Coning a Muzzle

[The Crisco Kid]

This has probably been discussed at length here in the past but being a forum newbie I'll ask anyway. Has it been conclusively proven whether or not coning a muzzle has any effect on accuracy? Has anyone shot an un-coned barrel enough to determine it's accuracy, then coned the muzzle to see how the accuracy was affected? When I started shooting muzzleloaders in the '70's there wasn't much information on coned muzzles so we packed short starters. The only reference to coned muzzles I remember was in Baird's book and I think he wasn't sure about the effect on Hawken rifles or even why muzzles were coned. I could be wrong about that though, it's been awhile since I read the books. I'm not asking for opinions. I have enough of those myself. I'm looking for proven facts.

Thanks,

JS

 

[hawkeye2]

The sticky thread just above this one (link below) is by Claude and has links to 7 discussions of coning barrels. I have no experience with the process but have heard that it has no effect on accuracy. I gave a well known barrel maker in PA (who is no longer with us) a Green Mountain and a Bill Large barrel to be coned back in the 80's. I got them back about 6 months later, sight off the Green Mountain barrel and both unconed with no note and he kept the $$. I put them back in the guns and never looked back or ever thought about having a barrel coned after that. Back then there was a lot of discussion in the magazines about the process and the general conclusion, as I remember it, was that it didn't contribute anything except make the gun easier to load.

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/coning-a-barrel.39296/

 

[Stumpkiller]

People do. I don't. As Hawkeye2 linked it is a sticky here.

L.C. Rice recommended a medium radius crown for my rifle and that's what I went with. No cone. I can thumb start patched balls and don't use a short starter.

Your results may vary.

 

[necchi]

Has anyone shot an un-coned barrel enough to determine it's accuracy, then coned the muzzle to see how the accuracy was affected?

Yeah. To make a long story short;
My son's Traditions 50cal slow twist. A decent shooting rifle in the hands of someone practiced. Good-enough to win at Rendezvous events at least. A friend had a 50cal specific conning tool so I tried it, following instructions and doing what I think was a competent job I took it down too/so the very crown was smooth, no sign of lands or groove,(at the very end of the crown)
The rifle shot/shoots the same as it did, there was no gain nor loss of accuracy. I guess it became somewhat easier to load after conning, but we didn't change our loading regime because of the conning work done. There wasn't a need to change.

I guess what I learned from the whole deal was that the conning work was just kind of a novelty, no gain/no loss, just something to do.
I haven't done one since and probably won't bother doing another..(shrug icon)

 

[BrownBear]

I've coned lots of mine and those of friends (50, 54 and 58 caliber) with no change in accuracy. And accuracy gains aren't the point. For me it allows for easier loading in the field as I meanwhile get to leave out that little short starter thingy. A worthy end for my needs and shooting habits. I wouldn't bother at all for a range rifle, though I have no fear of accuracy loss. With the coning a short starter just isn't needed in the field, and nice to carry one thing less when I don't have a great big old range table and range box under my elbow.

 

[Dr5x]

In all my coaching at the range I saw very few if any coned muzzles.

If they made a rifle more accurate there would be more of them about. Extruding a properly sized patch ball into the rifling with just your thumb pressure does not seem possible and using a long ramrod to take the place of a short starter seems awkward. The only thing I would ask is "Does coning make the rifle less accurate?"
I'm not sure. I have seen no evidence of it.
My rifles were dead on accurate and I wouldn't have fussed with the muzzles for any experiment.

Dutch Schoultz

This has probably been discussed at length here in the past but being a forum newbie I'll ask anyway. Has it been conclusively proven whether or not coning a muzzle has any effect on accuracy? Has anyone shot an un-coned barrel enough to determine it's accuracy, then coned the muzzle to see how the accuracy was affected? When I started shooting muzzleloaders in the '70's there wasn't much information on coned muzzles so we packed short starters. The only reference to coned muzzles I remember was in Baird's book and I think he wasn't sure about the effect on Hawken rifles or even why muzzles were coned. I could be wrong about that though, it's been awhile since I read the books. I'm not asking for opinions. I have enough of those myself. I'm looking for proven facts.

Thanks,

JS

 

[Sparkitoff]

It was explained to me that when a barrel is coned the projectile is at the very end of contact with the metal but the gases behind it can suddenly flare out to the sides and around the projectile. If it were not coned, the gases would remain straight behind the projectile until the gases dissipated. It was said that as long as the coning was perfectly all the way around the would part evenly behind the projectile and have no effect on accuracy. If the coning were not even and exact it would allow gas to escape unevenly and thereby have some effect on the projectile. I don't know - it sounds logical and you can draw nice pictures of it but I'd have to "see it to believe it". I have both and the coned barrels do not load any easier with the load I am using. The patched ball sits further in from the crown but still requires the same amount of force to enter the barrel. Again, this is with the load I am using in my two coned barrels. For me, I am not doing anything with my rifles were it would be an advantage to add coning, nor am I doing anything where I would shy away from a barrel that was already coned. I go with "if it ain't broke....."

