Coneing part 3

[Desert Ratxx]

How do you ensure that you have an even cone or radius doing it by hand? If the taper was not even couldn't it change the stabilization of the ball and utmatley change the POI? Or is it just not that critical to have it exact because the ball has already stabilized by the time it is exiting the barrel anyway?

The reason I ask is I kinda like the looks of Mike Millers technique but I am very nervous about not having it be even.

 

I bought and used a coning tool from Joe Woods on my .50 GPR without ill effects on accuracy. I think the reason for this is that his instructions are very well explained and the tool (made from bronze) is very well engineered and manufactured. I can now thumb start a PRB in this rifle and drive home the charge with a ramrod without going through the short starter routine. Thumb starting permits faster follow-up shots, you eliminate a piece of gear in the possibles bag, and you don't have to worry about losing the short starter and using a rock to start the PRB.

 

[paulvallandigham]

The problem with the Miller Crown, is that its not deep enough for most bullets to allow you to cut patches off at the muzzle with a patch knife, cleanly, with one stroke of the blade, because part of the ball sticks up above the muzzle. The whole idea of coning is to drop the PRB down below the muzzle so that the patch can be cut off with the patch knife. That eliminates the use of a short starter, to get to the same place, while not adding more time to the loading procedure because the ball prevents a clean cutting stroke with a razor knife blade to cleave the patching. Most people use cut patches BECAUSE they have to use a short starter to start the PRB down the barrel, and it takes time to both lube and center the patch, and then use the short starter to drive the ball deep enough to allow patch cutting.

By using the long cone, the ball drops below the muzzle, the shooter cuts the patch of his strip with one stroke, and he is running the ball down the barrel much quicker with his RR.

If a process, like the MILLER CROWN does not save time and equipment, what is the point ? :shake: :cursing: :hmm: :surrender: :thumbsup:

 

[54mountain]

The cone on my 54 is a 2 degree taper and the prb is swedged into the grooves with alot less pressure than trying to drive it past the crown of the muzzle. Since the ball is already a couple of inches down the barrel before it gets tight, there is plenty of support for the ramrod,so you can grab it 4 or 5 inches from the muzzle to get that first good push after that it'll slide on down.

I hope this makes sense,Sometimes the old brain don't come up with the words to say what it's thinkin'

 

[J.D.]

I have never used Mike Miller's technique, so I can't speak for that, but in my limited experience in forming the radiused cone, I just took my time and made sure everything was even.

The person who told me about this radiused cone claimed to have once used a pocketknife to remove that line in the bore. So, I don't know how precise these muzzles need to be. IF Miller can get the kind of accuracy shown in the photo, maybe they don't have to be all that precise. I dunno.
J.D.

 

[paulvallandigham]

A pocket knife? On a steel barrel? That I would have to see. Right now I am looking for my hip waders, and a shovel. Its getting deep around here! :youcrazy: :rotf:

 

[Claude Mathis]

A pocket knife? On a steel barrel? That I would have to see. Right now I am looking for my hip waders, and a shovel. Its getting deep around here! :youcrazy: :rotf:

I'm guessing it was a special "mountain man" knife. :wink:

 

[roundball]

I think Muzzleloader just carried an article in a recent issue about the steps to follow and how to cone a muzzle...and they had very poor results with accuracy...worse than before they started...anybody else see that? Anyhow, one of the great things about this hobby is to be able to experiment with all sorts of things to see if they're old wives tales or not...

But on this coning thing, in looking for iron clad benefits the question comes to my mind:
"if it was really such an across the board great idea, why wouldn't all (or most) barrels being built today include them as a standard feature in the barrel design?"

Inquiring minds and all that......... :grin:

 

[paulvallandigham]

I can answer that, Roundball. There are many shooters who are married to the idea that the only accurate barrels have flat crowns, like the bench guns used in target shooting in the 1870s, or '80s.

Both can shoot very well. The guns with the perfectly squared muzzles probably shoot tinier groups, all other things being equal.

But, for any gun that is going to be shot with open sights, at hunting yardage, off-hand, or using an off-hand or make shift rest, Well crowned barrels, and coned barrels are more than adequate, and can win a lot of matches, too. :thumbsup:

 

[wulf]

This is what I have been doing with my ryfls for
the past 35years..and I never used a short start
er...now that i am older i use a stater and a
mallet...tymes are a changing..

 

[Trapper]

Hey there Guys, if I'm not mistaken, TC has jumped on the coning bandwagon a few years ago. They produced the quick loading(QLA) Hawkens. The barrel had about 2 inches bored oversized with no lands and grooves. It does'nt matter where the bullet exits from in the barrel as long as it is square to the bore. If after coning the barrel it's square to the barrel, it's just as square as if it was square at the end of the bore with no coning. I just finished building my wife's 45 cal caplock and I coned the bore so she didn't need the short starter. Contrary to the magazine article, I retrieved the patches and not one of them were burned through. The first 3 shots at 25 yrds cloverleafed. I'm satified and so is my wife. I think I've just created a monster. Her first two shots offhand were in the 10x. I can see her out shooting me by the end of the year(sigh). It's just my opinion but I'll never use a short starter again and neither will my wife. Just my two cents. Give it a try you'll like it !!!
Trapper

 

[Slamfire]

I'd guess a round headed brass bolt, chucked in a drill, and smeared with valve grinding compound could make a pretty good radius on the crown. :wink:

 

[roundball]

The QLA is a false muzzle, not a coned muzzle.

