Daryl - funnelling the muzzle - maybe beating a dead horse

[Jamie]

Sorry about raising this again, but I've been rereading Daryl's posts about putting a short funnel on the muzzle.  Wondering if I could double-sided tape some fine emery to the protector on my steel range rod, and twist that in the muzzle to start the funnel, before going to the thumb to finish?  Thinking a patch on the jag would keep the protector centered nicely - my apologies if this has been discussed already.

The goal is to eliminate the short starter which currently needs a good whack to start the ball.

Jamie

[Turtle]

As luck would have it, I am coning my latest build right now. I use Joe Woods tools, and get a good result. I know opinions vary on coning, but I cone all my rifles. I haven't used a short starter in years. For the cost, I wouldn't risk another method than Woods'. Just sayin.
                                            Turtle

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

At the risk of being repetitious, the rounded muzzle treatment is not a cone.  I refuse to take the chance of damaging the muzzle of any of my rifles with a 'cone'.  I've read enough from people whose expertise I trust, to know better than to do it.

But having polished the muzzle with abrasive cloth and the thumb, which enormously influences how tight a combo you can load without damaging the patch, I still insist upon the use of a starter, rather than simply pushing the patch/ball down with just the rod.  For me, it is the way I have always loaded, and is as natural any activity you may wish to insert here.  the starter is just a simple tool that makes it possible to load a .005" undersized pure lead ball and a .022" wet patch into the muzzle and then down the bore, without any effort.

But as you say, this horse is well beaten...

[Dave R]

I have heard pro's and cons of funneling VS coneing! Some say accuracy improves after this operation some not?? I have not had any experiance with this however it seems like a lot would depend on the accuracy that each individual expects? Some people are happy to keep 5 shots on a regulation NMLRA target at each respective distance they are intended to be shot and the next shooter is disappointed if he does not shoot a 50 with a x or two!! Please describe your expectations and results and pass it on to us! I am very interested as well as most of you on actual results of conning VS funneling.

THANKS!!

[smylee grouch]

If a guy was going to cone the muzzle of his gun, it would be a great time to do an before and after test. Shoot a group with your best grouping load, cone the muzzle and shoot another with the same load. You might be able to make up your own mind about which is better. Of course, after its coned and if you dont like the coned muzzle performance your stuck with it any way unless you cut the barrel back.

[rich pierce]

I wonder how the old timers did it.  Look at the muzzles of existing original Hawken rifles for example.  Often I see no evidence of coning or any other muzzle treatment.  In fact it often appears that little was done to treat the muzzle.  Combine that with wide lands and narrow grooves and it would seem hard to load.

[WadePatton]

I wonder how the old timers did it.  Look at the muzzles of existing original Hawken rifles for example.  Often I see no evidence of coning or any other muzzle treatment.  In fact it often appears that little was done to treat the muzzle.  Combine that with wide lands and narrow grooves and it would seem hard to load.

I'd say a lot of old timers, especially the ones who weren't competitive (nothing wrong with that) may have loaded "loosely" and less effectively than we have learned to do these days.

The muzzles of those guys wouldn't need much chamfer.  Not everyone was a real marksman, just like every man with a wrench is not a mechanic.

[hudson]

On coning, I pretty much settled on conning all my black power rifles. Along with a bit of choke makes life a lot easier. I use a pretty tight ball patch combination. All rifles have done their share of winning, considering my ability.

[pushboater]

Accuracy aside, what little you may lose, it sure is nice not to have to carry a short starter around with you all the time.

[P.W.Berkuta]

I perfer a slight flair or radius if you will at the muzzle . I don't like or think deep coning does anything for accuracy but does help loading without a short starter . Every rifle and shooter is different so the only way to know if either path is right for you is to give both of them a try BUT you may end up with a shorter barrel than you started with

[Daryl]

Interesting discussion. I did a test on my GM barrel, a .45 with 60" twist. I used a .445" ball and 10 ounce denim, which I measure with MY tools at .0225", compressed.
I worked up an accuracy load which gave me 1/2" to 3/4", 5 shot groups at 50 yards.

I coned the muzzle to a depth of approximately 1", straight taper. I used the same load as before and my groups opened to 2" to 2 1/2" at 50 yards.  I cut 7/8" inch off the end of the barrel and re-crowned it as we, Taylor and I have been noting here for a number of years.
  
If you want a cone - GREAT - have at it.  If you want the best accuracy from your rifle, don't cone it- that is my opinion on coning.

