Crown or Cone...or...Both?

[Ravenshurst]

I need to cut about an inch off a barrel.  I want to cone the muzzle, but, my search fu is weak....If coning, should I crown the muzzle before coning?  Should I crown the muzzle (with a round ball grinding/polishing stone) after using the coning tool?  Does coning take the place of the muzzle crown, and I should just bevel the flats around the muzzle?  Am I explaining this well?  Does anyone know the winning powerball numbers?  What should I make for dinner?  Am I asking too many questions?  ARRRRRGH!  Please help!!!

[smylee grouch]

Thats kind of a can-o-worms. Some don't want a cone and some will swear by them. It would be a great before and after test.

[P.Bigham]

Why do you need to cut off a inch ?   I'd make sure it's square with the barrel if you cut it off. If you want a cone I'd file the lands into grooves with a chain saw file after you round the tip off the file. For about a 1/4 inch down the barrel.  Light crown if wanted.

[Frozen Run]

What should I make for dinner?

Spaghetti and meatballs.

[Ravenshurst]

The barrel was a freebie, badly rusted.  Evaporust cleaned it up like brand new, except for a little at the muzzle.  I don't know how to post the link, but the entire saga is in a thread called "Clean Up Rusted Barrel?"  After I bob it, I will need to either cone it or crown it.  I have been wanting to cone it anyway, but I am not sure of the details.  I can file the flats to a bevel, and I can crown the muzzle with a round ball stone.  Or does coning replace crowning? 

Too late.  I made shrimp and mango curry.  It came out pretty good....

[Daryl]

This is what I would do. It allows you to use tight combinations that a cone will not. We found that out already- with LB's .40 cal. barrel & it also had
a polished crown along with the cone.  Due to the length of the cone, the long - friction surface or the cone increased the drag and thus pressure needed to the
patched ball into the bore all the way to below the cone. I'm telling you, it was a grunt. I didn't believe him when he told me he couldn't load the .400" balls with
the 10 ounce denim patch, which at that time I measured compressed at .0225". I was using that same patch and balls (all from my mould) in my .398" bored .40
& loading them with a 3/8" hickory rod.
I will picture my crown, which shows a shape that Corbin uses on his metal swaging dies.
After about a 45 degree angle is cut, just your thumb and emery or wet/dry paper is needed to smooth and polish the crown.
Currently, the forum picture posting mechanism is not allowing me to post pictures.
I looked back a ways using the search engine, but it would not show pictures. Must be something wrong with the forum.
I did find this response I made to the question of sharp/vs radiused crowns.  I thought the "situation" as pertains to patched round balls was fairly accurate. A cone is very much deeper taper than a simple radiused crown.

  " You missed my point. I'm talking about today's target shooter. They use false muzzles to not only load tight loads, but to have a nice sharp muzzle with no crown. This leads me to believe a crown takes away from accuracy."

my response:
"Yes - I know exactly what you are talking about when referring to the muzzle's shape when the false muzzle is removed - now or back then - same deal. The sharper the muzzle, the more accurate the release of the bullet.

However, we are talking about round balls as Wade notes, not bullets.  We need a method of loading a tight combination, required for the best accuracy. Thus, the muzzle must be as sharp as possible, but still allow a tight combination to be loaded.

That is why a coned muzzle 1" deep, did not work for me - blow-by before the ball exited the bore - the coned muzzle opened my groups.  I had to cut some off the muzzle and re-crown it to my soft radiused crown, which allowed a nice tight combination with thick patch and larger ball, close to bore size, in 2 barrels, even over bore size with EASY loading & good accuracy.  I don't see the sights and target as well as I did back in the 80's and 90's, but my last 100meter 5-shot round ball group put 5 into 2.56", with 4 of those into 1.052" - 2 weeks ago. Oft wondered how it would do with a gizmo aperture sight? Hmmmmm

Make your round ball rifle's muzzle sharp like a false muzzled rifle's barrel crown and we'll have a contest -  cloth or paper patched round balls only."

[Longknife]

Using the tool that I make requires that you take the edge off of a newly cut barrel so the patch/jag combo will start. I use a tapered cutting stone mounted in my drill and SLOWLY rotate it till the patch will enter the bore....LK

[urlhttps://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=4375.0][/url]

[Ravenshurst]

Hello Gentlemen
Daryl - The 'net has opposing stories, good/bad, but most seem to say that coning did not hurt accuracy.  I am not sure I see how it could...my (unmentionables) all have muzzle devices, with no loss of accuracy, and that is just a hole slightly larger than the bore...

I think further investigation is in order...

Longknife - That is exactly the information, and tool, I am looking for.  Please PM me.