 

[The Crisco Kid]

Thank for the posts. It took a while to digest all that but I got the answers I was looking for.

JS

 

[Smokey Plainsman]

I plan to have my rifle coned once it’s done.

 

[Dr5x]

I HAVE A SMALL QUIET FEELING THAT PEOPLE CONE BECAUSE IT'S "COOL".A LOT OF COOL THINGS ARE A MISTAKE.

SMOKING WAS VERY COOL FOR 64 OR SO YEARS. NOW WHEN I SEE SOMEONE STILL SMOKING THEY LOOK "STUPID" TO ME. I FIGURE I LOOKED STUPID FOR 64 YEARS.

I STILL IN A VERY TINY WAY STILL MISS IT.
Let me tell you about COOL. I WANTED TO MEET A GIRL AND MY FRIEND WAS GOING OVER TO HER HOUSE TO LEND HER A BLACK COAT FOR HER MOTHER'S FUNERAL. I WENT WITH HIM AND STOOD JUST INSIDE THE DOOR, WONDERED WHY THE HOUSE WAS FULL OF NUNS AND PRIESTS, I BACK UP A BIT TO LET PEOPLE ENTER AND LEAVE, I CAME UP AGAINST SOMETHING, PULLED OUT MY CIGARETTES, TAPPED A SMOKE A FEW TIMES
BON MY ZIPPO BEFORE LIGHTING UP. I NOTICED A LARGE PERPORTION OF THE PEOPLE WERE LOOKING AT ME BUT WHEN YOU'RE HOT you're hot.
My friend, having delivered the coat returned and as I turned to leave discovered I had been leaning on the head of her mother's casket.
I never knew people brought the incased departed into their homes.

That is the pinnacle of my lifetime's coolness.
O still turn red.

Dutch

It was explained to me that when a barrel is coned the projectile is at the very end of contact with the metal but the gases behind it can suddenly flare out to the sides and around the projectile. If it were not coned, the gases would remain straight behind the projectile until the gases dissipated. It was said that as long as the coning was perfectly all the way around the would part evenly behind the projectile and have no effect on accuracy. If the coning were not even and exact it would allow gas to escape unevenly and thereby have some effect on the projectile. I don't know - it sounds logical and you can draw nice pictures of it but I'd have to "see it to believe it". I have both and the coned barrels do not load any easier with the load I am using. The patched ball sits further in from the crown but still requires the same amount of force to enter the barrel. Again, this is with the load I am using in my two coned barrels. For me, I am not doing anything with my rifles were it would be an advantage to add coning, nor am I doing anything where I would shy away from a barrel that was already coned. I go with "if it ain't broke....."

 

[Gene L]

I wonder if a coned barrel has the proper cone at the muzzle.

 

[hanshi]

Coned barrels are something I've never had experience with. I load tight prb and have only smoothed/polished the crowns on my guns. A short starter is still required; but the prb, once started, goes down more easily using just the wood rod than it did before working the crown. Accuracy remains unaffected.

 

[arcticap]

I'm not asking for opinions. I have enough of those myself. I'm looking for proven facts.

Facts would require objective research.
The research could require a shooting tunnel without any wind present.
It could require an absolutely sturdy machine rest.
It could require a lot of precise ammunition, patches and equipment to be able to load using a consistent repeatable method.

And here's where it gets tricky, the propellant used would need to be so consistent that it would not interfere with the results.
In my mind, I don't even think that black powder could be used as the propellant for such testing since even the composition of powder granules within the same pound and small charge volumes can vary.
Perhaps another form of propellant could be used that could propel the projectile at a velocity similar to black powder velocities.
A propellant that would not create any inconsistency due to any other loading variables.
Perhaps there's a metering system for compressed air or another gas that a barrel could be outfitted with to propel the projectile at a consistent & precise repeatable velocity.
Or even if conventional type powders were used, the precise velocity and point of impact of each shot would need to be electronically recorded and measured.
The impact point of each shot, at their very specific velocity range, would need to be compared from the same barrel or 2 identical barrels, before and after each were coned.
And all of the results would need to be tracked and compared using computer scoring and programming to come up with overall conclusions about what the degree of accuracy differential can be extrapolated to be between a coned and unconed barrel, if there were any at all.
It all sounds like an experiment that only a highly scientific setting could provide that could cost a lot of money.

