Coneing, I did it. Joe wood tool

[Zonie]

I'm glad to hear you aren't trying to offer to sell these in this area of the forum.

Such offers can only be made in the Classified Ad areas.

Folks wanting to find out more about these tools should send flintlsteel a private message by using our Conversation method.
Click on the area under his name, select Start a Conversation in the box that opens. Don't forget to give the message a title and don't forget to enter it by clicking on the "Start a Conversation button at the bottom of the screen.

 

[flintsteel]

I totally agree, Zonie. The thread just seemed to drift in that direction and I was trying to share a bit of information about the process without crossing the line of advertising. It got very close to the line in the sand.

 

[Artie Peltier]

i deleted my post after viewing the above post. Thanks Art

 

[MSW]

An actual true test would be so detailed, basically nobody is going to do it & do it properly. It would be hundreds of documented steps on each barrel, before & after coning, etc.....

End result is allot people still are not going to believe it, one way or another. :hmm:

So...... why go thru the time & expense.....


Most of the testing I have seen was not even a test. They cone the barrel & then say it shot better or worse.... What kind of test is that ? You would have to spend hundreds of hrs. in load work & detailed documentation, bench shooting with the barrels clamped to benches, dif loads, patches, balls, etc. to find the absolute Best load for the barrel before & after. And even after all of that, someone will find fault with the testing...........

so...... my theory is if you want it coned, do it & if ya don't, then don't.... :idunno:

If you are a VERY good marksman, you might see a dif., be it one way or another. Or you may need to rework all you loads & find that new best load & combo all over again & get right back to where ya were or even better.

You change Anything in the barrel, be it length, charge, powder, ball, patch, lube, vent size, nipple, ANYTHING..... IMHO it will change the group....... some allot, some little.. Some notice it, some cannot see a change at all....

Keith Lisle

he 'got it in one.' my youngest daughter, with her advanced degrees, has told me in no uncertain terms that in order to obtain statistical reliability, one needs a sample set of at least 32. (this arcane number is based in some sort of calculus, and my calculus is, literally, 46 years old and unused, thus withered with age beyond use: I will defer to her expertise in such matters)

thus, to have any kind of reliability, one would need at least 32 barrels to test. and then you would have to figure out how to remove all of the variables...

flint or percussion?
free floating? the whole length of the barrel?
barrel length?
grade and type and brand of powder?
roundball?
slug?
iron sights or (eeeeew) 'scope?
range?
ambient temperature?
range conditions?
patch material?
lube mixture?
bevel up or bevel down?
leather flint wrap or lead?
depth of rifling?
brand of barrel?
type of steel?
rate of twist?
flat or radius groove rifling?

bwahahaha!! (mad scientist laugh)

there: that should generate enough hard feelings to start a good bar fight.

in conclusion: I am no deadeye Dick, and don't aspire to become one with a pb weapon (if I want that, i'll go to a centerfire plarform) … my interest is ventilating the odd soda can at thirty paces .. gotta use .54: that soda can might be hopped up on drugs and have the strength of five soda cans! … THUS, for me, I will cone my muzzle for easier loading and forego any potential loss of accuracy.

I would council caution in 'following the crowd." They're YOUR hard earned, overtaxed, God - entrusted dollars, so spend them as you see fit, and don't worry too much about "what everyone says."


(by the way, I like Wood's tools, and have used them on all of my rifles)

 

[The Crisco Kid]

flintsteel,

What is the angle of your tool? I coned a .45 muzzle using a 1 1/2 degree throating reamer for a 45-70. As far as I can tell, it worked fine. It could stand a little polishing however.

 

[flintsteel]

To tell the truth I haven’t the slightest idea what the angle is. Thirty some years ago through trial and error I figured out how much to offset the tail stock of my lathe and that’s it. I can tell you the tool tapers .035 over a distance of 2 1/2”.

 

[flintsteel]

One of the great things about using grit paper to create the taper is the resulting finish is far better than the bore itself. Reamers just can’t produce the results I’m looking for.

