arcticap

Will firing a lot of conical bullets cause a barrel to wear out faster?
How much faster and why?
I have my own opinion but like to hear what others have to say.

cayugad

There are people that have shot thousands of conicals out of White Rifles and never wore the barrels out yet. With the quality of steel I really don't think that is a concern. The bigger concern is maintenance of the barrel.

But back to your question.. I would suspect that conicals would be harder on the lands and grooves of the barrel then say a patched roundball or even a sabot. But again, I am not really worried about it.

arcticap

These photos show the crown of a Traditions youth model sidelock that was only loaded with .490 balls and a lubed .015 patch using a plastic starter. Because the bore was factory blued, slight wear from loading can be seen. It wasn't fired very much, maybe 500 times or so over the years.
Muzzle loading barrels generally are not made from the same hard steel as smokeless rifle barrels are. Even the higher quality long rifle barrels aren't since they're only intended for use with black powders.
The heavier, longer and tighter fitting the conical is would only increase the potential for long term wear.

HEAD0001

If a person uses soft pure lead in their conicals. I can't see it ever wearing out a modern steel MZ barrel. I just can't see it. There is not enough pressure there. Especially at the muzzle. I have seen rifles that have been shot 1,000's of rounds of conicals. No appreciable barrel wear.

I do not know what caused your problem. But I honestly do not believe it was because conicals were shot in the firearm.

I know guys who have shot 1,000's of bullets in their BPCR rifles. And those bullets are a harder alloy than straight lead. No real barrel wear on their rifles either. And they are shot at higher pressures than a straight MZ.

I do not know how many rounds of WW alloy are down my Sharp's rifle, but I would bet it is 1200-1500 with zero barrel wear. Tom.

Semisane

Try this as a rule of thumb.

Patched balls and plastic sabots will wear a barrel out with 3.2 bazillion shots.
Conicals will wear one out in 2.9 bazillion shots.

So yes, the conicals will wear it out faster.

Muzzle loader barrels die from improper cleaning, short started loads, or muzzle wear from loading. Muzzle wear is easily fixed with a crowning job or, in extreme cases, cutting 1/2" off of the barrel and recrowning.

arcticap

I'm not so sure about how many shots it would take to wear out a barrel or crown with each!
Why would shooting plastic sabots wear out a barrel anywhere near the same bazillion number of shots?
I would fathom that the wear ratio of loading conicals to sabots would be closer to being 10,000 sabots to 1 conical.
It's light, soft plastic verses one of the heaviest and densest of elements, lead.

cayugad

I would be more worried about scratching the barrel with a ramrod or short starter causing damage to the barrel. Bore Guides on ramrods are a must..

HEAD0001

IMO the sabot would wear a barrel faster for a couple of reasons. First being pressure. Saboted bullets work at a higher pressure. And also the stronger solvents that are needed to clean the plastic out of the barrels. So I would agree that sabots would wear a barrel out faster.

Soft lead is just not a match to modern steel. As stated above it is the cleaning and solvents and other items that will wear the barrel before shooting properly sized conicals. Tom.

arcticap

I agree about using bore guides and I only use wood ramrods.

Quite the opposite. The heavier conicals create more pressure. But the crown wear has little or nothing to do with pressure. That has to do with loading.

Semisane

That seems logical at first blush arcticap.

However, you must realize that lead is 3.1778 times harder than the average sabot. I used that figure, and factored in the average lubricity quotients of spit, olive oil, Crisco, and bore butter to adjust the likely wear factor for both patched balls and lubricated conicals - thus arriving at 3.2 and 2.9 bazillion shots respectively.

I'm sure that figure is correct. DO NOT MAKE ME RECALCULATE IT!!! After all, it's just a rule of thumb.