills, Dreppards, etc. Most of the intact crowns I've seen have had the grooves filed out like you have pictured. I know I've seen probably a half dozen Deringer rifles with crowns treated like that.

Sean

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Ah yes, but it's the lands that are filed out to look like grooves, not the other way around, I think.

[Sean]

Serves me right for replying so late last night. You are correct. I meant lands not grooves. Actually the lands are filed into grooves, hence the confusion. One thing I'll add though, most are not very deep. Say, 1/4" to 1/2". Modern coned muzzles seem much deeper.

Sean

[Ben I. Voss]

Someone with some original rifles, Hawken or otherwise, needs to check this out! Somebody?

[BrentD]

Someone with some original rifles, Hawken or otherwise, needs to check this out! Somebody?

Until recently, I owned a Joseph Lang percussion double rifle.  I can guarantee that the bores were not coned or reverse choked.

That is the only original I've owned but at least it was an old one - about 1830 or a titch earlier.  It had really cherry bores to boot. 

Brent
 

[okieboy]

 Taylor, I can't give the definitive answers on original crowning other than to say that if you can think of a way to do it, then someone did it.
 I thought you might like to see wooden crowning tools. They can be made by hand quickly and easily. They get charged with lapping compound and rotated with a brace. They work faster than you might imagine (I would not recommend an electric drill). With finer grits they are capable of producing very smooth finishes and because they locate them selves to the intersection of bore and face, produce accurate results.

[BrentD]

Not to be too crude about it but why not use a simple countersink?  It looks to me like the factory crowns on my Colerain and Green Mt. barrels were made that way.

[Dphariss]

Not to be too crude about it but why not use a simple countersink?  It looks to me like the factory crowns on my Colerain and Green Mt. barrels were made that way.

They tend to chatter.
In a lathe they might work OK? They always chatter for me if used with a hand or electric drill. In the lathe I use a lathe tool its better than the counter sink.
Out of the lathe I used something like this


With wet or dry paper held by double stick tape.

Dan

[okieboy]

 Oops. Sorry, I miscopied/pasted with the photo.

[Curtis]

The muzzle on the original Leman I have has a similar treatment.

[Roger Fisher]

Brace & bit w/a ball cutter then 'polish' with a brass ball on a shaft and fine valve polishing compound.  (with a patch in the bore to catch the debris, saves some cleaning )

[Dphariss]

This is a 54 "Connestoga" Rifle Works Leman Flintlock dated 1840 on the lock.


I did not examine the crown or funneling.
Dan