Muzzle "coning" question

[Mattox Forge]

I was looking at a thread on contemporary coning techniques. Most of what I have found involves cutting a funnel shaped crown into the barrel. Was this the only practice for period builders in the America? Some of the higher end flintlock period English rifles examples I have studied use a slightly more involved technique which included funneling the rifling out as well as the lands. The images below are from a 1792-3 Bass.

Was this technique used on American made guns? If so, in which regions and in what periods?


Muzzle view

.375 from the muzzle






Thanks,

Mike

[rich pierce]

This form of funneling is the only form of funneling found on original American rifles, from the 1770s forward. None I have seen were ever funneled as is done today, which obliterates rifling at the muzzle. I’ve freshed the rifling on about 20 original barrels done exactly as you illustrated above.

This does not mean that one method is more accurate than the other.

I surmise, without any evidence, that shooters wanted their muzzles coned and they wanted to see rifling on their rifles.

[Mattox Forge]

The only period rifles I have seen done without the rifling carried out into the funnel are the Baker rifle and the Morris 1776 rifle. The photos of Baker rifles I have looked at with their original rifling seems to show either a cone or possibly even an actual hemisphere cut into the muzzle. The Morris P1776 I have has what looks like a standard taper cut into it. It may be a curved funnel shape, but I can’t tell if it is wear or not.

...
I surmise, without any evidence, that shooters wanted their muzzles coned and they wanted to see rifling on their rifles.

I have thought that as well. I have also wondered if they were thinking the patch and ball might be "pre-engraved" with the rifling.

Mike

[Bob Roller]

One thing about the coned or "funneled"muzzle is that if it is UNIFORMLY cut as by a tapered reamer the effect on accuracy is none.It also makes loading easier once the real bore diameter is established by measuring it after the cone was passed.I asked Bill Large about this and he said it would work if it was done by using a rigid lathe and a long taper reamer held rigid in a good chuck.I think he made a few as requests from shooters he knew that would report whether it was a good or bad idea.The reports were favorable but the idea wasn't persued any further.
Bob Roller

[Curtis]

This post show some of how I did one on a Christian Springs gun: https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=40237.msg420779#msg420779

Hope it helps a little.

Curtis

[Mattox Forge]

This post show some of how I did one on a Christian Springs gun: https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=40237.msg420779#msg420779

Hope it helps a little.

Curtis

Curtis,
Beautiful work there. Thanks for sharing it

 That's exactly how I imagined it was done. The scribed circles and rifling groove indicator marks used to cut the funneling could be the basis for some of the muzzle decoration we observe on some original muzzles.

Mike

[JTR]

This post show some of how I did one on a Christian Springs gun: https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=40237.msg420779#msg420779

Hope it helps a little.

Curtis

And that was one of the greatest threads on here, of all time!
John

[Uncle Miltie]

Not sure coning was done on rifles in the old days.  The tight ball and patch combinations many use today I feel are largely the result of "gamesmanship" by shooters trying to get an edge after the 1930's: same goes for short starters.  If you take into account the size ball used by shooters in the old days there would be no need for coning.

[Curtis]

And that was one of the greatest threads on here, of all time!
John

Curtis,
Beautiful work there. Thanks for sharing it

 That's exactly how I imagined it was done. The scribed circles and rifling groove indicator marks used to cut the funneling could be the basis for some of the muzzle decoration we observe on some original muzzles.

Mike

Thanks for the kind words Mike and John!!!

Curtis

[Longknife]

Not sure coning was done on rifles in the old days.  The tight ball and patch combinations many use today I feel are largely the result of "gamesmanship" by shooters trying to get an edge after the 1930's: same goes for short starters.  If you take into account the size ball used by shooters in the old days there would be no need for coning.

