Article in Muzzleloader Magazine

Interesting article in the latest issue of Muzzleloader Magazine.....and in particular the end results on accuracy regarding a 'coning' operation on a barrel.

Accuracy was significantly worse than before and patches were burning/shredding compared to before when the patches were perfect.

Made me wonder if these guys knew what they were doing or if 'coning' carries a high degree of risk with it no matter who does it?

What tool did they use to do the coning Roundball?
By the way. I just read on another site where someone wanted to know why some guy named Roundball from NC had petitioned the entire lower 48 to ban inlines in the muzzleloader seasons????

My buddy reconed his TC54 Hawken back in the 80's, I never did know why?. When he shot a max it keyholed,so he worked on it till he got it back on the bulleyes. He never did that again. I never did any of my guns, Had another buddy and he had this gun(BP) maker do a bunch of his TC"S and I shot them and it never changed them. He used a different tool for each cal. He charged 20.00 for each cal. Dilly

Seems like I read coning was done to speed/ease loading never claimed to improve accuracy. TC has that recessed muzzle to do the same.

first of all, bad word-second of all, i hope that isn't true because we can't fight amongst ourselves. Just like stickbow shooters like me need to leave the compounders alone. yeah it's almost like two different weapons, but we are all trying to do the same thing in the end

I own an original smoothbore long gun in cal. 50 with a coned muzzle. Is easy to load and up to 30 m very accurate, 3 shots within 1.5'', at 50 m 3 shots within 2''.I have no burnt patches.

roundball said:

Interesting article in the latest issue of Muzzleloader Magazine.....and in particular the end results on accuracy regarding a 'coning' operation on a barrel.

Accuracy was significantly worse than before and patches were burning/shredding compared to before when the patches were perfect.

Made me wonder if these guys knew what they were doing or if 'coning' carries a high degree of risk with it no matter who does it?

Click to expand...

I think the tool used has a lot to do with it. They coned at 2.8 degrees which left no rifling at the muzzle. They also polished it a little. They essentially created a funnel at the muzzle.

I just ordered a coning tool from Joe Wood. The taper of his tool is MUCH more gradual. He said around 1 degree as measured by one of his customers. His tool will leave rifling at the muzzle but still cone to ease loading without a short starter.

I am going to cone one of my .54's this week. I'll give you a report after a range session.

HD

Something was definately wrong there.

I suspect that anyone who reports shred and burned patches might cure the problem by using a larger ball or a thicker patch, or both.

I know bullseye shooters who shoot 2 1/2 inch groups at 100 yards, from a bench, who will not even consider coning their muzzles.

Don Getz, of Getz barrel fame, frowns on coning.

Conversely I know of one national slug gun champion who claims to shoot groove size balls with .019 patching. That combination can't be loaded without coning of some sort.

I dunno.

I do know that the person who reports 2 1/2 inch 100 yard groups modifies the crown on every barrel he owns by removing the sharp edge of the crown, inside the bore, to form a short radius as opposed to a sharp crown.

I did this to one of my rifles that was hard to load. Ease of starting a tight patch/ball improved tremendously as did accuracy, since the ball is no longer distorted on loading.

J.D.

J.D. said:

Don Getz, of Getz barrel fame, frowns on coning.

Click to expand...

REALLY???? here's a few snipets directly from Don

"right now, I don't own a rifle with a Coned muzzle. This is my own personal choice. I'm not saying it is a BAD thing, on the
contrary, many people have them and love them."



"My personal reason for not doing it is that I hate to do it.... I do like the way Joe Wood's tool works,
it makes a long tapered cone area, and should work very well. "

"I can see having it done on a hunting
rifle, but, being stubborn, I don't want it on my target rifles.......Don"

"....Over the years I have done a lot of coned muzzles,"


Doesn't sound to me that he "frowns" upon a coned muzzle. Frowns on DOING the job maybe but not the result.

Huntin Dawg said:

I think the tool used has a lot to do with it. They coned at 2.8 degrees which left no rifling at the muzzle. They also polished it a little. They essentially created a funnel at the muzzle.

I just ordered a coning tool from Joe Wood. The taper of his tool is MUCH more gradual. He said around 1 degree as measured by one of his customers. His tool will leave rifling at the muzzle but still cone to ease loading without a short starter.

I am going to cone one of my .54's this week. I'll give you a report after a range session.

Click to expand...

Coning, by definition is forming a funnel at the muzzle, so I seriously doubt that the amount of taper has anything to do with it. And polishing is necessary.

Unless I am totally wrong, I suspect that Joe Wood recommends relatively coarse grits of abrasive cloth to rough in the cone, and finer grits to finish...to polish, so to speak.

The modified crown on my gun forms a very short cone, radiused into the existing crown. That cone/crown enlarges to the point that there are no grooves at the muzzle, so that should not make any difference.

The crown on the muzzle is nothing more than a short cone. And at some point, the patch/ball combo has to leave the rifling behind, so I have to wonder if it makes any difference where the lands end in the length of the bore, as long as the cone is concentric to the axis of the bore.

Again, I suspect that the problem lies with the patch/ball combination fired through this gun. Or possibly a too small patch/ball combo in front of a too powerful powder charge.

Which issue of ML Mag is the article in? I haven’t received the March/April issue, so haven't read the article.

The impression I recieved from Don was that he was ambivalent about coned muzzles. That there was no point of doing the extra work. Not that he didn't like them at all. That is why I used the expression of "frowning" on coned muzzles, as opposed to his not recommending them at all.

