To Cone, or Not to Cone, That is the Question

[Artificer]

Gang I've got some people telling me the old timers coned their rifles and never used a ball starter. They say starters are a modern invention.

Short Starters are a "fairly" modern invention that showed up in the percussion era.

There is no documentation generally available that shows short starters were used in the 18th century and the very early 19th century.

However, that doesn't mean the 18th century rifles were coned in the modern way they are coned. At most in the 18th century it seems they rounded the ends of the lands and grooves by hand with files and period abrasives.

There is also nothing in the historic record showing an 18th century Gunsmith's tool that could have done the modern deep coning.

Gus

 

[Black Hand]

Short Starters are a "fairly" modern invention that showed up in the percussion era.

There is no documentation generally available that shows short starters were used in the 18th century and the very early 19th century.

Short starters (and bullet boards) appear to become common around the time of the Civil War and thereafter. People have tried to make the case for earlier, but there doesn't seem to be the evidence to support this....just much wishful thinking.

In reality, neither coning nor a starter are necessary. People feel they are necessary, but forget that we shoot combinations that are far tighter than those of the period. They were not trying to get 10-ring shots with the spread of a dime on a piece of paper, rather get food and defend themselves. No matter how you cook them, paper targets taste terrible....

 

[Rifleman1776]

It uses thumb pressure and polishing paper. I do it until the slight cuts on the edge of patching dissappear

I'm not sure what polishing paper is.
But, I used to lap new barrels with polishing compound on a flannel patch, very tight. I would count the strokes in and out of the barrel and double the strokes in about the last six inches near he muzzle. Did it improve things loading and accuracy wise? I dunno but I liked to think I was doing sumptin' special for my rifles. Us ml'ers are strange that way. :wink:

 

[nwtradegun]

don't feel the cost justifies the end results. I keep my short starter.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Have coned dozens of muzzleloader rifles of 40, 44 (Jukar), 45, 50 & 54-caliber. All were accurate before and after coning and all loaded significantly easier and faster afterwards.

All my personal MZL rifles used for hunting or primitive snowshoe biathlons are all coned. As you can tell I’m a big fan of the process ... and results!

I use both the Joe Woods and Ed Hamberg tools.

 

[wattlebuster]

The coning of a barrel is like all other things that go with this sport. You will have one side that says dont do it cause it hurts accuracy an the other side that says i did it an it didnt affect a thing. If you like the way your gun loads now then leave it be. If you dont like the way it loads then try some different components an if that dont work then by all means cone it an dont worry bout what anybody else thinks. I coned mine an have loved the way they load an the accuracy they give. I will not have a rifle that is not coned

 

[Billnpatti]

A few years back, I bought a universal coning tool that uses a caliber specific jag as a guide. It is a bit of a pain in the butt to get started because the lands seem to want to grab the emery cloth and tear it. When this happens, you have to remove the torn emery paper and re-cover the coning tool with some new emery paper. However, once you get well started and have smoothed out the ends of the lands, they quit grabbing the emery paper and you can work away changing the paper only when it is worn.

Is it worth it? Hard to say. The ball is easier to start into the bore but if you cut your patch at the muzzle, it is also easier for the ball to be pulled out as you are cutting the patch. If you use pre-cut patches, this is not a problem. The ball is easier to start but I still use a short starter to get it started down the bore far enough that it can be easily finished with a ram rod.

Accuracy? No effect on accuracy. I have coned several of my rifles and all are just as accurate after coning as they were before being coned.

Why didn't I cone all of my rifles? Too damned lazy I guess. I got tired of the problems in getting the coning process started. What I wish someone would make is a steel coning tool that had teeth on it like a file to get the coning procedure started. Once started, you could then switch over to the tool with the emery paper on it. I haven't seen such a thing so some of my rifles have not been coned. Would I cone them if such a tool existed......and I had one? Maybe....well, probably. Er....hell, I don't know :idunno: :haha:

 

[wattlebuster]

Ever since I have started using Burton barrels (thats 5 now) I have Charlie cone it for me. He does an excellent job :thumbsup:

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

It is a bit of a pain in the butt to get started because the lands seem to want to grab the emery cloth and tear it.

