No short starter?

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Robbie, your approach is identical to mine.  But your accuracy is better!  Nice rifle gun too.

[hanshi]

Mica, I don't think it will destroy accuracy. If done carefully using your thumb or finger and rotating the barrel and your finger at the same time as Daryl has described. Coning will destroy accuracy, as it did in my experimentation,  at least what I define as accuracy, but to each their own.

Five shot group off the bench at fifty yards. This barrel gave me fits with both accuracy and fouling. I gave the crown the Daryl treatment, used a sloppy wet spit patch, ala Leatherbelly, and I can shoot all day, no swiping. I do use a short starter, and for winter hunting, mink oil. No change in accuracy. Good luck

Hmmm .  With a little more work you might start getting hunting accuracy. 

Oh, and that rifle is something else!

[Vomitus]

  No more secrets for Robbie,the SOB! LOL!! Look at that group! Daryls,Harnic, no more "tricks" for these guys, dangit!
  That must be an Anglish(Sassanach) gun, looks like it's driven on the left side! Very nice! I can't even tell if you've used a short starter on this rifle! Short starting perverts! hehehe

[Robby]

Sorry Leatherbelly, I forgot my oath of silence, but I promise, I' won't say a word about that gal from Hoboken!

[Daryl]

Yeah - yer right, LB - time to cease and desist from this line of posts. Mum's the word from now on.
 

[draken]

Robie:  That is fine looking rifle.

Group ain't bad either

[54Bucks]

I believe that crowning began as a way to make loading a muzzleloader easier.  It also serves to protect the rifling nearest the muzzle.  The most important part of a barrel is that last little bit that releases a projectile into free flight.  A ding or uneven wear there will degrade accuracy of even the best barrel.  So change that crown to your hearts content.  As long as the crown is centered and even it will work.

Storm
[/quote]

 I agree! And when I relieve the crown on a factory muzzle crown I use a wood  lathe tapered plug about 3" long a tad steeper than the factory crown and some fine paper . No not to the degree that most consider it conened! It doesn't take much to relieve the crown and be able to then load a .005 under ball w/.018 patch combination and a short starter. Compared to most factory barrel crown/bores which only allow a .010 under ball w/.018 patch and a short starter. I don't know why anyone would go at the muzzle with thumb or fingers and abrasive paper?

[George Sutton]

I had Charlie Wallingford build me a very nice .58 cal. rifle with one of Ed Rayl's round botton rifled barrels, a few years back. Charlie had worked up a load using a .570 roundball and a .015 patch. The load was very accurate but I had problems short starting the ball.

I did some experimenting and came up with a load tht was just as accurate using a .562 RB and .015 pure linen patch. I no longer use a short starter, I could probably thumb start the ball but prefer to use my patch knife or the ramrod.

I used to be a proponent of "The tighter the better" I no longer believe that (Muzzleloaders only ). It is possible to work up a load using a smaller bullet without loss of accuracy. Try a smaller ball using pure linen patching. The linen doesn't burn up and it's harder to blow holes in.

Centershot

[Daryl]

I believe that crowning began as a way to make loading a muzzleloader easier.  It also serves to protect the rifling nearest the muzzle.  The most important part of a barrel is that last little bit that releases a projectile into free flight.  A ding or uneven wear there will degrade accuracy of even the best barrel.  So change that crown to your hearts content.  As long as the crown is centered and even it will work.

Storm

54bucks - I agree! And when I relieve the crown on a factory muzzle crown I use a wood  lathe tapered plug about 3" long a tad steeper than the factory crown and some fine paper . No not to the degree that most consider it conened! It doesn't take much to relieve the crown and be able to then load a .005 under ball w/.018 patch combination and a short starter. Compared to most factory barrel crown/bores which only allow a .010 under ball w/.018 patch and a short starter. I don't know why anyone would go at the muzzle with thumb or fingers and abrasive paper?

Because it's easy to do it perfectly every time and anyone with the least amount of skill can do it. Too, it doesn't need any power equipment.  Power equipment makes crowning go faster, of course - a lathe is best - perfect crowns in 15 seconds including the polishing time. No tapered tools required, just a finger tip and some emery or paper to smoothly radius the machine cut crown.

[SPG]

Gentlemen,

I thought that it might be interesting to some if I posted the measurements of the muzzle on the vintage flintlock D. Boyer match rifle. I'm confident that the bore is original and the crown is as original. I'm thinking, after showing the rifle to several gentlemen with considerable experience in dating original rifles, that it was made in the mid-1820's. The rifle shoots very well; in fact, as good as any of my other rifles. It has won the three turkey matches I have used it in here in Cody with the best ten-shot string being 4.789 inches.

The crown has had the lands and grooves relieved which is somewhat reflected in the first measurement. I will try to get a good photo of this muzzle and post sometime it tomorrow. I took measurements with gauge pins and caliper, to the best of my ability, and I think one can see what sort of freed muzzle this is. The rifle loads easily with a short starter and I believe I could load it with just the rod held short. I prefer the starter because it is more consistent in starting the ball. When you shoot with the cutthroats that I do, one can leave no stone unturned...

