Coning

[Mike in FL]

I've known people who collected original bags and accouterments for many years. I have collected them too. Starters don't turn up with outfits known to be original.

I believe the tight ball and patch combinations used today are largely the product of the gamesmanship at Friendship and other places since muzzleloadings revival in the late 1920's. When old rifles are found with original molds the balls they cast are not as tight as those used today.

Was coning done in the old days? I don't believe so. It wasn't needed to load the patch and ball combinations used back then.

Coning is used today to allow shooters the ability to load tight fitting ball and patch combinations without the use of a starter. FWIW I have yet to hear of or see an original coning tool used in the old days.

The round ball was made obsolete for target work in the 1830's with the advent of patched bullets at which it was known a choked bore was best for the most accurate shooting.

Now that makes sense. Thanks.

 

[8Ball]

I remember a few years ago my late Thompson Center Hawken in .54 was factory coned. But it still a modern gun...

 

[Salty Cracker]

I've known people who collected original bags and accouterments for many years. I have collected them too. Starters don't turn up with outfits known to be original.

I believe the tight ball and patch combinations used today are largely the product of the gamesmanship at Friendship and other places since muzzleloadings revival in the late 1920's. When old rifles are found with original molds the balls they cast are not as tight as those used today.

Was coning done in the old days? I don't believe so. It wasn't needed to load the patch and ball combinations used back then.

Coning is used today to allow shooters the ability to load tight fitting ball and patch combinations without the use of a starter. FWIW I have yet to hear of or see an original coning tool used in the old days.

The round ball was made obsolete for target work in the 1830's with the advent of patched bullets at which it was known a choked bore was best for the most accurate shooting.

Your answer is the most educated and accurate. I agree with you. Thanks for the post.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Can't coning hurt the accuracy of a barrel?

If all you want is minute of deer, then coning won't hurt. If you actually want the absolute best accuracy (which most production barrels can't do anyway) then coning will probably affect accuracy. But to tell the difference, you would need a good above average target barrel, fine target sights and shoot off a bench or rest. If you spend the money for a top notch target barrel why in hades would you even risk affecting accuracy?

There are lots of guys who shoot 25 yd offhand and say see no difference. That type of anecdotal nonsense is just that. I am talking shooting 200 shots (after break in) and then comparing to 200 shots after coning, all shot from a bench. Compare the groups over all. If there is one millimeter difference, that is a big deal to a match shooter.

Line matches are won or lost on small fractions of an inch. I have been to matches where multiple shooters had scores of 50-3x and group size determined the winner. As I said a very small fraction of an inch can make the difference between winner and unmentioned 4th place..

In addition some target rifle barrels have choked bores. the last few inches are a thousandth or two more constricted than the rest of the barrel. Coning removes any chance of the benefit of that choke.

Lastly, if a coned muzzle made absolutely no difference, then there would be no purpose to having a target barrel with a false muzzle. And if there is no difference why do so many local matches disqualify guns with false muzzles? It is because the precise square muzzle on such a barrel is justly feared as more accurate than other muzzle shapes..

Many production muzzle loader gun barrels are capable of certain accuracy out of a machine rest. remove the shooter and inconsistent loads as variables and some are still only capable of 1.5 inches at 100 yds. From such a barrel, even the best rock solid shooter offhand would statistically only be capable of a 1.5 inch group and likely somewhat more open. That is where coning comes into play. It can make little to no difference depending on the barrel and the shooter and the type of shooting. And generally that is for hunters who are only trying to get an easy load second shot. .

 

[Dusty_Traveler]

I am not a coner.

I just use a smaller diameter ball and make the difference up with patching thickness. I want the ball to start with pressure from my thumbs stacked on it. Like the OGs did.

That being said, I would still buy a gun with a round ball twist that was coned.

I wouldn’t cone ANYTHING that conicals are to be shot out of.

 

[Eric Krewson]

Mr. Z, how many coned barrels do you own and have shot for comparison to non-coned barrels.

I only have two such rifles, both with very tight bores initially that would cut patches even after I recrowned them several times. Both barrels shot 2 1/2" groups off sandbags at 50 yards prior to coning and a tight cloverleaf after coning.

