Crown

[hortonstn]

What degree of angle are most rifle crowns cut?
Thanks Paul

[Hungry Horse]

Just an interesting side note. If you look at the pictures of the Kit Carson Hawken rifle in the latest Muzzleblasts you will see that it has wide lands, and narrow grooves, and has no crown at all. So how many of these antique rifles were built with a slight crown, and how many got that crown from being loaded thousands of times with a gritty ramrod?

  Hungry Horse

[Clowdis]

I use an 82 degree countersink with the barrel in a lathe and the bore indicated.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

HH:  I've pondered those questions myself for a long time.  Studying Gordon's vol. III which contains dozens of examples of Hawken and other plains rifles, there are none that have a crown as we know it today.  Now you and I know it would be impossible to load a barrel that is cut off sharp at the muzzle.  So what did they do?
It is my opinion (guess) that the muzzles were filed.  The grooves and the lands may have been filed with a taper as they exit the bore, leaving the edge sharp but allowing a patched ball to be seated, possibly with the thumb, flush with the muzzle.  You see this a lot in European arms, in Steinschloss Jaegerbuschsen, for example, where the rifling is exaggerated by file work in place of a cut crown.  I cut the crown on my Chambers Virginia rifle this way, and I like it.

On most other rifles, I cut my crowns, usually in the lathe, at about a 60 deg. angle, but then I polish with abrasive cloth and round all edges, so there is no angle at all.  This allows a very tight patch/ball combo without risk of cutting or tearing the patch.

[smylee grouch]

Interesting topic for sure. On that Kit Carson rifle I'm wondering if those narrow cuts at the muzzle are in fact the actual lands and not the groves as some rifles had the lands relieved at the muzzle to ease the loading of the patched ball.

[moleeyes36]

It is my opinion (guess) that the muzzles were filed.  The grooves and the lands may have been filed with a taper as they exit the bore, leaving the edge sharp but allowing a patched ball to be seated, possibly with the thumb, flush with the muzzle.  You see this a lot in European arms, in Steinschloss Jaegerbuschsen, for example, where the rifling is exaggerated by file work in place of a cut crown.  I cut the crown on my Chambers Virginia rifle this way, and I like it.

Taylor, could you achieve the same result as filing the lands to a taper as they exit the bore by using a coning tool and only doing a shallow coning rather than a normal deeper coning?  It seems to me that it would be easier to keep the taper on each land more uniform this way.  It sounds too easy to me, so I must be overlooking something obvious.

Mole Eyes

[smylee grouch]

Moleeyes: The idea you talk about is one I have thought about trying. Create a crowning tool like the coneing tool only that it would relieve that part of the barrel just deep enough, say 1/8 inch deep at a 82 degree angle like Clowdis mentioned.  I thought of having the end threaded for 8-32 jag to keep it centered in the bore with a fairly tight clean patch around it. The other end would have a 3/8 shaft to turn the tool with abrasive paper on the taper to create the crown. Then when done you could take the ends of the lands down at an angle just slightly with a round stone. After all that you could give it a nice thumb polish with some fine wet/dry abrasive paper.  Don't have the slightest idea if it would work or not but in the interest of science it might be worth a try.

[jerrywh]

 Most of the builders today assume that builders 100 or 200 years ago knew more than we do today and they try to emulate their tactics.  I believe this is is not true.  I believe we know a lot more today than they did back then. Just because a rifle never had any cone in 1850 does not mean it is the best way to have one. Also you are not going to wear a cone in a muzzle with a greasy patch and a wooden ram rod, not even in 100 years.  The truth is , the so called old masters were not near as good as the modern masters of today. It just wasn't possible with the tool they had and the resources we have today. I admire those old gun makers but That's reality.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Jerry:  splendid observation.

[Fiftyfour]

I have not seen the mention of using a die grinder ball stone in hand operated drill. Is that a reasonable method?

[moleeyes36]

I have not seen the mention of using a die grinder ball stone in hand operated drill. Is that a reasonable method?

Fiftyfour, I knew a fella some years back that claimed he used to take a round ball stone and use it to press fine emery cloth into the muzzle of the barrel with a hand drill to create a crown.  I never tried it myself, but the old fella was one heck of a good shot with the rifles he made and crowned that way.

Mole Eyes

[WadePatton]

I have not seen the mention of using a die grinder ball stone in hand operated drill. Is that a reasonable method?

If your muzzle is cut square* to the bore and you get a even dimension of crown all the 'round, then it's perfectly good to me.

*Tolerances will vary and can be personal beyond functionality.

Has anyone mentioned the round ball is not as sensitive to skewed crowns as Pickets?

As one who "came up" chasing various magical dimensions of crown and throat and all those other nuances of cartridge shooting--oh that copper fouling!  (whoops, I taste soap now) I'm good with a hacksaw, reamer, and thumbed crown these days. .  Well, the initial cut may take a bit of squaring up with the files.

I never said I was a good example, but I'll shoot for money... 

[Hungry Horse]

Jerry you are right excessive muzzle wear won’t happen in a hundred years using a gritty wooden ramrod. It’ll happen in three years if you shoot a lot. A very good friend did just that to his fancy engraved Tryon. We cut the egg shaped part off the muzzle recrowned it, and it was good as new, just a couple of inches shorter.

  Hungry Horse

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

Here is my copy of an 18th century barrel crown tool.  Actually, an adaptation as the original has a more decorated shaft.  It looks a lot like a very large mold cherry, but with only teeth on half of the ball.  Since it is a sphere, it self aligns in the muzzle bore.  A very simple and effective tool.