Land measurement.
Measurement starting at muzzle- .510
At .150 depth- .500
At .200 depth- .492
At .235 depth- .491
At .349 depth- .490
At .493 depth- .489
Measurement at beginning of 6-inch choked portion- .488
Measure at 12 inches- .489
Measurement at breech- .490

This barrel is a uniform 1-48 twist, wide lands, narrow grooves and I shoot 65 grs. of 1 1/2 Swiss with a .490 ball and .015 linen patch, patches lubed with sperm oil and squeezed almost dry in a vise.

This barrel has obviously been lapped and freed at the muzzle when I look at it with the bore scope. I am confident that it is representative of what the old-timers were doing when they built a rifle for match shooting. Could one call it "coned". Possibly. I think "freed" is a better description or possibly a "shallow cone". It loads very nicely...after seating the ball it pushes smoothly through the choke and very easily to the breech. However, as it weighs about 16 pounds, I haven't tried to load it on the run.

I also reviewed the Stutzenberger articles and they were as interesting as I remember. However, there were several things I took issue with. Most notably, the shooting was not done from machine rest which leaves, in my mind, too many variables depending upon the shooter's consistent management of recoil. Second, three-shot strings were used which I don't believe give a truly accurate picture of load performance. Third, I would have rather seen a match load developed and then experiments done with varying depth of coning, not going the full-depth on the first alteration of the muzzle. I did note that, given the data, with very few exceptions coning seem to degrade accuracy. It was an interesting article, however, and adds much to our collective knowledge of the topic.

Just something to cogitate on...

Steve
 

[Dan Fruth]

I'm thinking that the guys who loaded while running didn't even bother with a patch, but just dumped powder down the barrel, spit a round ball in behind, and kept the muzzle up till they shot. Just guessing, but I can't imagine Lewis Wetzel trying to use a short starter while escaping a mad Shawano!

[Dphariss]

Hi Steve
As I am sure you know this is very similar, though you are more accurate in detail, to what Baird and T.K. Dawson describe for the "Hoffman and Campbell" Hawken rifle  in Baird's  "Hawken Rifles the Mountain Man's Choice".

Dan

[SPG]

Dan,

I may have described this crown incorrectly when I said it was on a target rifle. It is, but I would want this style of crown on a hunting rifle as well. I really think that many of the old rifles that have been described as having been "funneled" at the muzzle from the ramrod were crowned in this fashion on purpose. You and I have discussed how hard it would be to "funnel" a muzzle with a hickory ramrod...for the most part, I don't buy the "rod-wear" thing.

I may try to get access to some of the Hawkens at the Cody Museum and measure crowns. It might prove very interesting, especially since they have several that show very little use.

Steve

[Daryl]

Dan,

I may have described this crown incorrectly when I said it was on a target rifle. It is, but I would want this style of crown on a hunting rifle as well. I really think that many of the old rifles that have been described as having been "funneled" at the muzzle from the ramrod were crowned in this fashion on purpose. You and I have discussed how hard it would be to "funnel" a muzzle with a hickory ramrod...for the most part, I don't buy the "rod-wear" thing.

I may try to get access to some of the Hawkens at the Cody Museum and measure crowns. It might prove very interesting, especially since they have several that show very little use.

Steve

Given the amount these guns were shot, compared to how much we shoot ours, that must be an accurate statement  It wold be impossible for them to accomplish this muzzle 'treatment' with rod wear. Now, Taylor and I shoot quite a lot- we don't use muzzle protectors - never have, yet aside from one rifle, no muzzle wear can be seen nor measured.

Hatchet Jack, in our group has never used a muzzle protector either, and had only every used the rifle's hickory rod, for loading as well as cleaning. His 1/2 stocked flint Hawken has way over 15,000 shots through it & shows no muzzle wear at all.  Yes - that's one rifle - but- I can show you the rod wear in my .69's muzzle as it shows in the picture - one groove shows a slight 'cup' from the rod.  This barrel has approximately 5,000 shots fired from it, I suspect many more thousand than anyone in the 19th century fired.

 In the past I have used a tool steel rod or a nylon rod for cleaning, but only the hickory for loading. We know from a previous test that hickory wears the least of the rod materials, with nylon the next in line.  Tool steel was 3rd most wear, with stainless more so and of course, straight fiberglass acting pretty much like a round file. I did not test a plastic coated rod.

[54Bucks]

The effects of tool steel,nylon,fibreglass,and hickory wearing barrel steel could easily be tested. But I doubt it would support some commonly held notions regarding muzzlewear and ramrod composition.

[Daryl]

Granted, RB - modern steels are much harder or tougher against rod abrasion than wrought iron - but - wear is relative - how many times or how many shots are/were normally fired from those antiques which still with us today - those which show even enlargement, heretofor called rod wear?
  
We do know that rods don't wear muzzles concentrically - if they were worn with an oval groove, (magnify the wear present in my own barrel), their oval enlarged condition would correctly be called rod wear.  If evenly enlarged all the way around - no way.

