i agree i don't see where coning does any good other then making the rifle easier to load. no i don't use a hammer to start my balls down the barrel either. i have made a lot of barrels and the ones that were coned were reamed that way then rifled. some of my best shooting rifles have a little choke in them.
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
rabbit03 said:
Nobody ever said coning made the gun more accurate. The point is, it won't make it less accurate than it was before coning. But, it will make it a pleasure to load.
Guest
HardBall said:
Everything after this statement is irrelevant when talking to people who have experience. Don't you think?
This is why these arguments drag on forever. People with no experience always try to offer some "theory" to those that do have experience. :shake:
paulvallandigham
Passed On
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,538
- Reaction score
- 87
NO, Davey: The guns that go with the bags in the museums all have coned muzzles. That is what he observed in his travels, but it didn't sink home unti he was going through all his notes to write his book that there was this common thread through all the guns all over the country from that Pre-civil war period. The hunting guns had coned muzzles, while the target guns had flat crowns, and required and did have short starters either in their bags, or had a loop or some other provision for keep a short starter handy in the bags.
The reason I remark about the article is that my brother had just bought an old gun, convernted to percussion in the 1870s or 80s, but that used a barrel that was obviously much older. We could not determine the true caliber becuase it was smaller than the .36 cal. rod I had at the time. The muzzle was a worn, 38 caliber! He sent the barrel off to a man out east to take the breech off, clear the barrel examine it, and if need be, fresh the rifling, or rebore it to a larger caliber. Because of deep pits, he had to have the gun rebored to .42 caliber, which removed the coning at the muzzle entirely. The gun shoots beautifully in the new caliber, but he still cusses it when he has to use that short starter to get the PRB going down. When we both read the article in Muzzle Blasts, and he talked to the barrel maker who did the work, it became clear that the original barrel had been coned. We laughed about that, and then regretted we had lost the coning. We didn't know then that anyone was making tools to do that. ( Tnank you Joe Wood.)
The reason I remark about the article is that my brother had just bought an old gun, convernted to percussion in the 1870s or 80s, but that used a barrel that was obviously much older. We could not determine the true caliber becuase it was smaller than the .36 cal. rod I had at the time. The muzzle was a worn, 38 caliber! He sent the barrel off to a man out east to take the breech off, clear the barrel examine it, and if need be, fresh the rifling, or rebore it to a larger caliber. Because of deep pits, he had to have the gun rebored to .42 caliber, which removed the coning at the muzzle entirely. The gun shoots beautifully in the new caliber, but he still cusses it when he has to use that short starter to get the PRB going down. When we both read the article in Muzzle Blasts, and he talked to the barrel maker who did the work, it became clear that the original barrel had been coned. We laughed about that, and then regretted we had lost the coning. We didn't know then that anyone was making tools to do that. ( Tnank you Joe Wood.)
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 6,473
- Reaction score
- 1,394
I have considered coning, but have not made a decision on it yet. I asked Don Getz about it, and he thought it was OK for a hunting rifle, but said that he would not cone his chunk gun muzzle, which he competes with. I have yet to read endorsements for the practice by serious target shooters, but perhaps they just do not want to gamble with something that is already working for them. Can anyone tell me if coning changed the point of impact? Was it necessary to readjust the sights?
Dale Brown said:
Unless you're talking about the process of coning a muzzle, which I was, and not the effects of a coned muzzle, which I was not.
Nevertheless, I wasn't aware it was an argument. Thanks for clearing that part up.
rabbit03
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,143
- Reaction score
- 17
Greetings Claud.
The question was (What effect does a coned muzzle have on the accuracy of a firearm), I say that anything except for a properly crowned muzzle, with the exception of a false muzzle, will detract from the barrels accuracy.
My response was actually toward Le Grand who said it makes a rifle more accurate. I dissagree with it and made a challenge. However I shall back out of the post at this time since I have no first hand knowlege of coning making a rifle more accurate but I stand by my statement that I see none of it at the shooting events where some of the worlds best can be found.
