Coning

[8Ball]

And by most reports, accuracy was bad

And I remember that's why I sold it. It wasn't able to hit a barn from the inside...

 

[Jeff Davis]

Everything I have is coned using a Joe Woods tool. There's no down side I am able to load and shoot My guns more often without the frustration of a Ball Starter. I'm not into causing myself frustration fiddling with a ball starter. A Hobby is supposed to be fun and ease of loading makes it easier and more fun

 

[French Colonial]

I have said it before and I will repeat it again.

The most accurate rifle I have is a 40 year old Jaeger, Getz barrel with round bottom rifling (Can not wait for the expert to tell me why round bottom rifling does not work...........oh wait, I blocked him!)

The rifle will put multiple shots in one hole and great eye sight and steady nerves won a lot of matches for me some years ago.

If you want to cone your rifle and you feel you can do it well, accuracy will not suffer...period.

 

[Wirehair]

Everything I have is coned using a Joe Woods tool. There's no down side I am able to load and shoot My guns more often without the frustration of a Ball Starter. I'm not into causing myself frustration fiddling with a ball starter. A Hobby is supposed to be fun and ease of loading makes it easier and more fun

Ease of loading is a big plus. Did you see any change in accuracy after coning?

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I think zimmerstuzen is a bit uptight and needs to have a dram or two of whatever whisky and relax.
Jeeezzzeeee....

He said I do not know anything about him, neglecting what can be reasonable inferred from what he said that was contrary to fact. .

I don’t have to do anything for you. You’re the one running your mouth. The rest of us are discussing things and you get all penisidal over things. You sure are not my boss. I do not care what you think. If you were decent and did not post some epistle length rudish post, I might listen to you.

The rational well thought out response speaks volumes LOL

 

[Joemolf]

I’m a fan of Coning the barrel I can’t attest that it affects accuracy either way; I don’t hunt and really haven’t noticed any difference in groupings. I started using loading blocks and pre measured vials of powder about two years now. I was as at the range last week with a rifle I coned and thought I would not have coned the barrel because of the use of a loading block. A loading block doesn’t take up much room and certainly speeds up loading. So if you’re a hard core cut the patch at the barrel then coning is for you. I like using the loading block now and will never cone a barrel again. Coning takes time and has to be done carefully.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I have said it before and I will repeat it again.

The most accurate rifle I have is a 40 year old Jaeger, Getz barrel with round bottom rifling (Can not wait for the expert to tell me why round bottom rifling does not work...........oh wait, I blocked him!)

The rifle will put multiple shots in one hole and great eye sight and steady nerves won a lot of matches for me some years ago.

If you want to cone your rifle and you feel you can do it well, accuracy will not suffer...period.

Round bottom rifling. with what radius and depth? do you even know why some round bottom radius is less than bore diameter and some round bottom radius is larger than bore diameter? Which shoots with greater precision and why?

and your statement "accuracy will not suffer" Based on what knowledge and statistical evidence? what degree of accuracy are we beginning with? Some shoot to hit a deer or a tin can, others shoot to see the smallest precision group possible at 100 yds or greater.

 

[Walkaheap]

Everything I have is coned using a Joe Woods tool. There's no down side I am able to load and shoot My guns more often without the frustration of a Ball Starter. I'm not into causing myself frustration fiddling with a ball starter. A Hobby is supposed to be fun and ease of loading makes it easier and more fun

This has been my experience as well. The Joe Wood's tool worked for me and I have more what I consider a more authentic shooting experience without using the short starter.
Walkaheap

 

[Eric Krewson]

For an old guy like me coning is labor intensive, each barrel took me about 2 hours, a couple of sore hands and lots of 220 wet or dry sandpaper.

 

[grey8833]

For an old guy like me coning is labor intensive, each barrel took me about 2 hours, a couple of sore hands and lots of 220 wet or dry sandpaper.

View attachment 268986

To add a middle ground to this thread:
I read the patent application by A. Clark, April 24, 1840. He believed a 0 degree crown (dead flat and sharp) to be the best ballistic solution for the exit of a patched projectile. He also recognized the such a muzzle would very likely damage the patch, ruining accuracy - and noted that the normal solution to the damaged patch was a crowned or rounded muzzle, which also induced poor accuracy (funny, in his patent note he included a 1/8” crown - and a funneled barrel - both will “almost certainly, is, that the quality of the piece for accurate shooting will be impaired”). Thus his proposal for a false muzzle that would solve both problems, by providing a funneled barrel you could remove after you got your patch and ball loaded.