FWIW the Woods tool comes with a template spiral wraps the crocus cloth to the tool, do there is no one hard 'edge' that grabs a land.

I made a few test templates to fit the Hamberg tool and never had an issue ...

 

[necchi]

In reality, neither coning nor a starter are necessary. People feel they are necessary, but forget that we shoot combinations that are far tighter than those of the period.

Your right and I will fully agree there's no documentation and fully understand that's probably because they didn't exist and weren't used. No problem there.

They were not trying to get 10-ring shots with the spread of a dime on a piece of paper, rather get food and defend themselves.

So there is actually another way to look at this,,
We do shoot tighter combinations, and many do seek the X and a starter or coning is needed for that kind of shooting.
Point is I'll back ya up 100% when it comes to documentation and/or the history.
But you shouldn't advocate that a starter or coning is not needed for the level of accurate shooting most are after today, or that styles and technique have not changed along with us as a human race.
I mean come on`,, at one point in our history starters were used and that time line is with-in the frame of our "traditional forum".
This is NOT the documents or historically accurate section

 

[Black Hand]

Please remember I specifically wrote THEY not US.

That said, I still believe it is possible to load a tight patch/ball combination without either coning or a starter. I haven't used a starter in 15 or more years since I realized it wasn't necessary.

 

[meanmike8665]

Please tell me what bore size, size ball, and patching that is so easy to load and is so accurate?

Michael

 

[azmntman]

He could tell and be 100% truthful....for HIS gun, yers, mine, theirs we gotta find the sweet spot ourselfs

 

[necchi]

Please remember I specifically wrote THEY not US.

Yeah, but I think the topic is kinda about "Us",,
Take it easy,, again,, this is the "General Muzzleloading" section of the forum and the topic is about coning,,(?) Today,,(?)
Pro's/Con's,,(?)
Ok, we get it,,"They" didn't do it.

p.s. For those that don't understand.
Black hand is a skilled and practiced history buff that has spent considerable time in his life studying and searching for information and truth,, all the while sharing his extensive research with us here on this forum.
Honest!
There is no reason to doubt his information.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Please tell me what bore size, size ball, and patching that is so easy to load and is so accurate?

I use a 0.530" ball and 0.017" patching in my .54 cal. and it is fairly accurate. I don't use a short starter (just choke up on the last few inches of my rammer after thumb starting the ball).

I do have a little 1-1/2" stub starter I use to push patched balls out of pre-prepared ball block. But sometimes I don't use it. It's attached to a block with a leather thong and I have other ball blocks with none.

 

[Black Hand]

Please tell me what bore size, size ball, and patching that is so easy to load and is so accurate?

Michael

62 caliber Rice barrel, 60 caliber ball with 0.017-0.020 thick pillow ticking patching lubed with Bear grease. Will thumb-start and slides right down the barrel with little resistance using just the rammer.

 

[Black Hand]

Please remember I specifically wrote THEY not US.

Yeah, but I think the topic is kinda about "Us",,
Take it easy,, again,, this is the "General Muzzleloading" section of the forum and the topic is about coning,,(?) Today,,(?)
Pro's/Con's,,(?)
Ok, we get it,,"They" didn't do it.

p.s. For those that don't understand.
Black hand is a skilled and practiced history buff that has spent considerable time in his life studying and searching for information and truth,, all the while sharing his extensive research with us here on this forum.
Honest!
There is no reason to doubt his information.

By all means, doubt what I have to say (I don't expect anyone to accept without question). But I'd like for others to discover for themselves what many of us already have.

The snarkiness is unnecessary. If you disagree, fine, but have the courtesy to counter with your own facts. I can only tell your what I have personally experienced.

 

[necchi]

I'm not "counter-ing" anything.
Your being defensive without anyone offering an offense.

,,it's your gig dude,, anti-short start away to your fullest content :wink:

 

[meanmike8665]

Thank you. I was just curious.

Michael

 

[nkbj]

Taking metal off the muzzle of a muzzleloader is a means to solving a problem. If there's a problem to be solved.