thumb starting

[hanshi]

I've reused fired patches a few times mostly just to be doing it.

[RichG]

Daryl- I too usually use "snug" patch /ball combos when plinking or target work. I was looking for hunting load for deer that wouldn't need a short starter. 70gr 3f gets 1960 fps; little hard on rabbits and such. I haven't really had much luck with loose patch/ball combos. This particular coelrain barrel likes the combo and shoots great.

[Daryl]

Use what works for you.  Obviously Rich, from you posts, your experiment - well done - I wish more people did this, instead of putting up with mediocre results.

[Daryl]

Daryl- I too usually use "snug" patch /ball combos when plinking or target work. I was looking for hunting load for deer that wouldn't need a short starter. 70gr 3f gets 1960 fps; little hard on rabbits and such. I haven't really had much luck with loose patch/ball combos. This particular coelrain barrel likes the combo and shoots great.

With a slippery oiled patch as one would use in hunting, my .45 made me use 75gr. 3F or 85gr. 2F for equal most excellent accuracy.  These loaded quite nicely, even easier than a water based lube, due to the oil's slippery nature.  Both loads gave just over 2,200fps, same as 65gr. 3F and 75gr. 2F did in my .40 - both 42" bls.  These were quite snug loads.

[George Sutton]

I don't know if anyone asked you what your patches look like. I would start there. If your patches are torn, your patch isn't thick enough. Try a smaller ball with a thicker patch. I thumb load most of my rifles with excellent accuracy. I used to believe that the tighter the fit the more accurate. I no longer believe that.

Centershot

[OldMtnMan]

I don't know if anyone asked you what your patches look like. I would start there. If your patches are torn, your patch isn't thick enough. Try a smaller ball with a thicker patch. I thumb load most of my rifles with excellent accuracy. I used to believe that the tighter the fit the more accurate. I no longer believe that.

Centershot

How about the tighter the fit the more velocity? The more velocity the flatter it shoots. Which some would believe is more accurate if you're not good at holdovers.

[George Sutton]

I've been shooting these guns since the early 1960's. I only share what works for me. I've shot at and broke a balloon at 300 yards offhand with a thumb pressed ball. Granted I didn't hit it the first shot but I did hit the tomato stake that was holding the balloon with the first shot. Plenty of velocity. My comment was based on the condition of his patches. If the patches are tearing accuracy goes away pretty quickly.

Merry Christmas to all!!!!

Centershot.

[rfd]

i think that for the most part, folks who wish to replicate the 18th century long guns consider consistent accuracy far more important than consistent ease of loading.  this is not a bad or good thing, it just is what it is - we 21st century folk don't put our lives on the line as those folks did back then, where their main firearm requirements were absolutely for sustenance, protection and warfare.  i don't think they loaded their smoothies (and rifles) with lubed cloth patched balls for the most part, either.  i think their order of accuracy wasn't near what we expect today, or achieve.  they needed fast loading and consistent ignition, which is what i'd want if i were in that era.       

that said, i got ed's coning tool last year and coned an investarms .50 rifle barrel for about 1/8" or so, just to see how the tool worked.  it worked well and though i saw no difference in accuracy using a lubed thicker patch, which made for as easy a push start as with a thinner lubed patch and the same .490 ball.  having started the thicker patching, i still didn't need a ball starter, just the ram to home the patched ball.  to be fair, i didn't check the overall accuracy of the coned muzzle much past 70 yards.

i do think one needs to be careful using ed's coning tool (or perhaps any coning tool).  with ed's, i would think if too loose a patched alignment jag was used, or a misaligned abrasive, then the cone might not yield a concentric taper, which could affect accuracy.  i will cone a .62 smoothie next. 

[gumboman]

After having success coning my 62 using Ed's coning tool, I decided to cone my 54 Rice swamped barrel. Again, the cone allowed me to use a thicker patch without using a hammer. Accuracy is now better. Admittedly, I was able to shoot only 5 rounds, but at 100 yards with open sights I got a 4 inch group. That is much better than any of my previous attempts. I will conduct a more detailed range session later but I do feel confident the cone has extended my effective range by 25 yards on my Issac Haines 54 flintlock. The cone did not improve accuracy but it does allow for a thicker patch which does improve accuracy and consistency in groups.

[Daryl]

"The cone did not improve accuracy but it does allow for a thicker patch which does improve accuracy and consistency in groups."

 

[Davo]

Rather than cone my .54 hunting rifle, I filed grooves into the lands at the muzzle. Someone posted an example some time ago here, and I thought I would try it. Additional grooves to take the patching allows for extremely easy loading. Accuracy is still the same on this rifle, so I'm happy with the results

Bob, I did this with a Pedersoli "Ohioan" .45 cal. over 40 years ago...
It DOES make loading easier, but filing my way around the muzzle was nerve-wracking.
The heavier patching "follows" the radiused grooves & lands better than trying to wad it down a muzzle that does not have at least a gentle crown.

A square needle-file w/one "blind" side worked for me.
You have to radius the lands as well as the grooves. (Looks pretty once you are done ;-)
Davo

[Daryl]

I have read that it is easier and more accurate, to file the lands to just below the bottom of the grooves, then file the grooves out about .005 or .006" to make the muzzle appear to have a squared muzzle.
 
If filing a muzzle, that is how I would do it, however the radiused crown is so easy in comparison and comes out perfectly centered, each and every time.