Not true! I have inspected hundreds of original m-loading barrels and every one of them were coned, or "funneled" at the muzzle. In a letter to John Baird who wrote "HAWKEN RIFLES, THE MOUNTAIN MANS CHOICE", the famous barrel maker, Bill Large stated that he had re-bored and rifled 25 to 30 original Hawken barrels!!!!---- He also stated---"all were belled and showed signs of the funneling tool commonly used by most gunsmiths, as a request of the owner, to permit easy and fast reloading"""".....LK

[Mattox Forge]

I did not notice it before, but the .46 caliber Deringer rifle I have has a coned muzzle. It is almost imperceptible, but the grooves have been "funneled" in the same manner as the more pronounced Bass muzzle I posted above. I haven't measured the lands, but I think they are done as well.


Mike

[Daryl]

As far as I am concerned, it would not be advantageous to deepen the grooves at the muzzle and not the bore's lands.
Most of the Jaeger muzzles in the huge book Taylor has, show signs of filing groove and lands at the muzzle. If you want to
call that coning instead of crowning, so be it. This 'system' if not at all like the 'coning' done today by more people. I have
heard of muzzle "cones" being 1 1/2" deep.  The shorter the "cone" the easier it is to start the snug patched ball with a 'bump'.
The longer the "cone" the harder it is due to the longer bearing/friction surface.
The "old time makers" knew this, I am sure.

[Mattox Forge]

To my understanding "coning" is a modern term. I have no idea what it was called originally. Maybe it was called crowning, since that is the traditional term we still use today for the feature on the muzzle of a rifle. Sort of makes sense to call that feature the "Crown" of the muzzle if you think about the shape that you are making.

Mike

[Daryl]

Possibly, Mike, or it could have been called "relieving".

[Mattox Forge]

As far as I am concerned, it would not be advantageous to deepen the grooves at the muzzle and not the bore's lands.

I agree. The lands are what really need to be relieved. If they aren't and are sharp, it seems like they would cut the patch.

Mike

[Longknife]

I believe the HC term was "funneled". The only reference I could ever find was that of Bill Large as posted above. Bill Large called the tool a ""funneling" tool. I have thought for a long time that originally files were used to funnel a muzzle.  Using files would take a considerable amount of skill and experience to get the funnel right and retain accuracy. Using a coning tool makes it much easier and most anyone can cone (funnel) a barrel. Here are some original "funneled " barrels. The first one is the Bridger Hawken rifle.

[Longknife]

Here is a contemporary funneled muzzle by one of my customers.

[Clowdis]

Here is a contemporary funneled muzzle by one of my customers.

After all the fuss that has been written about "crowning" and squareness at the muzzle I cannot believe that doing this to the muzzle of a barrel has no effect on accuracy. I will not be doing this to any of my barrels to try it. Can some of this funneling/coning be contributed to muzzle wear from loading and cleaning?

[rich pierce]

Clowdis, many people think the funneling we see on originals could be due to rod wear.
1) we’d see wearing down of the lands to the level of grooves or nearly so. Yet we see strong lands and grooves, with a larger bore measurement at the muzzle. Yet the grooves are often super deep at the muzzle.

2) the wear from a ramrod would likely be uneven.

3)  I’ve lapped and freshed many many barrels. When lapping, it takes an afternoon with a lap loaded with abrasive to enlarge a bore 0.0005”. This with over 800 strokes and re-applying abrasive.

So, I cannot conceive this is the cause. I’m not saying there is no muzzle wear from loading and cleaning with a wooden rod.

Others draw different conclusions, but cannot explain away #1.

[Uncle Miltie]

If coning was commonly done in the old days there would of course be appropriate numbers of original coning tools found with other items in original gunsmith tool chests.  Not certain I believe Bill Large when he said he rifled or re-rifled over 30 original Hawken barrels: that is an awful lot, and he wasn't the only one working on barrels in his day.  Folks forget barrels were often freshed using either the lap or saw which would affect the original state of the bore and mightn't correct ramrod wear unless the bore were reamed first. 

[Dan Fruth]

Moravian Guns vol2 gives data revealing both coned and unconed muzzles. Even fowlers from the period reveal coned muzzles.