Jim

[hortonstn]

Thanks for all the info I think I'll try a 60 degree crown
Paul

[Scota4570]

I normally use a crown that is rounded.  I use a sickle shaped lathe tool.  The barrel is dialed in as perfect as I can make it.  I then cut a crown that is at a very low angle in the bore and become more acute at the muzzle.  I don't make giant funnels or long tapers.  It only need to be slightly over bore diameter at the muzzle to load easy.  I then polish it with sandpaper on my thumb.   The most important things are to keep it concentric with the bore and don't leave sharp edges to cut he patch.  A crooked crown can make the rifle shoot way out in left field. 

[jerrywh]

 I always use a coning tool with a pilot in the bore. Good luck on all the other methods you need it.

[n stephenson]

Most of the builders today assume that builders 100 or 200 years ago knew more than we do today and they try to emulate their tactics.  I believe this is is not true.  I believe we know a lot more today than they did back then. Just because a rifle never had any cone in 1850 does not mean it is the best way to have one. Also you are not going to wear a cone in a muzzle with a greasy patch and a wooden ram rod, not even in 100 years.  The truth is , the so called old masters were not near as good as the modern masters of today. It just wasn't possible with the tool they had and the resources we have today. I admire those old gun makers but That's reality.

Jerry , While it may be true that the gunsmiths today have access to more "information" ,I really think that you are off the mark . If people today are so much more "enlightened" then why will 2 or 3 of todays top builders get into a three page argument on THIS site , trying to figure out how something was done 200 years ago. Comparing today`s builders to the old time builders is a far reach to say the least. To test your theory , maybe you should , try building a gun with NO electricity AT ALL . No lights , no AC /electric heat , no electric drill press, NO MICROSCOPES , no air gravers , etc.   It is easy to make statements about how great , modern people are , when in reality  MOST modern people would "cry for their momma" if they were just forced to try to survive in those conditions , little loan attempt to do highly skilled work.  Jerry , I respect you and your work!! I just think you are wishful thinking and , probably giving modern people a little too much credit. JMHO  Nate

[Bob Roller]

Guys,

Here is my copy of an 18th century barrel crown tool.  Actually, an adaptation as the original has a more decorated shaft.  It looks a lot like a very large mold cherry, but with only teeth on half of the ball.  Since it is a sphere, it self aligns in the muzzle bore.  A very simple and effective tool.

Jim

This is my favorites and I power it with a hand cranked geared drill with a shoulder stock.
Old method,old tool,works fine.Finish with the same tool with 320 aluminum oxide CLOTH.

Bob Roller

[jerrywh]

n stephenson.
    You just made my point. It's because we have all these things that we are able to do better work.
 Remember this, the generations that came after those old guys are the ones who figured out the stuff we have now. Also, A lot of the old so called masters did have power equipment it just wasn't electric. It was water powered or horse powered. They also had magnification. They did great for what they had. 
     Just for your information, when I started out back in the fifties and sixties I never had much more than they did in the old days. I started out with a coal forge and nothing but hand tools in an old garage with a dirt floor.  I started engraving with a hammer and chisel and stones. About 1995 I just decided that if I wanted to make any real money making guns I had to get out of the stone age. Now I use the most modern tools available. Us modern equipment builders are subject to the ridicule or the stone age crowd all the time. I am a realist. This is 2017. I use 2017 tools. I get paid 2017 money for my guns. I don't sell them for beaver pelts or bushels of wheat. I use to live in the 18th century. I like 2017 better. Now we have toilet paper.

[n stephenson]

n stephenson.
    You just made my point. It's because we have all these things that we are able to do better work.
 Remember this, the generations that came after those old guys are the ones who figured out the stuff we have now. Also, A lot of the old so called masters did have power equipment it just wasn't electric. It was water powered or horse powered. They also had magnification. They did great for what they had. 
     Just for your information, when I started out back in the fifties and sixties I never had much more than they did in the old days. I started out with a coal forge and nothing but hand tools in an old garage with a dirt floor.  I started engraving with a hammer and chisel and stones. About 1995 I just decided that if I wanted to make any real money making guns I had to get out of the stone age. Now I use the most modern tools available. Us modern equipment builders are subject to the ridicule or the stone age crowd all the time. I am a realist. This is 2017. I use 2017 tools. I get paid 2017 money for my guns. I don't sell them for beaver pelts or bushels of wheat. I use to live in the 18th century. I like 2017 better. Now we have toilet paper.

Jerry ,I agree ,  there is some very nice work being done now , yours being among the best . By no means was my test of your theory , meant as ridicule , just given as food for thought .How come virtually no one on this site "knew" how they made a spider sight ?  Back then , just as now , some people had skills that other people don`t . I know that it is easy to sit around now , and crow about how smart people are  now , and luxuries are nice , but , most modern people have an overinflated ego , when it comes to comparing themselves to their forefathers. Jerry , I know that this is the gun building section , but I feel that quick history lesson is in store , just for the record , they weren't building rifles during the "stone age" , you have to come this side of a few other "ages" .     I too , get paid in 2017 money , I wished it was in  silver certificates instead!!

[jerrywh]

Spider sights call for another thread. I know how they made them in Europe. They cast them either by sand casting or investment casting. Nobody who posted might not have known how but there are some people today that know. We are off subject. I'll quit.