Incidentally, LB had a .40 that had a coned muzzle. With that cone, he still used a short starter to load a .020|" or so patch with a .395" ball - the starter was needed, gents.  He ran out of .395's, so I gave him a bunch of .400's.  These, he found almost impossible to load with the same patch, which was thinner than the patches I used in my .398" Goodoien barrel with the same .400" balls.
I thought he must be pulling my leg- until I loaded his rifle with the .400's and my patches. They were exceptionally difficult to get started then down.
Reason?
The gentle taper of the cone increases friction by spreading it over more of the ball's surface.  Corbin, the bullet swage and drawing die manufacturer explained this quite well.  A short radius is cut into the die mouth, which forms the bullet and jacket much easier than a long taper due to the increased friction of the long taper.

This is why the radiused taper works better than a cone.  Too - the shorter the crown, the close the muzzle is to a square cut, which is MUCH more accurate than any sort of crown.  The deeper or longer the crown, the less accurate it will be.

THIS is THE reason that false muzzles were invented for accuracy rifles, so the actual muzzle surface could be clean and sharp for the perfect delivery of the bullet and/or patched round balls in RB bench guns.

A shorter muzzle crown automatically is more accurate than any coned muzzle, in other words, the coned muzzle has the potential to be the least accurate.

I measured the crown depth on several of my rifles and they ran from .035" to .050" - less than 1/16" inch, which is about .0625".  This is a long way from 1" or 1 1/2"- with easier loading and much better accuracy - POTENTIAL.

[sonny]

I know....try it!!!!!............but just out of curiosity, would a slightly smaller ball an thicker lubbed patch still retain accuracy an give an easier time of starting the ball down the bore?.......sonny

[Daryl]

Might just be my experimenting, Sonny, but I've found the larger the ball, the better the accuracy.  I've achieved good groups (in the past) using smaller balls and heavier patches, in my 14 bore rifle, but not in the smaller bores. 

I tried, for example, .562's in my Kodiak .58 - which has a .580" bores.  Balls from my .570" Lyman mould cast at .574"x.574" in PURE lead were quite simply more accurate- to the tune of 1/2 groups size at 50 yards.  Both were more accurate than needed for hunting, however, which was the primary reason for having that rifle.

In the .58 Military rifle with 24" barrel, the .562" and .574" balls seemed equally accurate - using the military sights.

In even smaller bores, I've always had better accuracy with balls only .005" smaller than the bore, than balls that were .010" smaller than the bore.

In the .32 and .40, bore sized balls shot better than balls that were only .005" smaller than the bore.

It all depends on what is good enough accuracy for you!

[Longknife]

In the summer of 2015, I bought Ed Hamburg's coning tool after reading about it on this forum. It has been stored in my tool chest since that time because I was reluctant to use it after reading the pro and con comments here.

Last week I stepped out on the edge and used it on a 62 caliber round ball barrel of which I could never get the accuracy I expected. Up until last week my best and most accurate load was a .610' ball, .017" linen patch lubed with mink oil and 120 grains of 2f black powder. I also had to use a protective patch on top of the powder before loading the patch and ball to prevent patch burn out. With that load the gun was a 75 yard maximum deer rifle.

I wanted to use a thicker patch and tried that but it required a hammer to get the patch and ball started. I did not want that in a hunting gun.

So I used the coning tool. I did not take the cone to a thumb start stage, instead I coned just enough so I could get a .610" ball and .026" thick lube patch started with my short starter. Low and behold my groups tightened up nicely. And they were consistent out to 100 yards. This is what I was hoping to achieve. Now I don't need the extra protective patch over the powder. The .026 denim patches hold up nicely and I think I could increase the powder charge without harming the patch.

The end result after using the coning tool has been great for me. I can use a thicker patch, loading is easier, my accuracy improved and I have more confidence in using this particular gun for deer hunting. I might in the future use the tool again on this barrel and take it to a thumb start stage but that is for another day.

Glad my tool is working well for you!!!...Ed

[Longknife]

i think that for the most part, folks who wish to replicate the 18th century long guns consider consistent accuracy far more important than consistent ease of loading.  this is not a bad or good thing, it just is what it is - we 21st century folk don't put our lives on the line as those folks did back then, where their main firearm requirements were absolutely for sustenance, protection and warfare.  i don't think they loaded their smoothies (and rifles) with lubed cloth patched balls for the most part, either.  i think their order of accuracy wasn't near what we expect today, or achieve.  they needed fast loading and consistent ignition, which is what i'd want if i were in that era.       

that said, i got ed's coning tool last year and coned an investarms .50 rifle barrel for about 1/8" or so, just to see how the tool worked.  it worked well and though i saw no difference in accuracy using a lubed thicker patch, which made for as easy a push start as with a thinner lubed patch and the same .490 ball.  having started the thicker patching, i still didn't need a ball starter, just the ram to home the patched ball.  to be fair, i didn't check the overall accuracy of the coned muzzle much past 70 yards.

i do think one needs to be careful using ed's coning tool (or perhaps any coning tool).  with ed's, i would think if too loose a patched alignment jag was used, or a misaligned abrasive, then the cone might not yield a concentric taper, which could affect accuracy.  i will cone a .62 smoothie next.

RFD, Glad the tool is working for you, and yes a tight fitting patch on the jag, along with a well secured abrasive is imperative to getting an excellent coning job,,,....Ed

[Longknife]

After having success coning my 62 using Ed's coning tool, I decided to cone my 54 Rice swamped barrel. Again, the cone allowed me to use a thicker patch without using a hammer. Accuracy is now better. Admittedly, I was able to shoot only 5 rounds, but at 100 yards with open sights I got a 4 inch group. That is much better than any of my previous attempts. I will conduct a more detailed range session later but I do feel confident the cone has extended my effective range by 25 yards on my Issac Haines 54 flintlock. The cone did not improve accuracy but it does allow for a thicker patch which does improve accuracy and consistency in groups.

Another one coned with excellent results, glad to hear of your success!!!!...Ed