So, pick your poison:
>Use a modern crowned steel barrel, as provided by the barrel manufacturer, for the best ballistic solution - provided you get the patch into barrel undamaged…or

>Use a coned (funneled) barrel to make sure the patch is entered to the barrel undamaged, eliminating the inaccuracy induced by a damaged patch, but marginally reducing optimal ballistic accuracy.

Note: Clark assumed a short crown or “enlarged” muzzles were common.

I have four muzzleloaders, some coned, some not, each to a purpose:
1. A Miroko pistol from 1970 that was rebuilt and restocked. It had a 0 degree muzzle and was impossible to load (turned out it was 44Cal not 45Cal - which is what the original box said). Funneled it with a Joe Wood tool. Went from couldn’t hit 2’ panel at 15 yards to hitting an 8” target. Offhand.
2. A Chambers York flintlock with a Rice A weight barrel in 45Cal, with round bottom grooves. Funneled it so I could thumb start it. Did not see a drop off in accuracy, but I shoot it off hand.
3. A ToTW Jim Bridger Hawken, sporting a Goodoien 60Cal target barrel. No touchy with Coning tool. Bench shooting.
4. A Pecatonica Gibbs rifle shooting 500 grain Lee Shaver postals. Drop load so no Coning. Bench shooting.

Match the tool to the job.

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

He said I do not know anything about him, neglecting what can be reasonable inferred from what he said that was contrary to fact. .

The rational well thought out response speaks volumes LOL

The funny thing is he thinks anyone cares about his hissy fit.
Whatever.

 

[Pete G]

The funny thing is he thinks anyone cares about his hissy fit.
Whatever.

A hissy fit is for little girls. An adult has a coniption.

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

A hissy fit is for little girls. An adult has a coniption.

I stand corrected.

 

[XVIIc Wheelock]

and I use Rice match grade B/P barrels and follow their website guideline....leave the barrel muzzle alone...period.

 

[ronaldrothb49]

I have several of Mr. Woods tools but haven't had the chance to use them yet due to health issues we have hod over the last year or so. I went through this whole thread just to see what kind of results others have had with them. The first several pages had a lot of different people who have used the tool and overwhelmingly have said it worked. In my experience a person who is dissatisfied with the product is more likely to write a negative review than one who is satisfied. Then the thread got hijacked by an individual who doesn't appear to have ever coned a barrel but seems to have a preconceived notion that coning cannot possibly work and the only way to get accuracy is with an expensive target barrel. Well 99% of my shooting was in competition or practicing for competition for many years. The majority of that was for Cross sticks or light bench. I have never had one of your match grade barrels with the false muzzle or the sealed ignition or a target stock or expensive sights. All I ever used were production barrels' with a stock I built to fit me, for several years when I first started I had an old set of Lyman sights because that's all I could afford and then later did get an old set of Redfield sights. Well it seems they forgot to tell me I couldn't win matches with that set up because I sure won a lot of matches shooting against guys who had all that fancy stuff in matches which were most likely going to be decided by a string measure.

 

[GREENSWLDE]

May be the taper on very early rifle muzzles was purely Muzzle Coning from 1/2 a century's Ram Rod wear ?? After all,the Smiths of the period were using very soft Wraught Iron not modern carbon steels for their tubes.
I go with the Faulse muzzle for LRMR .451-.461 as they keep the long bullet true to the hole with bore sized PP Projectiles..But then, We are only following the Greats of the Georgian/Victorian times are'nt we. Tounge firmly outside the gum line..SPonGS's.. O.D.

 

[nkbj]

I have a .46 bore flintlock that I'd like to put a longer and gentler muzzle entrance on.
And it's tempting for The Rattler .61 bore Hawken to make it easier to load.
Most other rifles I like having crowns that are conducive to accuracy with long bullets as well as short ones.

 

[Eric Krewson]

I love to see this every time Z posts something on this thread.

I get a neat little tan dropdown that says;

"You are ignoring content by this member"

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

I love to see this every time Z posts something on this thread.

I get a neat little tan dropdown that says;

"You are ignoring content by this member"

Ditto!

 

[sturmkatze]

Ditto!

Me three