Crowning vs coning

[MuskratMike]

We covered thoroughly the advantages of crowning or improving the crowning on your rifle barrels. What is everyone's opinion on coning the barrel? I did polish the existing crown on my .54 and .40 swamped Rice barrels. It did help in starting the patched ball but there was no way you could thumb start the ball down the barrel. If it doesn't affect accuracy I feel it should really help with pistols (always hard to start) and small bores with those little ramrods. Many of you have probably coned their barrels and I would like to hear the good, the bad and the ugly, including if there is an advantage on who's tool you buy.
Just for chuckles and grins here is the "Muskrat" and crew heading to elk camp.

[Bob McBride]

The guys after every advantage punching paper crown. The guys after every advantage hunting and/or shooting in the woods, or who want to simplify their kit, or shoot like ggggrandad, cone. More or less.

Most do neither.

I have a video series in the works on coning and the effects seen on my particular rifle after extensive load development before and after coning.

It will be published on Black Powder TV on YouTube.

[msellers]

I have a video series in the works on coning and the effects seen on my particular rifle after extensive load development before and after coning.

Looking forward to this video, as I have been wondering some about it as well.

[Frank]

I have a video series in the works on coning and the effects seen on my particular rifle after extensive load development before and after coning.

Looking forward to this video, as I have been wondering some about it as well.

Ditto

[45-110]

I like tight ball patch combo's for accuracy. The 2 ways to get the thing loaded for me is one huge ugly radius-ed crown or or go with coning. So lately I have coned 2 of my plains rifles a .54 and .58. Accuracy is very good at 100 yds and I still find the need for a starter as I cannot quite thumb the ball in. Using my own lathe made tapered tool(s) threaded for a bore jag and a patch over it to center in bore.
The m1819 US Hall rifle had the rifling (lands) bored out a short distance to facilitate a load with no starter, a great idea I may try some day on another rifle or a pistol.
kw

[WadePatton]

According to what I've read here, swaging pressures are less with a short and smoothly radiused crown than with a longer taper as offered by a cone.  This is when comparing same/same, different bores are different bores, to truly test this one should use same bbl and ball/patch combo.  Equivalents are never quite such, due to tolerances.

So that it seems that load tight enough to require a starter and also provide zero-wipe loading would in-fact be more difficult to start down a coned muzzle, notwithstanding that it would sit lower at the start of the swage.  Which leads me to think that guys might often use a slightly less tight combo in their coned bbls to avoid using a starter.  And all of this presumes larger than 40 caliber, as the smaller bores simply don't have that much lead to upset for a good fit.

I don't know, I've never loaded a coned bbl. But I've "sat in" on a dozen or seventeen of these discussions over the last 10 or 12 years.

[smylee grouch]

I have had two coned barrels. BAD They did not group as well as un-coned barrels and the only advantage for me in loading was it was easier to pour the powder in. It was real hard to load when you try to cut patches at the muzzle.

[WadePatton]

I like tight ball patch combo's for accuracy. The 2 ways to get the thing loaded for me is one huge ugly radius-ed crown or or go with coning. So lately I have coned 2 of my plains rifles a .54 and .58. Accuracy is very good at 100 yds and I still find the need for a starter as I cannot quite thumb the ball in. Using my own lathe made tapered tool(s) threaded for a bore jag and a patch over it to center in bore.
The m1819 US Hall rifle had the rifling (lands) bored out a short distance to facilitate a load with no starter, a great idea I may try some day on another rifle or a pistol.
kw

exactly.  A nice tight fit, still needs a starter.  Thanks for illustrating the point I was fumbling around as we replied together.

[Bob McBride]

exactly.  A nice tight fit, still needs a starter.

I've heard that a lot but have rarely found it to be the case for me with a cone. Of course, if I load a .615/.025 in a .62 bore I'm going to need a starter. That's a very narrow type of shooting for me, though i do do it when i get the bug.

I'm mainly interested in small bore application, as there isnt a hard transition from the cone to the rifling with the ramrod in a .36 (.35/.020). If i get the same precision after a cone as before, and can thumb start in the woods, I'm interested. If not, it's new barrel time. It's worth the test to me in a Kibler SMR with it's easy replacement barrel availability.

We'll see.

[hanshi]

[/quote]
exactly.  A nice tight fit, still needs a starter.  Thanks for illustrating the point I was fumbling around as we replied together.
[/quote]


Well said, Wade.