The challenge still stands!
rabbit03
The question was (What effect does a coned muzzle have on the accuracy of a firearm), I say that anything except for a properly crowned muzzle, with the exception of a false muzzle, will detract from the barrels accuracy.
My response was actually toward Le Grand who said it makes a rifle more accurate. I dissagree with it and made a challenge. However I shall back out of the post at this time since I have no first hand knowlege of coning making a rifle more accurate but I stand by my statement that I see none of it at the shooting events where some of the worlds best can be found.
The challenge still stands!
rabbit03
Guest
I don't know fer sure Claude. But coning may make the gum taste better. :rotf:
I know...I'm a wise acre.
I know...I'm a wise acre.
Guest
Oh No!!! Rod wear is not uniform as a good coning job is. Coning a muzzle decreases the effects of rod wear and makes the rifle easier to load. The old masters did it for a reason and I do it for the same reasons. Try it you'll like it. Rabbit...Coning is just a slower angle or crowning. Nothing more and nothing less. Although many coned muzzles have fancy file work added to the muzzle end which does not effect the accuracy but further facilitates ease in loading.
roundball said:
I've never used a "short starter". I meant, that after I coned my muzzle, I didn't have to force the patch and ball into the muzzle, using my thumb. All it requires now is a little pressure to push it flush with the muzzle, so I can use the ramrod to seat the ball.
Guest
Thanks gentlemen for all of the responses on this. I surely did not mean to start any thing but obviously this topis touches a nerve. With that said, I have sent a message to Mr. Wood asking him to please respond with the how, and what with so I can order one for my .54.
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 6,473
- Reaction score
- 1,394
You will not wear a muzzle out for a long time if you use a protector when loading. They are not very practcal when hunting, but when shooting at targets they will prolong the life of your crown.
Guest
Wick Ellerbe said:
or coned muzzle, either one. :winking:
Guest
OK, now tell me how you know when a coned muzzle is getting rod wear?
Guest
I don't have a clue! Mine never have shown signs of rod wear i.e. loss of accuracy. Why? Do you know how? Clue me in. :hmm:
I am your humble and attentive student. :rotf:
I am your humble and attentive student. :rotf:
squirejohn
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2003
- Messages
- 398
- Reaction score
- 0
Prior to coning my .45c GMB that shoots a .451rb best, I needed a short starter to load by cutting patches at the muzzle or via a loading block. After coning I no longer use a short starter for either and there was
no change in accuracy or POI.
no change in accuracy or POI.
rabbit03
50 Cal.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,143
- Reaction score
- 17
Hello Squire,
Hurry get the word out that the GM barrels shoot best with bore size or slightly larger so that all can know of it. :winking: That is exactly what we find at the matches also, it is deadly accurate.
Of course coning your rifle and not having to use a short starter, well my hat is off to you, especially since there is no loss in accuracy too. :bow:
I think you might have found the best of both worlds, :thumbsup: Perhaps others here would like to shoot bore size balls too and have not been doing so for fear of having to resort to hammering the balls in. So this may be a way for them to get the accuracy and not have to deal with the hammering-in aspect of it all.
rabbit03
Hurry get the word out that the GM barrels shoot best with bore size or slightly larger so that all can know of it. :winking: That is exactly what we find at the matches also, it is deadly accurate.
Of course coning your rifle and not having to use a short starter, well my hat is off to you, especially since there is no loss in accuracy too. :bow:
I think you might have found the best of both worlds, :thumbsup: Perhaps others here would like to shoot bore size balls too and have not been doing so for fear of having to resort to hammering the balls in. So this may be a way for them to get the accuracy and not have to deal with the hammering-in aspect of it all.
rabbit03
For thru the same hole shot's you cant beat a bore size ball, thanks to John H :bow: I would of never tryed it, but I wish I didnt have to use a short starter on most my rifles,starting to think Im shooting one size to big. :rotf: ( a 52 in a 53 Santa Fe) Fred :hatsoff:
