Coning Question

[faw3]

Z I've got one for you , useing a nne coned Hawken 58 GM barrel not a T/C I fired off 8o grs 3f and 015 PRB (575 I think? Hit dead center and the patch was still on it ....well around it was a 1/16 or less of the patch burnned to near ash. Ever here of that one?? We get into this "coneing" ever so often and Ive tryed to dig stuff up I havent packed to far back, but it still comes out the flintlock guys say 1700s didnt have short starters, looking at barrels it seems the "wear" from a rod wasn't it was made that way in Many rifles even smooth ones.. I think your on the right track about the patch except for this shoot last night and Im saying It had to be a fluke to burn all the patch and still hit the center at 30yds. But rereading the org Haw2ken test done in the 1960s or about,1 it was coned or funnled but 0nly 1000" the last1" and .00" the last1/4" to muzz end and every shot out of 20 was in a 2" x2 1/2" box this with powder charge going up from 70 to 100 something. Also if Ive read it right the rifleing from breech till 9" before muzz got a little tighter by the 1000th". SO ???Last of all is the way the ball expands when fired does it while going up the bore still?? It would seem it must from what I read in a older MB about useing the smaller ball and same patch and load, it got the guy a 2nd place when he ran out of balls and used a smaller one a 36 ball in a 40 cal rifle,so go figure. I sure dont know the guys writeing it sure werent sold on if it did or didnt.Myself Id leave rifleing in to the end just in case if nothing else, I know it has worked for me and how good do you have to be shooting off hand? :rotf: me...way off maybe thats why I hit last night. Thanks for the space Zonie and hope this helps someone. Fred :hatsoff:

 

[faw3]

What gets me and maybe Zonie can tell something about this part they never say how much was taken out or how far in I think a few pics it looks smooth the first 1" and that cant be right! It sure would be nice to know how much and far back in was done. Zonie and I are on the same page we just see the way (maybe) different. As in the scope when put back on was 8" off I think it said and they put it back on to 1000th of being the same as before coneing so why did it drop 8"? If you do cone go slow , I see that maybe it should be hand done out of all that Ive read so far. Fred :hatsoff:

 

[Claude Mathis]

FWIW, when I coned my .50 flintlock, I only did it to the point where I could push the ball into the barrel with my thumb. There is still rifling all the way to the end of the barrel and there is resistance when I push the ball in. The inside of my barrel does not look like a blunderbuss. I doubt that gas is blowing by my ball very much, as it leaves the barrel. If it is, it has not 'noticeably' changed the point of impact. It may have had a measurable effect when measured in the lab, but none that I can perceive.

 

[50cal.cliff]

Thank you everyone for all the info. :bow:
I think intelligently discussing a subject like this is very good. Unlike some disscussions that deteriorate into hurt feelings and bad posts!
I have got alot of info to digest! :hmm:

 

Only because I stayed out of the mix. Coning and crowning are the same thing only crowning is a slower angle in degree. And....this test does not prove anything to me. The coning job may have been botched between the groupings. Coning and crowning are both only as good and as accurate as the riflesmith that does the job. This guy did his on a engine lathe sounds to me. That will create burrs. I have never had anymore burnt patches in a coned barrel than a crowned barrel if the load had been worked up properly. And....coned barrels that I have done and shot are no less accurate than the crowned ones. The crowned ones are harder to load is the only percievable difference that I have seen in 35 years of shooting both. I have said this before but it keeps cropping back up every two weeks or so. :snore:

 

[Elnathan]

If I am thinking of the same article on coning, the reason that the coned barrel did not shot as well was because the machinist didn't bother to smooth it out - there were rough edges tearing up the patches. A lousy coning job. This was discussed at some length over at the American Longrifles bulletin board.

 

I figured as much.

 

[faw3]

Thats how mine has been done just enough to get the ball in still has the rifleing to the end of muzzle, so I dont belive that 3 part thing showed me a thing. Fred :hatsoff:

 

[faw3]

Don the one's in he mag arent like the pics I sent you, these go a 1" or so into the barrel takeing out all the lands....and some of the grove too! Don't know what you'd call it but a mess. The pics I sent you of that muzz the guy got 1 1/4" at 100yds with a 3$ file and 15 mins work and looks really neat to me, wish I'd sent you all of it now not just a few pages. Fred :hatsoff:

 

[roundball]

I really don't think the shortening of the effective barrel by one inch would cause a measurable difference in the accuracy of a gun providing the geometry of the muzzle or the bore was unchanged.

I can't prove it but I suspect the reason for a change in accuracy is due to "blow by" of the high pressure gas. This could occur as the patched ball reaches the area where the rifling lands have been removed due to the coning. Because there is no steel there, the patch becomes the only thing preventing the gas from blowing past the ball and any variation in the patch's weave or density would allow unequal amounts of the gas to blow past it.
If an unequal amount of gas does blow past the ball it will create a low pressure area in that zone and this could deflect the ball.

If I am correct, the effect would vary from shot to shot because it is impossible to predict where this patch blow by will occur.
I will also add that because the length of this leak zone is only an inch or so long and the ball is traveling at very high velocity the length of time would be short enough that a retrieved patch very likely would show no signs of burning.
(At a muzzle velocity of 1500 feet per second, the length of time for the patched ball to pass thru a 1 inch long coned zone is about 56 millionths of a second.)