[Daryl]

I still contend that to obtain the best accuracy from guns that must be loaded without a false muzzle, what I call the radiused crown is best.  Tight ball and patch combinations
give better accuracy than do loose ones.  Loose combinations only, can be loaded without the use of a short starter, whether in crowned or coned muzzles.  The muzzle shape, what I call
the radiused crown, is very close to what is used in metal drawing dies used for making bullets and ctg. cases.  In our rifles, it is a short, smoothly radiused portion at the end of the muzzle, & needs only be 1/8" deep.
 
A long taper, as in a "cone" shape, creates a longer bearing surface to the ball and patch combinations thus it creates even greater friction & harder loading with the same tight combinations
which load quite easily in a simply radiused crown, with the use of a short starter.

An example of this was a few years back, our late friend Leatherbelly asked me for .40 cal balls as he was out and didn't want to attempt casting them in the winter time. At that time, he was
shooting a coned Tenn. rifle. The balls I was using in my own .40, were .400"x.400" from a Lyman mould.  He complained that he could hardly get them loaded, even with his .018" denim patches.

The next day we shot, I not only noticed his trouble, but loaded his rifle myself - @!*% hard it was to get them started, but of course, once put down the bore 6", then went down easily. Getting them started was very difficult, while loading my own rifle with 10oz denim at .0225", was not difficult at all. One smack with my hand on the starter and in they went. His took a few smacks even
though it was a looser combination, by just over .004".

I tried coning in my .45 GM barrel prior to this and found a loss in accuracy, so cut off the end of the barrel and re-crowned it. That cone, was only about 3/4" long, but, it more than doubled my group sizes at 50yds to 1 1/2" from the normal 1/2" to 3/4".

[shifty]

  I guess all my rifles are just flukes but all have been conned after load development and none lost any accuracy and are easy to load without a short starter.

[JEH]

I have had good results with my coned barrels as well. Joe Woods tool and some elbow grease. I'm not a competition shooter but it sure makes just shooting them a lot more easy and fun without all the extra tools and fussing around. I'm a fan on a round ball gun!

[Smokey Plainsman]

The guys after every advantage punching paper crown. The guys after every advantage hunting and/or shooting in the woods, or who want to simplify their kit, or shoot like ggggrandad, cone. More or less.

Most do neither.

I have a video series in the works on coning and the effects seen on my particular rifle after extensive load development before and after coning.

It will be published on Black Powder TV on YouTube.

I am incredibly interested in this video! Can you say when it might be posted?

[Smokey Plainsman]

I like tight ball patch combo's for accuracy. The 2 ways to get the thing loaded for me is one huge ugly radius-ed crown or or go with coning. So lately I have coned 2 of my plains rifles a .54 and .58. Accuracy is very good at 100 yds and I still find the need for a starter as I cannot quite thumb the ball in. Using my own lathe made tapered tool(s) threaded for a bore jag and a patch over it to center in bore.
The m1819 US Hall rifle had the rifling (lands) bored out a short distance to facilitate a load with no starter, a great idea I may try some day on another rifle or a pistol.
kw

So you coned the rifles yet still need to use a starter... so, then, what advantage did coning give you?

[Bob McBride]

The guys after every advantage punching paper crown. The guys after every advantage hunting and/or shooting in the woods, or who want to simplify their kit, or shoot like ggggrandad, cone. More or less.

Most do neither.

I have a video series in the works on coning and the effects seen on my particular rifle after extensive load development before and after coning.

It will be published on Black Powder TV on YouTube.

I am incredibly interested in this video! Can you say when it might be posted?

Smoke,
I expect to get started on the series this weekend. It’ll be 4-8 videos. The first one will be on my barrel prep and going over the syllabus for the rest of the series. That should come out on the weekend. A 15 minute range video may take two full days of filming not to mention setup and takedown times so I hope to do one a week. I’ll go through the full range of load possibilities. Multiple sized balls, powders, powder measured in 5g increments, and patching. It will all be cronoed. I’ll cone, and do it all again. I’ll select all the best groups and retest them with further variables. It ought to be nice and boring.

I’m no big proponent of coning but with all the discussion and strong opinions, I’m interested in the data.

Muskrat and I have discussed this via email so I hope he doesn’t mind me hijacking. If I have anything further I’ll start a new thread.