[Daryl]

The effects of tool steel,nylon,fibreglass,and hickory wearing barrel steel could easily be tested. But I doubt it would support some commonly held notions regarding muzzlewear and ramrod composition.

Sorry- I should have qualified that more but I thought it was clear - those rod material effects have been tested and the only reason I brought them up, was to show the hickory rod wears very slightly, to not at all over the course of the test - of all the materials tested, the normal wooden rod wore the barrel the least - actually barely wore off the modern bluing on the barrel stub used - in a current, what I'd call a soft steel barrel of 12L14 compositon.  Granted in an iron barrel, we're told the wear would be faster - how much faster? That's the question or test that should be completed.

Theory is fine but proof is needed.  Stating the enlarged muzzles were from rod wear is a theory - stating it isn't is a theory - all of this is theory and opinion. With an open mind, we try to look at known facts to arrive at an educated guess/opinion/theory. That's all.

[SPG]

Gentlemen,

I'm not as experienced as some at lapping, but if one wants to get a perspective on the whole "rod-wear" theory take a stub end of 12L14 barrel (which is relatively soft), measure it accurately, and then try to enlarge it even just a quarter-thou with a hickory rod. Use it dry and remember that your loading rod is much smoother and is hopefully being held centered in the bore, rather than making it bear hard on the steel. I think you'll have a new "feel" for rod-wear.

Crown damage from incorrect loading/cleaning is a far more likely cause for barrels going south. And how many barrels, both old and new, have been re-crowned, lapped, re-cut or replaced simply because the shooter is looking for a handy excuse to explain poor personal performance. The customer is always right, especially if you are a starving gunsmith.

Steve

[54Bucks]

Gentlemen,

I'm not as experienced as some at lapping, but if one wants to get a perspective on the whole "rod-wear" theory take a stub end of 12L14 barrel (which is relatively soft), measure it accurately, and then try to enlarge it even just a quarter-thou with a hickory rod. Use it dry and remember that your loading rod is much smoother and is hopefully being held centered in the bore, rather than making it bear hard on the steel. I think you'll have a new "feel" for rod-wear.

Crown damage from incorrect loading/cleaning is a far more likely cause for barrels going south. And how many barrels, both old and new, have been re-crowned, lapped, re-cut or replaced simply because the shooter is looking for a handy excuse to explain poor personal performance. The customer is always right, especially if you are a starving gunsmith.

Steve

 Well said! You don't need to be some self claimed expert on lapping to understand logic. Perhaps those experts also embed the slug with hickory,fibreglass,or brass to lap the bore??

[Bob Roller]

Today I finished some small non gun parts made from 12L14 and to say it is "relatively soft" is an understatement. It offers little resistence to the lathe tool which in this case were Cobalt. I want no part of a gun barrel made from it and would like to know WHO started using this and similar materials for gun barrels.NO steel mill will ever recommend it for that use and I hope those do use it for barrels that do carry a high dollar product liabilty insurance policy. I don't know who's making what anymore other than Jim McLemore who makes barrels from 4150 be they for a muzzle loader or a high velocity long range rifle. 12L14 was the material that put Douglas out of the muzzle loader game
along with the shabby attitude of so called gun makers that thought anything,no matter what it was should be cheaper than dirt if it was for a muzzle loader.

Bob Roller

[Daryl]

Bob - we've been over this so many times it's getting boring- the same posts form the same people, every time.  It also results in a thread being locked. Let's not change the direction of the thread to barrel steels.

[T.C.Albert]

Wait up....forgive mny ignorance, and I may be totally wrong, but I thought the old timers that were skelp welding up hand made barrels were using dead soft iron for the job? Is 12L14 softer than that? Even so I would hate to try and cone it with only a wooden tool on purpose, let alone by accident. 
TC

[Bob Roller]

There is a LOT of difference between 12L14 and the old dead soft "iron"barrels. As I understand 12L14 and explainedto me by a metallurgist of long experience here is the problem.12L14 starts as a hot rolled material and as such it is not really round so trying to use it in a lathe is next to impossible.It is the cold rolled so it can be used in a lathe either with a chuck or collets. but this cold rolling process causes internal stresses that can manifest themselves in the form of a ruptured barrel. The metallurgist called these types of blow outs "hoop stresses"which is what happens to a balloon when it is internally stress beyond its limits.
As a screw material,it is a fine thing and I use it for all my lock screws as it can be machined at 300 feet per minute and takes fine threads but as I stated earlier,there is no steel mill that would ever recommend it for use in a gun barrel and as earlier stated,it takes only ONE blown barrel to make a big problem for a lot of people.
I hope this makes sense.

Bob Roller

[Dphariss]

Wait up....forgive mny ignorance, and I may be totally wrong, but I thought the old timers that were skelp welding up hand made barrels were using dead soft iron for the job? Is 12L14 softer than that? Even so I would hate to try and cone it with only a wooden tool on purpose, let alone by accident. 
TC

There are number of threads that address the differences in steels used if you search the site you will find a lot of information.
However, a steel that machines easily need not be soft. It is softer than some 4150s etc but this is a relative term.
Dan