I think of a cone as a permanent false muzzle, like a false muzzle there will be no ball distortion during the initial loading of the ball and patch.

 

[French Colonial]

If all you want is minute of deer, then coning won't hurt. If you actually want the absolute best accuracy (which most production barrels can't do anyway) then coning will probably affect accuracy. But to tell the difference, you would need a good above average target barrel, fine target sights and shoot off a bench or rest. If you spend the money for a top notch target barrel why in hades would you even risk affecting accuracy?

There are lots of guys who shoot 25 yd offhand and say see no difference. That type of anecdotal nonsense is just that. I am talking shooting 200 shots (after break in) and then comparing to 200 shots after coning, all shot from a bench. Compare the groups over all. If there is one millimeter difference, that is a big deal to a match shooter.

Line matches are won or lost on small fractions of an inch. I have been to matches where multiple shooters had scores of 50-3x and group size determined the winner. As I said a very small fraction of an inch can make the difference between winner and unmentioned 4th place..

In addition some target rifle barrels have choked bores. the last few inches are a thousandth or two more constricted than the rest of the barrel. Coning removes any chance of the benefit of that choke. AND

Lastly, if a coned muzzle made absolutely no difference, then there would be no purpose to having a target barrel with a false muzzle. And if there is no difference why do so many local matches disqualify guns with false muzzles? It is because the precise square muzzle on such a barrel is justly feared as more accurate than other muzzle shapes..

Many production muzzle loader gun barrels are capable of certain accuracy out of a machine rest. remove the shooter and inconsistent loads as variables and some are still only capable of 1.5 inches at 100 yds. From such a barrel, even the best rock solid shooter offhand would statistically only be capable of a 1.5 inch group and likely somewhat more open. That is where coning comes into play. It can make little to no difference depending on the barrel and the shooter and the type of shooting. And generally that is for hunters who are only trying to get an easy load second shot. .

AND....

In rebuttal I would say the most accurate rifles on the planet are 6PPC and other benchrest rifles, if false muzzles worked better than crowning they would use them.

BUT! now we are talking apples and oranges and how far away from TRADITIONAL do you want to wander.

 

[Grenadier1758]

I remember a few years ago my late Thompson Center Hawken in .54 was factory coned. But it still a modern gun...

T/C did something they called a Quick Loading Adaption. They rebated the barrel about the depth of a Maxi-Ball to allow the inserting and aligning of the Maxi-Ball to the bore. That QLA was not a coning. but a drilling out of the barrel.

 

[8Ball]

T/C did something they called a Quick Loading Adaption. They rebated the barrel about the depth of a Maxi-Ball to allow the inserting and aligning of the Maxi-Ball to the bore. That QLA was not a coning. but a drilling out of the barrel.

Yes it is right I remember.

 

[Uncle Miltie]

AND....

In rebuttal I would say the most accurate rifles on the planet are 6PPC and other benchrest rifles, if false muzzles worked better than crowning they would use them.

BUT! now we are talking apples and oranges and how far away from TRADITIONAL do you want to wander.

Patent muzzles (loading muzzles, false muzzles) were invented in the 1830's for starting and loading a cloth patched bullet straight in the bore, which was often choked. That's all it was meant to do, facilitate loading.

 

[French Colonial]

Patent muzzles (loading muzzles, false muzzles) were invented in the 1830's for starting and loading a cloth patched bullet straight in the bore, which was often choked. That's all it was meant to do, facilitate loading.

Yes, and they continued up to Schuetzen shooters loading powder filled cartridges from the breech and paper patched bullets from the muzzle.

All to say if a rifle without a crown proved to be more accurate than one with it there are people who would be shooting them. All beside the point with ML'ers.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

AND....

In rebuttal I would say the most accurate rifles on the planet are 6PPC and other benchrest rifles, if false muzzles worked better than crowning they would use them.

BUT! now we are talking apples and oranges and how far away from TRADITIONAL do you want to wander.

first of all, it is ignorant to compare high power super sonic hard alloy bullets to the softer lead used with muzzle loaders.

The pinned false muzzle was patented in the US in 1811, but other false muzzle loading systems existed for earlier target rifles. So, such muzzles are in deed traditional. What firearms did the Irish National team use at Creedmore. (And before you make the stupid rant about them losing, remember that they lost because one of their team cross fired a 10 point bulls eye on the wrong target. Had he not done so the Irish would still have won.)