I'm not even sure that we can define what coning actually is, or what could be considered to be acceptable coning.
Laboratory coning may be considerably different than home coning.
If someone could patent coning, then we would all know what it is.
If a company would sell guns already factory coned then folks wouldn't need to cone their own.
'Tis to be coned or not to be coned the question that William Shakespeare should have really asked?

 

[necchi]

Laboratory coning may be considerably different than home coning.

Oh "piffle", everyone knows properly aged home coning is better then any new laboratory coning currently available.
"Lab" coning just isn't the same.

 

[bigted]

Have seen Mike Belevue you tubes on this very subject. His opinion is that no possibles bag's contained short starters that he knew of. And that most barrels on vintage rifles had some kinda coning done to them.

If all this is true ... or maybe portions ... then the absence of short starters AND the coning done on many vintage rifles, then just maybe this is not ( in history ) a new idea and it makes sense to me that one less thing to pack along and to remove an extra step in the loading process ... that it all makes possible the thought that again history in our sport has omitted a fact of the barrel being coned so as to make loading far faster and smoother.

I have not experienced a factory nor home conned barrel but can see no reason that done properly ... accuracy should not suffer. It really is nothing more then a deep crown which should not be any less accurate.

 

[WVAED]

I have no before / after account; but, I have a 54 caliber Ed Rayl barrel that he coned. It loads without a short starter and shoots very accurately. I like it a lot and wouldn't be upset if all my rifles were coned.

 

[Artificer]

There have been some original 18th century Rifles found where they rounded the ends of the lands and grooves by extremely careful filing, but that was not coning as is done today. Further, this seems to have completely dropped out of usage by the early 19th century, so it obviously was not thought to be that useful. Most original 18th/early 19th century barrels show EROSION of the soft Iron Barrels at the muzzle, but that is not coning as is done today, either.

The type of modern "deep" coning was possible in the 18th century, as they had the technology to do it, but there is no documented evidence it was ever done. This MAY have been because the Soft Iron in the barrels would have torn/sheared instead of cutting cleanly.

Actually, with the rise in much better metal lathes in the 19th century, one would expect it to show up frequently then, but nope, they preferred false muzzles when going for extreme accuracy. Short Starters don't begin to show up until the 19th century and I expect that was because they were able to more easily make better molds that were a closer fit to the bore size.

Finally, there is a lot of talk in the 18th and 19th centuries about having to "freshen the rifling" and "freshen the bore" and much more often than we ever run into today. I believe that is because we have tougher steel barrels than the soft iron barrels in most of the period covered by this forum, until the Bessemer Process of making Steel came about in 1855.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

On second thought, while they did make piloted cutters in the 18th century, it would have been extremely difficult to virtually impossible for them to have made precision reamers that would cleanly cut the soft Iron barrels instead of tearing/shearing the Iron, for the kind of deep coning done today.

Gus

 

[Coot]

On second thought, while they did make piloted cutters in the 18th century, it would have been extremely difficult to virtually impossible for them to have made precision reamers that would cleanly cut the soft Iron barrels instead of tearing/shearing the Iron, for the kind of deep coning done today.

Gus

Are you familiar with the 'Joe Woods' coning tool? It is not a cutter or reamer at all but rather a tapered plug that holds emery cloth/paper & it is the emery that grinds rather than cuts the coning. I realize that in the 18th c, sandpaper was something that might be found in a French cabinetmakers shop but would an abrasive paste work? (Understanding that using an abrasive paste would grind on both barrel and tool but the barrels were soft and the tapered tool could be hardened.)

 

[Artificer]

Hi Coot,

Though I have not used Joe's tool, yes I am somewhat familiar with it.

You are spot on about 18th century "Sand Paper" and I would add "Glass Paper" as a similar period product.

Here is a good short article on it by Gary Brumfield, before his untimely passing. The article also mentions other commonly available abrasives during the period:
http://flintriflesmith.com/WritingandResearch/Research/sandpaper.htm

I have not run across anything in period gunsmithing documentation that shows a tool anything like that. Though they could do some surprising accurate work on period lathes a gunsmith could have had in the period, I don't see how they could have made it precise enough to work like Joe's Tool in the average American Rifle Smith's shop, as they had no precision measuring instruments like a caliper inexpensive enough most machinists/gunsmiths could afford and that would read in .001" or thousandths of an inch until around 1840. Further, using period 18th century hand laid paper and them using hide glue to glue the sand or glass on, would not have given them anywhere near as precise as modern emery cloth.

When I did research on period higher status cabinet and furniture finishes some years ago, I came across two references in Philadelphia and one in New York on shops that did the more elaborate finishing for other cabinetry/furniture making shops and one in Philadelphia specifically mentioned they also did pistol stocks. This was in the 1790's time frame. Unfortunately, I did not save the links because I was researching wood working finishes of the period.

Gus