J.D.

Maybe somebody just has a 20 spot they need to get rid of!Seems every day theres a new trick that MLs just got to have or they won't shoot as good as the next guy,and the list gets longer every year.I for one don't buy into it, I maintain and shoot as the old timers,and I've made many a trip to the prize blanket.When you don't fall for every new useless gizmo that comes along, you got more money for that custom horn! :rotf:

J.D. said:

Unless I am totally wrong, I suspect that Joe Wood recommends relatively coarse grits of abrasive cloth to rough in the cone, and finer grits to finish...to polish, so to speak.

J.D.

Click to expand...

From Joe's instructions

"For grit paper I use 3M Tri-M-Ite wet or dry (black paper) available at any auto parts or hardware store. One sheet of each is more than enough. The paper varies in thickness with the grit. Here’s what it measures:

220 Grit .013
320 Grit .009
400 Grit .008

Cody said:

From Joe's instructions

"For grit paper I use 3M Tri-M-Ite wet or dry (black paper) available at any auto parts or hardware store. One sheet of each is more than enough. The paper varies in thickness with the grit. Here’s what it measures:
220 Grit .013
320 Grit .009
400 Grit .008

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I understand your point.

Is 220 grit not relatively coarse when compared to 320 grit?

Is 400 grit not relatively fine when compared to 220 or 320 grit?

Compare the surfaces of three different pieces of steel finished with those grits of paper. There is a noticable difference in the degree of polish.

J.D. said:

Cody said:

From Joe's instructions

"For grit paper I use 3M Tri-M-Ite wet or dry (black paper) available at any auto parts or hardware store. One sheet of each is more than enough. The paper varies in thickness with the grit. Here’s what it measures:
220 Grit .013
320 Grit .009
400 Grit .008

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that I understand your point.

Is 220 grit not relatively coarse when compared to 320 grit?

Is 400 grit not relatively fine when compared to 220 or 320 grit?

Compare the surfaces of three different pieces of steel finished with those grits of paper. There is a noticable difference in the degree of polish.

Click to expand...

:surrender: You're being far too defensive. My point was "this is what Joe says in his instructions". That's all. It was not intended to imply "you are wrong because....". I just quoted Joe and left it up to the reader to draw thier own conclusions. Joe's statement basically backs up the statement you made IMO. I intentionally left my opinion out before as I thought the quote from Joe was enough to add credibility to your statement and "my opinion" would not have added anything. I was backing you up man :v :v

Cody said:

You're being far too defensive.

Click to expand...

Coning can be a controversial issue, so yeah, maybe I was overly defensive. Some folks on this board like to argue semantics and that's where I thought you were coming from.

Sorry 'bout that. :v

The truth is, I don't know how coning affects accuracy. The reports I have recieved are inconclusive.

Some report improved accuracy, some don't. Some report no change in accuracy. Some very expert target shooters won't even think about coning their muzzles. Some others shoot such tight loads that they have to cone their muzzles just to get the ball started.

The modification made to my gun is nothing more than removing the sharp line delineating the crown from the inside of the bore and forming a smooth radius of about .062.

This was done using a case mouth champhering tool and polishing with fine grits of sandpaper, using my litttle finger for backing. It was a small bore.

I wonder if the difference in the length of the cone/crown/radius at the muzzle affects accuracy?

I dunno.

J.D.

Stumblin Wolf said:

I maintain and shoot as the old timers

Click to expand...

That brings up another question. Were any of the original rifles coned? :hmm: GW

Thought I saw a post lately with someone asking about the bore on an original gun and another person speculating was originally coned, as if that was a not uncommon practice in the 1800's.

Maybe someone on the Builder's Bench would know as they tend to duplicate things for authenticity.

Why look, below, a four page string on coning.....

My .54 barrel was coned and it shot just as well as before, but was easier to load. The grooves still show at the muzzle but they are cut back some. Maybe that is the trick, don't get rid of the rifling at the muzzle.

Many Klatch

J.D said:

Coning, by definition is forming a funnel at the muzzle, so I seriously doubt that the amount of taper has anything to do with it. And polishing is necessary.

Click to expand...

I think the amount of taper has a lot to do with it. A gradual taper leaving some rifling at the muzzle would probably be better than one that removes rifling an inch or so into the muzzle. If the patch/ball is still making contact with the bore you would avoid blown patches. In the article they blew patches after coning. I think their cone was too steep and left the bore oversized at the muzzle.
This is a debate that will never end. There will always be two camps on this one. Until we see good strong data on the subject we can only speculate and offer our opinions.

HD

I did not get my magazine yet,but I think that the blown patches are from sharp edges on the lands. I've used one of Mr. Woods tools and it worked flawlessly. You see, If you follow Joe Woods instructions, it states that you rotate the coning tool in one direction and you need to lap the muzzle taper with steel woolto remove the sharp edges or burr on the lands. Now we have all sharpened our hunting knives and if you go for that razor edge you need to strop the burr or bent over sliver of metal off. I believe that the cause of the blown patches could be a result of this. I've coned 6 different guns or fowlers and not one had blown patches nor did they shoot any worse than before coning, most shot better. Guys that were behind me in the points standings at our club are now in front. Boy that was a dumb idea to help them out!The coning tool that I use now is one that one of our resident gunsmith (Bookie) gave a tutorial on. It cones everything from 24 cal to 75 cal. I'll never use a short starter again! Just my 2 cents worth.