The most accurate rifles in the world from 1890 to 1920 were Harry Pope's centerfire-muzzle loaded rifles with false muzzles. We are of course comparing muzzle loaders to muzzle loaders. Harry Pope fired his guns muzzle loaders and otherwise from machine rests inside a 200 meter enclosed range to dispense with wind variables. If you have any scintilla of evidence concerning the accuracy of coned muzzles that is not strictly anecdotal, please elucidate.

 

[Eric Krewson]

I think we are discussing to very different types of rifles and shooting, bench rest and your average hunter's rifle that is carried day in and day out and used in a variety of situations. I can see a lot of reasons to cone a hunting rifle and no reason what so ever to cone a bench rest rifle

My flintlock is just such a rifle, it is coned, very accurate and will be headed to the woods with me tomorrow when B/P season opens in Alabama.

If I can do this with it off a sand bag, imagine what someone who doesn't have 76-year-old eyes and can actually see the sights could do, for me the rear sight is a blur.

This tells me my coned rifle is very accurate, past 50 yards all bets are off but I suspect this kind of accuracy will hold up at further distances.

Like I said, I was shooting low and had filed the front sight down as far as I could so I added 5 more grains of powder, held a little higher and hit high. I went back to my 6 o'clock hold and punched the next two holes.

This target isn't the least bit anecdotal and is the real deal, at least for me. This particular rifle shot much better coned than it did before I coned it and I put a lot of shots through it before it was coned it. The barrel was a re-bore that had "issues", coning helped it shoot better because it got rid of an overly tight bore. I had to shoot .526 balls in the rifle before coning because of the tight bore, after coning, a .530 and an .018 patch load easily.

I can't say across the board that coning will help or hurt the accuracy of someone else's rifle, I can only state what my experience with the process has been.

 

[Mowich]

The Museum of the Fur Trade has historical examples of straight starters. So historically short starters were used.
If you watch the videos in the Muzzleloading Sponsors market on the top page of this forum under Flinsteel Joe Wood page.
One Video references Hershal House and personal communication with him. House with all the old guns he examined found most were coned and he
coned his own barrels.
I would have a coned barrel for ease and speed of loading and carry a straight starter for times the barrel gets a little fouled.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Mr. Z, how many coned barrels do you own and have shot for comparison to non-coned barrels.

I only have two such rifles, both with very tight bores initially that would cut patches even after I recrowned them several times. Both barrels shot 2 1/2" groups off sandbags at 50 yards prior to coning and a tight cloverleaf after coning.

I think of a cone as a permanent false muzzle, like a false muzzle there will be no ball distortion during the initial loading of the ball and patch.

Then obviously your crown was off to begin with. Comparing a cone to a permanent false muzzle proves you have no concept of why a false muzzle is used. And certainly not to make for an easy load. BTW most people I know, including me, can shoot better groups with a smooth barrel off a bench at 50. yds. I have shot H&H choked muzzle rifle barrels. It would be thoroughly stupid to cone the choke out of them. And they load with thumb pressure because of the type of rifling.

So tell us about the "tight rifling" that in your expansive 2 times of experience did better after coning. What was the configuration of the rifling? Width of lands compared to grooves, were the grooves radius cut, square or another shape, what was the depth of the grooves and if radius cut, what was the radius measurement compared to the bore radius?

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I think we are discussing to very different types of rifles and shooting, bench rest and your average hunter's rifle that is carried day in and day out and used in a variety of situations. I can see a lot of reasons to cone a hunting rifle and no reason what so ever to cone a bench rest rifle

My flintlock is just such a rifle, it is coned, very accurate and will be headed to the woods with me tomorrow when B/P season opens in Alabama.

If I can do this with it off a sand bag, imagine what someone who doesn't have 76-year-old eyes and can actually see the sights could do, for me the rear sight is a blur.

This tells me my coned rifle is very accurate, past 50 yards all bets are off but I suspect this kind of accuracy will hold up at further distances.

Like I said, I was shooting low and had filed the front sight down as far as I could so I added 5 more grains of powder, held a little higher and hit high. I went back to my 6 o'clock hold and punched the next two holes.