It is not tapered and does not taper into the lands...the ends of the lands are the same as they would be at the very end of the normal muzzle...all they did was grind out the lands for the first 1.25" of the barrel to groove diameter.

You start a ball & patch into it, which is a very loose fit by the way, sometimes allowing the ball to roll off the patch and drop in by itself if not careful.

Then it stops on top of the ends of the lands, but you can no longer reach it to thumb start it...must use a short starter.

Its purpose it to ensure conical alignment with the centerline axis of the bore for increased conical accuracy.

Personally I think it was a marketing gimmick they announced in 1995 to try and keep SOME customers from running to Knight and the other companies who were dominating the "other" market and TC was not yet even a player.

I had one QLA barrel, immediately sent it back to TC after the first range trip for a non-QLA replacement...it serves no purpose whatsoever for a PRB...and if fact can be a PITA with PRBs...won't ever own another one.

 

[faw3]

Hey Rab 3 I let John T do my 53 cal Hawken and it shoots just as great as before. (the barrel was miscolored and looked like it had pits and I sent it up fo a bore + rifleing job but all was ok, sure makes it easy to load. Keep your shooting up your getting to be TO Good! Fred :thumbsup:

 

[faw3]

I think you hit it right on, 3 buck file and 15 min and it was more than good enough at deer range. this is the 3rd and last of the story but throwing in the file "cone story with how much powder and if you use spit or not in the other coneing story really got to be a drag, seems you shouldnt use .....at all when shooting coned or not from story 2. FRED :youcrazy:

 

[roundball]

Yes, sounds to me like a solution in search of a problem...but others mileage and all that...

 

[J.D.]

A pocket knife? On a steel barrel? That I would have to see. Right now I am looking for my hip waders, and a shovel. Its getting deep around here! :youcrazy: :rotf:

Why not? I used a hand held cartridge case mouth champhering tool to begin forming the radius on the .32. The chips rolled off of the muzzle as if it was being cut on a lathe...though the chips were smaller and thinner than if cut on a lathe.

ML barrels are soft, leaded steel, so a decent pocket knife should cut it with ease...Granted not all pocket knives are "decent" knives, but 12L14 is SOFT steel, none the less.

And this source did not say how much material was removed from the line separating the crown from the bore. I suspect that only enough material was removed to form a rudimentary radius. Just enough to remove that defining line. I also suspect that the knife blade was used as a scraper, rather than cutting into the muzzle. My source did not elaborate on the exact method used.

I just read several messages on another BBS about Miller's method of filing a short cone. I apparently missed the part where the cone is about 1/2 inch deep. I gotta go back and reread that article. Other members of that BBS report that they have used the same basic technique to file crowns on some of their guns, with no apparent loss of accuracy. Again, I dunno. I'm just reporting what has been reported to me by people who appear to be very knowledgeable.

I will have to admit that there is some controversy about that article, but the general consensus is that the idea that precise crowns on ML are not necessary. On modern high velocity rifles, yes, but not necessarily on low pressure, low velocity ML rifles.
J.D.

 

[faw3]

RABBIT 3 I wasn't thinking when ya put up..".58 and we might give it a try and check for accuracy before and after the coning " dont deo that to the 58 youv been doing all the match winning with, at least a 50/50 chance you'll lose how well its shooting and ya got a good one, anymore and they will rename Muzz Blast after ya :rotf: The idea is for easy loading, not top notch target shooting when even a 100th of a " counts, my Ubret,Sante Fe/TOW 1985 limited wont shoot thru the same hole like it did before at 25 and 50 yds its just a little off but a "very" little. for hunting it wouldnt matter a 1/8th inch at 100, and from part 3 of that MuzLoader we see how much powder you use makes it do things, NOW HOW THE HECK DID HAWKEN DO IT??? they did the front and it shot the same 70 to 200 grs :shake: (if youv read Bairds Hawken book you'll understand about how the inside of barrel wasw made and how well it did work. :shake: I really dont understand how. (and others had ways about the same that just dont get the play Hawken gets.) FRED :hatsoff:

 

[rabbit03]

Fred, thanks for the post and don't worry, Big 58 will never see a coning job. It shoots too well to try and change anything with it, escluding the nut behind the trigger! LOL

Most likely we will crown another 58 caliber I have in a 1 1/8x36 that I intend to use for hunting. I am thinking that the coned muzzle will come in handy for the woods with little or no accuracy loss for that purpose.

Oh by the way, got the package in the mail today and wanted to say thank you. I sure appreciate the info and will get right into reading it tonight. Thank you again Fred :hatsoff:

rabbit03

 

[Shifty]

fw,I have a cheap old San Marco 58 that shoots 3/4" gruops at 50yds thats with 110grns ff black powder. I coned the barrel using woods method , used help from some others on forum for patchs an such ,an it loads easy.I think coning helped because the muzzle seemed to cut the patchs while starting ball before coning.I can't shoot very good any more but I can manage 2 1/2 groups at 100yds with this gun,I think it will do the job for a hunter. Also I would like to see a picture of your uberti santa fe if possible. thanks Shifty