 

[Zonie]

To tell the truth I haven’t the slightest idea what the angle is. Thirty some years ago through trial and error I figured out how much to offset the tail stock of my lathe and that’s it. I can tell you the tool tapers .035 over a distance of 2 1/2”.

If the .035" reduction is the actual size reduction of the diameter as measured with calipers or a micrometer, the angle would be 0.4 degrees. If it is the reduction of just one side of the cone as measured from the centerline, the angle would be 0.8 degrees.
(A 1 degree angle measured from the centerline would change the diameter of a cone about .035 inch per inch.)

 

[flintsteel]

It’s the actual OD size reduction so I guess it’s .4 degrees. Pretty gentle! There is no rocket science involved here. I just wanted a long cone to allow the ball to be gently swaged into the bore as it gains momentum from the ramrod. Works!

 

[Boston Bill]

Coned means removing some of the rifleing at the muzzle by using a special cutter.
The cutter creates a cone in the bore that runs back an inch or more at a very slight angle.

This cone allows a patched ball to enter the bore with very little pressure. Usually just thumb pressure is required.

There have been tests that indicate that removing the rifleing at the muzzle by coneing decreases the accuracy of the gun however many people say they can see no real effect on accuracy after they've had their gun coned.

Several different makers sell the tool to cone a muzzle. The tools have slightly different designs but they all use a guide that fits closely in the bore to keep the cone concentric with the rifleing.

zonie

I can't believe the increase in accuracy I gained when I had the cylinders in my Ruger Old Army chamfered.
Approximately 40'. There are 6 holes there. Had to check the target backing to verify.

 

[Boston Bill]

Desert Rat,
I am the maker of Mark Baker's new rifle Gideon. I use a method of coning that I have found in several original rifles and documented in the Jaeger rifle book that Jim Chambers offers. It requires only a small chainsaw file and a steady hand. That could be the reason people have a hard time finding a "coning tool" in inventories of old gun shops. The coning tool was just a file. You can see a few examples of my coning at the Contemporary Longrifle show in Lexington next week if you are interested. I will have Mark's rifle there.
Mike Miller

Lexington. Ma?

 

[Coot]

I can't believe the increase in accuracy I gained when I had the cylinders in my Ruger Old Army chamfered.
Approximately 40'. There are 6 holes there. Had to check the target backing to verify.

Coning a muzzleloading rifle barrel and chamfering BP revolver cylinders are somewhat similar concepts - allowing a larger tighter load to more easily be pressed into place. The difference is that chamfering does not affect the pistol barrel or muzzle & seems to generally improve accuracy, Coning, which does alter the muzzle is seldom mentioned as improving accuracy - the "jury" seems to be out on whether it has no effect on accuracy (my personal experience) or whether it can harm accuracy. As in anything, the quality of work done always has a bearing on the results achieved.

 

[Boston Bill]

Coning a muzzleloading rifle barrel and chamfering BP revolver cylinders are somewhat similar concepts - allowing a larger tighter load to more easily be pressed into place. The difference is that chamfering does not affect the pistol barrel or muzzle & seems to generally improve accuracy, Coning, which does alter the muzzle is seldom mentioned as improving accuracy - the "jury" seems to be out on whether it has no effect on accuracy (my personal experience) or whether it can harm accuracy. As in anything, the quality of work done always has a bearing on the results achieved.

I had read about the chamfer on the cylinder somewhere in the forum and thought I would try it. It was for easier bullet entry into the cylinder. Apparently a side benefit in my case was also better accuracy. Was just going for the easier ball entry.

 

[Enfield58]

Joe Wood is first class! I got a coning tool for .45 caliber and used it on a flintlock rifle and four pistols. There is no need for a ball starter.

I liked his .45 caliber coning tool so much that I ordered five more in other calibers.

It's a pleasure to do business with him.

 

[Adam Daub]

What is the price on the joe wood coning tools

 

[Enfield58]

What is the price on the joe wood coning tools

Go here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/muzzle-coning-tool.119992/

 

[Scoper05]

$52 for the joe wood tool.

 

[Scoper05]

I just received my Ed Hamberg Universal coning tool. I can't wait to try it out this weekend. I got a 45 caliber and a 50 caliber waiting to be done.