Thank you Gentlemen

[smylee grouch]

Yes the " net " has a lot of claims, both good and bad. One question I have is what some consider " accurate ". I have seen people shoot gongs as a before and after test at 50 yds. They still hit the gongs after " conening " and claimed there was no affect on accuracy. I would love to see a barrel shot for group size before and after with all else the same and compare the difference if any. 

[Frank]

Yes the " net " has a lot of claims, both good and bad. One question I have is what some consider " accurate ". I have seen people shoot gongs as a before and after test at 50 yds. They still hit the gongs after " conening " and claimed there was no affect on accuracy. I would love to see a barrel shot for group size before and after with all else the same and compare the difference if any. 

I have a Kibler SMR in 40 caliber and can attest that there was no loss in accuracy when coning with Joe Woods coning tool. 1 inch groups at 50 yards both before and after. This was with the original SMR with a 46 inch Rice barrel. 40 grains 3f, .395 ball .015 spit patch.

[smylee grouch]

Thanks for that info Frank. Tests like yours carry more weight than merely shooting at a hit or miss gong.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Ravenhurst:  I see by your posts that you already want to cone your rifle barrel.  So go ahead...it's your rifle.  But it appears all you are doing is stirring the pot.

[Daryl]

Yes the " net " has a lot of claims, both good and bad. One question I have is what some consider " accurate ". I have seen people shoot gongs as a before and after test at 50 yds. They still hit the gongs after " coneing " and claimed there was no affect on accuracy. I would love to see a barrel shot for group size before and after with all else the same and compare the difference if any. 

Actual testing is how I discerned that the coned muzzle of my .45 was less accurate than before, as well as after I cut the cone off and re-crowned my way.

As Taylor said, Ravenshurst - it's your gun, do what you want & will live with the consequence, good or bad.    All I did was to present my own findings, backed up by my shooting.

[ScottNE]

Hello Gentlemen
Daryl - The 'net has opposing stories, good/bad, but most seem to say that coning did not hurt accuracy.  I am not sure I see how it could...my (unmentionables) all have muzzle devices, with no loss of accuracy, and that is just a hole slightly larger than the bore...

I think further investigation is in order...

Longknife - That is exactly the information, and tool, I am looking for.  Please PM me.

Thank you Gentlemen

If you do proceed with coning, if you're willing and able it might be beneficial to shoot some groups for accuracy at 50-100 yards before and after coning, and document what if anything changes. The moment the ball exits the barrel is one of the most critical for accuracy, and if theres even a slight irregularity, such as a slight oval-ing or a one spot being filed or sanded somewhat out of round, the allowance for gas to escape in an even slightly non-uniform manner could push the ball in unpredictable directions.

I think some of the dispute lays in one's definition of accuracy. Seems that many examples of "accuracy" from the 18th century aren't all that impressive by modern standards, and I've heard people differentiate between a "hunter's group" and a "target group", ie, "that's plenty accurate for a hunter's group." Some measure hole to hole, some shoot at paper plates and if they can hit it consistently, theyre happy (I fall into that latter category). I expect that all things being equal, you can and likely will have a plenty accurate gun with a coned muzzle -- just not as accurate as the same rifle without a cone.

[Ravenshurst]

I apologize for starting a fire fight here.  That was not my intention at all.

As I said, I believe further testing is required.

I also believe ScottNE is probably correct.  With an (unmentionable). My goal is either 1 MOA or sub MOA, depending on use.  With this flintlock I will probably be content with a 1-minute-of-deer, or paper plate size. 

Again, I apologize.

[Panzerschwein]

I apologize  for starting a fire fight here.  That was not my intention at all.

As I said, I believe further testing is required.

I also believe ScottNE is probably correct.  With an (unmentionable). My goal is either 1 MOA or sub MOA, depending on use.  With this flintlock I will probably be content with a 1-minute-of-deer, or paper plate size. 

Again, I apologize.

It’s okay I forgive you 

[Dphariss]