The effect on the balls trajectory would be similar to that found and described by Dr. F.W.Mann in his book THE BULLETS FLIGHT FROM POWDER TO TARGET .
In this book, Dr Mann found that any defect or variation in the base of a bullet would affect the bullets flight path due to the unequal gas pressure loads acting on the bullet as it left the muzzle.

That's at least my guess.
zonie

Well said, and I believe the most logical reason for a reduction in accuracy

 

Any change in the load will change the group size. Any change in the barrel will change the group size. Any change in the way the rifle is held will change the group size. The change in lighting will change the group size. The test would have made better sense to me if he would have worked up the best load for the barrel as manufactured, then worked up another pet load for the newly coned barrel. If you center and sight a barrel in and then make a change, sure it is going to print different. Or start out with a coned barrel and shoot the best group he could and then cut the coning out and crown the bore for more testing and comparison.
Just my two pesos.

 

[faw3]

Or start out with a coned barrel and shoot the best group he could and then cut the coning out and crown the bore for more testing and comparison.
They did do that in a back as....way, the .60 conned muzz was taken off and something else tryed. And they did use a hand full of loads,powders,ball size as well as patch ect. Some of the 100gr shots got better than the org 5 shot target. Myself I got lost in the terms ect. I would like a link to that other site to seee what they said. Fred :hatsoff:

 

[kurt groepler]

Yup.

 

[nkbj]

Kinda makes you wonder just what in the cornbread TC thought they were doing with the gas by-pass in a "QLA".

 

[daperdon69]

Kinda makes you wonder just what in the cornbread TC thought they were doing with the gas by-pass in a "QLA".

I think the idea behind the "QLA" is to aid in loading the conical bullet. This idea lets you engrave the rifeling into the bullet and protects and keeps the base of the bullet square to the bore when you short start the bullet.
Also,when the bullet is forced into the rifelings and pushed on top of powder charge, it helps keep the bullet from moveing off the powder charge while walking around in the woods hunting.

A barrel that has a "QLA" done to it is plenty accurate for hunting. Haven't missed an animal yet useing this system. Four shots, Four Elk.
Any way thats my opinion

Tradegunner

 

[Little Wattsy]

Kinda makes you wonder just what in the cornbread TC thought they were doing with the gas by-pass in a "QLA".

I think the idea behind the "QLA" is to aid in loading the conical bullet. This idea lets you engrave the rifeling into the bullet and protects and keeps the base of the bullet square to the bore when you short start the bullet.
Also,when the bullet is forced into the rifelings and pushed on top of powder charge, it helps keep the bullet from moveing off the powder charge while walking around in the woods hunting.

A barrel that has a "QLA" done to it is plenty accurate for hunting. Haven't missed an animal yet useing this system. Four shots, Four Elk.
Any way thats my opinion

Tradegunner

I agree...I have one and its accurate enough....I dont see how the gas blow by would be any differant then when the ball actually leaves the barrel....That being said, I wouldnt do it on purpose but then I dont think I would "cone" either. :idunno:

 

[nkbj]

Kinda makes you wonder just what in the cornbread TC thought they were doing with the gas by-pass in a "QLA".

I think the idea behind the "QLA" is to aid in loading the conical bullet. This idea lets you engrave the rifeling into the bullet and protects and keeps the base of the bullet square to the bore when you short start the bullet.
Also,when the bullet is forced into the rifelings and pushed on top of powder charge, it helps keep the bullet from moveing off the powder charge while walking around in the woods hunting.

A barrel that has a "QLA" done to it is plenty accurate for hunting. Haven't missed an animal yet useing this system. Four shots, Four Elk.
Any way thats my opinion

Tradegunner

I agree...I have one and its accurate enough....I dont see how the gas blow by would be any differant then when the ball actually leaves the barrel....That being said, I wouldnt do it on purpose but then I dont think I would "cone" either. :idunno:

Ah. so you gentlemen have experienced no accuracy problems related the QLA, one of the most extreme conings known to man? That's encouraging. Still trying to get mine to shoot.

 

[hanshi]

Dumb question: what is QLA or did I just miss something?

 

[Billnpatti]

Properly done, you will be able to thumb start your ball down flush with the muzzle or just slightly more. I have done it to all of my muzzleloaders and none have suffered from a loss of accuracy. On the other hand, I have seen no increse in accuracy either.

If you want to cone your barrels, get the universal coning tool that Ed Hamberg sells. It is well made and uses your cleaning jags so it will work for anyh caliber rifle. There are other coning tools available but they are for specific calibers and you will need to buy a separate one for each caliber rifle that you own. To see Ed's coning tool and how it works, go to americanlongrifles.org and look up the tutorial on the universal coning tool. I think he goes by the name "Longknife" on this forum.

 

[Billnpatti]

I don't remember the exact words represented by QLA but the first two words are Quick Loading. I don't remember what the A stands for. Anyway, all it is is a rebate in the muzzle which allows you to thumb start a conical (or ball) with your thumb. This is achieved by cutting the rifling back at the muzzle so that the first inch (approximately)of the bore is slightly larger and smooth. The rifling starts just back of this rebate. Since it has no effect on the rest of the rifling and involves such a short amount of the bore, I would expect no effect on accuracy. It is simply a variation on the practice of coning.