[Bob McBride]

I like tight ball patch combo's for accuracy. The 2 ways to get the thing loaded for me is one huge ugly radius-ed crown or or go with coning. So lately I have coned 2 of my plains rifles a .54 and .58. Accuracy is very good at 100 yds and I still find the need for a starter as I cannot quite thumb the ball in. Using my own lathe made tapered tool(s) threaded for a bore jag and a patch over it to center in bore.
The m1819 US Hall rifle had the rifling (lands) bored out a short distance to facilitate a load with no starter, a great idea I may try some day on another rifle or a pistol.
kw

That’s the thing with coning, you have stop the coning process when you CAN push it in with your thumb and before it’s too loose to cut at the muzzle. Your load is then kind of baked in.

[577SXS]

The crown is the most important thing to do with accuracy. The crown needs to be true to bore and square to bore. Be it a radius crown or a cone it should be done in a lathe. Yes hand crowning works if done properly. When hand crowning you need a tight fitting pilot on cutter to align it with bore. A piece of emory paper and a thumb will break sharp edges but over done can ruin a crown. Sometimes people have a gun that may shoot a good group but the point of impact is way off, this is usually due to the crown not being true to bore or square to bore. Muzzleloaders may not be quite as sensitive as a modern cartridge gun but they still need a good crown.

[45-110]

So you coned the rifles yet still need to use a starter... so, then, what advantage did coning give you?

For me I found less ball deformation from the starter and never a cut patch from loading. The radius crown was not as forgiving. I am a 100yd shooter....don't care about anything less, a deformed ball hurts accuracy.
kw

[snapper]

Agree with 577SXS.

Bob, I am interested in your results.   I am not one that alters the muzzle.   The only one I used a cone on was one that had damaged at the muzzle and was causing my shot to go far left.   Using the coning tool brought my shot back to where it should of been.

Fleener

[Scota4570]

Ah,  another coning thread. : ) To my sensibilities the coning strategy is backwards.  A choke with a smooth crown is much better. Once the ball is pushed past the choke it slides down the bore super easy.  When the powder ignites the ball slugs up slightly and then is squeezed tight a the muzzle.  This is just the opposite of a cone.   Reference slug guns with false muzzles, they have no conventional crown, they are the most accurate MLs ever made.  The last bit of barrel the ball touches is the crown.  Making it funnel shape gives no guidance to the ball as is exits. 

[45-110]

  I recovered .58 rd balls this spring from the big snow bank the balls where fired into. They where in perfect condition and measuring them found no obturation with 110 gr of 2f....opposite of a cylindrical "bullet" characteristics.
  Still amazed that no one here has ever commented on the relieved rifling of the M1819 Hall rifle, I referenced here and a a year or so back. Its a design worthy of assessment and re-discovery.
kw

[Bob McBride]

It’s interesting how we all see through the funnel of our own interests. For 10 years I shot 6-10k rounds per month when I shot a modern multi-gun speed discipline. As opposed to target/bench shooters, my funnel was wasted motion, and inter-movement speed. Precision was something I used as a tool, developing to the extent necessary, for the discipline I was training for. I now shoot BP in the woods, from the pouch, and develop my loads based on the accuracy I need. More is wasted motion. When I was hunting in the wide open tundra of the North Slope and Brooks Range in Alaska, I hand loaded and trained for that. I could consistently hit a tuna can at 300y. That’s what I needed. Now I shoot squirrels up to 40y and deer to 75y and AR500 to 100. I now train for that. My small bores clover or better at 40 and my large bores shoot 2” or better at 75. Precision beyond what I need doesn’t interest me much outside load development. Most of the old timers who were tired from the plow yet still had to go feed the family probably felt the same. Different strokes.

[Bob McBride]

Agree with 577SXS.

Bob, I am interested in your results.   I am not one that alters the muzzle.   The only one I used a cone on was one that had damaged at the muzzle and was causing my shot to go far left.   Using the coning tool brought my shot back to where it should of been.

Fleener

Thanks Art, I am too. Especially around the question of whether the tightest groups at the differing pressures xG of 1f, 2f, 3f, and 4f, correlate to the same patch/ball combo or if the P/B combo tightness curve slides downward with the lower pressure loads. And if that shifts with precision coning. After thinking this test through I ordered several hundred more balls and in two more sizes and bought more camera batteries... I wonder if Amazon carries the old 5’x20’ rolling chalkboards.... This can easily get out of hand.

[hanshi]

All my rifles are crowned smooth and much more accurate than I'll ever be.  Loading is quite easy, more so than before the crown work.  Tight loads, which I like and shoot, load nicely and I have no plans to cone any of them.  I'm not a competitor and my accuracy standards are more modest; groups around an inch at 50 yards make me smile.  And I have never missed any game animal due to accuracy problems, muzzleloader or modern guns, nor have I witnessed such by others.  If I miss I know the accuracy problem is ME!