Further note about coning.  LB bought a .40 from a maker here on ALR. I don't remember who the maker was. This barrel was coned. LB asked me to cast him up some balls as he didn't want to do this work - I assume.  I gave some some of my .400" x .400" balls from a Lyman DC mould. Using the same normal 10 ounce patch I was using in my .40 with a .398" bore, he complained the balls were too big and that they were exceptionally difficult to get started in his .400: bore that was coned - USING A SHORT STARTER.  

I was easily loading them in my .40 with the same patch material.  What it comes down to, is the angles of the crown vs. cone. The cone lengthens the reducing surface, causing more drag/friction (length of engagement) when attempting to compress, ie: FORM an oversized load into the bore.  I tested this with his rifle and yes - that is what was happening - the .0225" patch and .400" ball was almost impossible to load in the coned bore.

If you have read about bullet DRAWING using dies from CORBIN, you would know the drawing angle is very short, but rounded and perfectly smooth.  This is the angles we are putting on our muzzles - the crown's length is no longer than 1/8".

The long taper creating excessive drag also showed up when we were reducing jacketed .375" bullets to .366". I made a die that had a short 'polished' radius from the shank .375" down to .366".  The force needed is about the same as FL sizing large cases, using a normal Lyman case sizing press.  With a long tapered die, like a normal Lee bullet sizing die, it is impossible to do the same job, as the friction is too great and will damage the die and or press. If using these dies, a 3-die set can be used.  it takes that many of long taper-designed  dies to do the job of one with a proper bullet drawing die.

This diatribe explains the relationship between a long taper as in a cone, to a short radiused crown & how they differ so radically in bullet seating.

Reason, it seems for the ease that is reported for coning might be this.

I submit the load combinations guys are finding easy to load in a cone, are barely,if any tighter than what guys who need to wipe their bores often, use in barrels without cones. A cone would make a thin patched load even easier to load - perhaps. Improve accuracy?  Not in my tests.

Now, it is possible that a cone will give the same accuracy as an croned barrel - it is possible, but I sincerely doubt it will with the same load combination. With that statement, I am hinting that with more experimentation, a load possibly could be found to shoot as well in a coned barrel, as one which I like to refer to as properly crowned.

 

[Jamie]

Thanks everyone, and especially Daryl whose old posts led me down this road.  I guess I should have asked about crowning, not funnelling, in my original post.

Coning is obviously a controversial procedure, I don't plan to risk any loss of accuracy by going there as I'm accuracy-challenged enough already, thank you.

I do sometimes suffer from patch damage, getting what looks like a tear across the patch about where it would catch the edge of the muzzle on the way in.  It doesn't look like a cut from the land as it crosses the patch instead of radiating out.  Although I'm .010 under size, and the patches mike at about 0.15 squeezed, I have to give the starter a good whack to get it in there.

Back to my original post - would using emery over my range rod protector followed by my thumb be a "safe" way to ease loading?  Again, apologies for still beating it, I promise I'll stop after this round.

Jamie

[WadePatton]

AHA!

Thanks DS!

[Daryl]

Jamies, as long as the taper of the muzzleprotector is not too long, it should be just fine.  In the past I have use a commercial tapered grinding stone that has a 1/4" shaft, held in my fingers with about 320 grit paper or emery wrapped around it to speed up the crowning job. It works. I do like to finish the crown off with my thumb's end as the flexible skin finishes off the job with a nicely rounded crown.
Caution, using power as in an electric drill promotes uneven crowns - I know this for a fact.
Rotate the barrel periodically to ensure an even crown.
Run a patch- wet with oil down the bore about 2" or so to catch the stone from the paper or emery. Then, when finished, fish it out with a dental de-scaler tool (your dental hygenist will give you old ones) or long nosed needle nose pliers.

Yes - I know my hands are oversize and ugly, my bench is a mess (about 6" deep in 'stuff') and there are a pair of handcuffs hanging from the shelf.

[Daryl]

Also - Jamie - cutting radially is caused by the crown, usually a sharp corner left by the cutting tool used by the barrel maker. Taylor is the only "builder" I know of, who puts what I consider a proper crown on his rifles.  He does this using his big lathe and they are only perfect, so they'll have to do!

[Long Ears]

Does it ever end?

[Jamie]

Yup, it ends here.  Question asked and answered.

Thank you all, and R.I.P Old Horse!

Jamie