[Clowdis]

Clowdis, many people think the funneling we see on originals could be due to rod wear.
1) we’d see wearing down of the lands to the level of grooves or nearly so. Yet we see strong lands and grooves, with a larger bore measurement at the muzzle. Yet the grooves are often super deep at the muzzle.

2) the wear from a ramrod would likely be uneven.

3)  I’ve lapped and freshed many many barrels. When lapping, it takes an afternoon with a lap loaded with abrasive to enlarge a bore 0.0005”. This with over 800 strokes and re-applying abrasive.

So, I cannot conceive this is the cause. I’m not saying there is no muzzle wear from loading and cleaning with a wooden rod.

Others draw different conclusions, but cannot explain away #1.

Thanks Rich. I agree with almost everything you say except I have seen Civil War musket barrels worn down by N-SSA skirmishers that are quite large and tapered at the muzzle from wear produced by metal ramrods. All were quite symmetrical. BUT this isn't the same as using a wooden ramrod and loading a patched roundball and it would take 1,000's of reloads to do the same thing with a wooden ramrod. I wonder if some of what we see in the old barrels today might not be from the barrel corroding more down the bore than it does the first inch or two of the bore creating a tighter bore? Coning a bore and rifling for an inch or two is an extremely difficult task so I wonder again if some of it could have been caused by returning the rifling cutter (which is loaded by shims underneath) into the bore on the return stroke. Then maybe the 'smith would taper the bore a bit to match the extra depth of rifling? If it caused no decrease in accuracy and made loading easier, why not leave it that way? Funny, Kenneth Orr and myself were having this same discussion a couple weeks ago while he was taking photos of some rifles.

[Bob Roller]

Not sure coning was done on rifles in the old days.  The tight ball and patch combinations many use today I feel are largely the result of "gamesmanship" by shooters trying to get an edge after the 1930's: same goes for short starters.  If you take into account the size ball used by shooters in the old days there would be no need for coning.

Tom Dawson,now deceased said the old guns he had owned had original moulds that were under size and would be easily loaded while walking.The flintlock rifle I made 20 year ago was a 58 caliber and I still have the mould blocks I bought in 1953,new Lyman from Wes Kindig* made a .575 ball and a short starter was needed.
That's OK for target shooting but out in the boonies on a hunt it was not a good idea.I bought a .562 mould and
to my surprise it loaded with little effort and shot as accurately as the tighter ball.I used washed blue denim and 75 grains of GOEX 3fg.
*Those Lyman blocks cost new in 1953 the grand sum of $3.50 and I still have them.The .562 went with the rifle.I wish I had kept it but got a fair price and it went to a new owner. It had a small Ketland lock like th one Major Joel showed here some time back.
Bob Roller

[Dphariss]

In John Baird’s “Hawken Rifles, The Mountainman’s Choice” we have a description of the bore of an Hoffman and Campbell rifle done by (I am positive) TK Dawson. THIS is what the “coning” REALLY was and its nothing like what is being advocated today. AND for good. But I get the idea that there is little serious accuracy testing done by the people that sell the tools or advocate their use.
Sorry but the last part the barrel is CRITICAL to accuracy and funneling it to the extent advocated by some here is NOT going to improve the accuracy.

This is the sighter target at a “turkey” match at Cody Wyoming shot with my heavy 50 caliber rifle using a plank rest. 60 yards.  I left the sighter up and stapled the 10 score targets over it. The second shows the individual score targets. I don’t think a severely coned barrel will do this. 100 gr of FFF, wiped each shot one damp but not dripping patch both sides and one dry both sides. Patches are lubed with WS cutting oil mixed  (IIRC) 5:1 water:oil. Balls cast in a .500 Lyman mould. Its crowned just enough to load.
Barrel is McLemore gain twist.





The crown,

[Dphariss]

My copy of Baird’s book is out in the shop or I would photograph and post the description.

Dan