This target isn't the least bit anecdotal and is the real deal, at least for me. This particular rifle shot much better coned than it did before I coned it and I put a lot of shots through it before it was coned it. The barrel was a re-bore that had "issues", coning helped it shoot better because it got rid of an overly tight bore. I had to shoot .526 balls in the rifle before coning because of the tight bore, after coning, a .530 and an .018 patch load easily.

I can't say across the board that coning will help or hurt the accuracy of someone else's rifle, I can only state what my experience with the process has been.

View attachment 268319

A single target and gun is the very definition of anecdotal. You make no mention of he type of rifling and two shots is not a group. You have good accuracy if you are only after minute of deer. Unless you can show us at least 100 shots before coning and 100 after, there is no scientific statistical proof of anything.,

Saying a gun is accurate is very relative. And super accuracy means many different things to different people. Good enough for boiler room on deer, good enough for a neck shot on a deer, good enough to bark a squirrel, or to literally drive thumb tacks at 100yds.

Which of those accuracies are not affected by coning?

 

[French Colonial]

Then obviously your crown was off to begin with. Comparing a cone to a permanent false muzzle proves you have no concept of why a false muzzle is used. And certainly not to make for an easy load. BTW most people I know, including me, can shoot better groups with a smooth barrel off a bench at 50. yds. I have shot H&H choked muzzle rifle barrels. It would be thoroughly stupid to cone the choke out of them. And they load with thumb pressure because of the type of rifling.

So tell us about the "tight rifling" that in your expansive 2 times of experience did better after coning. What was the configuration of the rifling? Width of lands compared to grooves, were the grooves radius cut, square or another shape, what was the depth of the grooves and if radius cut, what was the radius measurement compared to the bore radius?

Wow, first you call me ignorant and then you let Eric know that you know more about his rifles than he does and I guess neither of us knows as much as you do about false muzzles.......and you do not know anything about me.

Another internet expert that now goes in to the ignore lock box.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Wow, first you call me ignorant and then you let Eric know that you know more about his rifles than he does and I guess neither of us knows as mush as you do about false muzzles.......and you do not know anything about me.

Another internet expert that now goes in to the ignore lock box.

I take notice you are thoroughly unable to answer the simple question about the configuration of your rifling. What are we to infer from that?

You failed to include any studies or even published articles on efforts made to study the effect of coning on different types of rifling. Safe to say your have none?

I didn't call you ignorant, you did. I merely pointed out that you apparently didn't know the purpose of a false muzzle if you equate a cone to a false muzzle.

The opportunities I gave you to inform us about the rifling of your 2 guns, and non anecdotal evidence in support of coning not affecting accuracy went totally unanswered. That alone speaks in volumes.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

The Museum of the Fur Trade has historical examples of straight starters. So historically short starters were used.
If you watch the videos in the Muzzleloading Sponsors market on the top page of this forum under Flinsteel Joe Wood page.
One Video references Hershal House and personal communication with him. House with all the old guns he examined found most were coned and he
coned his own barrels.
I would have a coned barrel for ease and speed of loading and carry a straight starter for times the barrel gets a little fouled.

when I attended the Berks county Long rifle exhibit of Berks county rifles from Kindig's collection, of the 40 or 50 rifles, few had anything that could be referred to as coned, and more likely from muzzle wear. The Peter Angstadt rifle had a very square muzzle with no visible crown The only Jacob Angstadt rifle I have ever been able to examine had been so butchered and mishandled over the years, it was impossible to tell what the barrel crown had been. Of the three originals I have had over the years, the rifle was definitely not coned and still had an odd number of grooves. and index marks on the muzzle. The other two were smooth rifles. One so banged up, the muzzle was mushroomed over.

I have seen more half stock gun muzzles worn to tapered mouths or possibly coned than full stock originals. The Jonathan Browning repro rifles did come from the factory with a strange funnel crown. more like a blunder buss muzzle than a crown.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

T/C did something they called a Quick Loading Adaption. They rebated the barrel about the depth of a Maxi-Ball to allow the inserting and aligning of the Maxi-Ball to the bore. That QLA was not a coning. but a drilling out of the barrel.

And by most reports, accuracy was bad