As I have repeated stated. Read TK Dawson’s description of the bore on the rifle they would want attributed (?) as belonging to  Francis Parkman in John Baird’s “Hawken Rifles”.
Its nothing like when the “coning” many advocate today.
The muzzle end it critical to accuracy.
Its why target rifles were often fitted with false muzzles. When fired with the FM removed the muzzle of the barrel was then completely flat with nothing even approaching a crown and it was/is done on both slug and dedicated target RB rifles.
If you mess with the muzzle end too much it WILL effect accuracy. Does not matter WHAT projectile is used or how it may or may not be patched.
A decent RB barrel with a good load should shoot into 2” at 100 yards with proper load development. I shot this group the other day at 100 with a cross wind. The POA was the bottom. I shot this group after firing 2 that went tighter on an existing target at the range and it was over 6” high. The light was such, gray day, that I was holding too much front sight. I put up this 6” shoot n see because the rifle SHOULD be about 2” high with this load. Bit the  breeze had come up  but the backer paper was big so I ignored it. My phoneapp showed that this was the wind drift for the breeze that was blowing 9 oclock. The load is 100 gr of FFF Swiss, 530 ball, cotton canvas patch lubed with a Beeswax/Neatsfoot mix about 1/2 or 1/2.5. Mix.
Also here is a selections of crowns on the 54 Kibler that shot the target and three 50 caliber rifles. 2 with GM barrels and the heavy rifle in a McLemore.  I load this rifle with a .500 ball and a heavy patch with a high friction lube. AND I use the wood rod to load and a short starter with and ANTLER shank or a wooden shank with a brass tube sleeve. Because its possible to ding a muzzle with a soild brass one if careless or in a hurry. I started using a starter in the swivel breech to reduce stress on the wrist. With a  530-535 ball and a heavy ticking patch I can load with no starter and did for a very long time in my Don King flint Hawken just using the rod. Somewhere I had video of this.
The Kibler will shoot ragged holes at 50. And it will do it with 65 gr of FFF and 100 gr FFF. The others shoot just as well and the McLemore shoots better IMO with the same 100 gr powder charge. McLemore recommended 120 with a teflon patch and I may use this load. It appears that we might get “turkey matches” running again in only 1 1/2 drive so maybe I will use it in these. Its not an offhand rifle.




50 GM


54 Kibler


50 GM


50 cal  McLemore

[Daryl]

the GM crown looks a little sharp cornered, but might be the lighting. The others look great.
Here's just 2 shots from my .69 checking zero for hunting. I used a target already shot with a friend's
.30 cal. suppository rifle, with scope.



That rifle's crown.

[Longknife]

I apologize for starting a fire fight here.  That was not my intention at all.

As I said, I believe further testing is required.

I also believe ScottNE is probably correct.  With an (unmentionable). My goal is either 1 MOA or sub MOA, depending on use.  With this flintlock I will probably be content with a 1-minute-of-deer, or paper plate size. 

Again, I apologize.

No need to apologize. You did nothing wrong. No one should need to apologize for asking a question. We all come here to learn and share our experiences.... carry on. LK

[B.Habermehl]

Much depends on your shooting ability and eyesight, I have guns I’ve built with both coned and conventional crowns. And a couple in between. All my guns shoot satisfactory, within the limitations of my eyesight with open iron sights. Peep sight might allow me to differentiate between them. Maybe BJH

[Dphariss]

the GM crown looks a little sharp cornered, but might be the lighting. The others look great.
Here's just 2 shots from my .69 checking zero for hunting. I used a target already shot with a friend's
.30 cal. suppository rifle, with scope.



That rifle's crown.

I can’t remember if I crowned that barrel or not. Its on my son’s rifle and it has seen very little use. Others were all done in shop. Either by hand on in the lathe. Don’t remember which. But lathe setup can be a PITA since I have to put on the 4 jaw and center the bore at each end of the headstock..  They all load OK.
I have built/shot MLs since the mid/late 1960s. With some time off working for Shiloh and later doing work on BPCR and 19th c design revolvers. I had never heard of coning until I came to this site and my mentor Don King started in the 1950 he never mentioned it.

[Dphariss]

I apologize for starting a fire fight here.  That was not my intention at all.

As I said, I believe further testing is required.

I also believe ScottNE is probably correct.  With an (unmentionable). My goal is either 1 MOA or sub MOA, depending on use.  With this flintlock I will probably be content with a 1-minute-of-deer, or paper plate size. 

Again, I apologize.

No need to apologise. Did you learn anything? If nothing else you learned there are various opinions and schools of thought.
A good rb rifle should shoot under MOA at 100. But sights are a limiting factor. And even a slight breeze can move a ball out 1-2 inches at 50 yards. At 200 if you can feel it on your face it will blow the shot out down wind.  And make a 6” group into a 10 or 12”. McLemore told me that when he tested the heavy barrel ( shoots them all for accuracy)  with his scoped percussion action it would shot to same hole at 100. A great many ML shooters seldom shoot from a rest and never shoot matches from a rest (whoch was pretty much the standard well into the 19th c. In America) but shoot steel hit or miss targets for the most part and if they can keep it on a 10-12” gong at 50-75 or maybe 100 yards most of the time they are happy. Most posters here don’t seem to interested in any competition. I started building MLS as a kid so I had something the shoot. I had a rifle  (it would have been a “custom” today, that I broke the stock on and a DGW Belgium made squirrel rifle and not knoing how to fix the broken stock I stumbled into making MLs.  Even with some time off for variopus things I still have made about 1 a year average, including some pistols, since 1967. I like to shoot and I shoot competition of one form or another with everything from Flintlocks in local matches (100 miles one way) to ARs  at the State & National level. I like rifle matches. I like to shoot. I sometimes do really good and sometimes not. Its part of the game.