Coning

[zimmerstutzen]

Patent muzzles (loading muzzles, false muzzles) were invented in the 1830's for starting and loading a cloth patched bullet straight in the bore, which was often choked. That's all it was meant to do, facilitate loading.

Not exactly the patent for the pinned false muzzle in the US was granted in 1811. The purpose of a pinned false muzzle is to 1) allow loading and then 2) (the ultimate purpose) firing the projectile from a square muzzle with no distorted crown. A way to be able to eliminate the typical crown as one of the variables that affect accuracy. It would be almost impossible to load a patched ball or bullet directly into a square muzzle and such attempts at loading would damage the squareness of the muzzle and affect accuracy.

 

[oreclan]

What about regular rifles? I'm guessing the old timers just used a patch/ball combo that was tight enough to start with their thumb?

I am not a competition shooter so I just push in a loose patched ball with a my knife handle, then choke up on my ramrod to start it down the barrel.

 

[stephenprops1]

I've known people who collected original bags and accouterments for many years. I have collected them too. Starters don't turn up with outfits known to be original.

I believe the tight ball and patch combinations used today are largely the product of the gamesmanship at Friendship and other places since muzzleloadings revival in the late 1920's. When old rifles are found with original molds the balls they cast are not as tight as those used today.

Was coning done in the old days? I don't believe so. It wasn't needed to load the patch and ball combinations used back then.

Coning is used today to allow shooters the ability to load tight fitting ball and patch combinations without the use of a starter. FWIW I have yet to hear of or see an original coning tool used in the old days.

The round ball was made obsolete for target work in the 1830's with the advent of patched bullets at which it was known a choked bore was best for the most accurate shooting.

I appreciated your post with one exception. What does FWIW mean? I have no idea. I don't like it when people do this. I'm sure there are others like me.

 

[Dusty_Traveler]

I appreciated your post with one exception. What does FWIW mean? I have no idea. I don't like it when people do this. I'm sure there are others like me.

It means For What It’s Worth

 

[Uncle Miltie]

Not exactly the patent for the pinned false muzzle in the US was granted in 1811. The purpose of a pinned false muzzle is to 1) allow loading and then 2) (the ultimate purpose) firing the projectile from a square muzzle with no distorted crown. A way to be able to eliminate the typical crown as one of the variables that affect accuracy. It would be almost impossible to load a patched ball or bullet directly into a square muzzle and such attempts at loading would damage the squareness of the muzzle and affect accuracy.

I appreciated your post with one exception. What does FWIW mean? I have no idea. I don't like it when people do this. I'm sure there are others like me.

For What It's Worth.

 

[Uncle Miltie]

Not certain this will post but it is an excellent article on Alvan Clark's loading muzzle. I was incorrect when I said it was patented in the 1830's, as his patent was done in 1840.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Not certain this will post but it is an excellent article on Alvan Clark's loading muzzle. I was incorrect when I said it was patented in the 1830's, as his patent was done in 1840.

And Clark's was neither the first nor the last. As is the nature of patents, there can be numerous filings with various steps of improvements. Just like the telephone was developed several places around the world nearly simultaneously, and there were patents before Bell's, but Bell gets the credit, even though not the first. The patent office also rejects applications if the patent office examiner decides the invention or idea is not sufficiently novel, even though another examiner a year later grants a patent for the same idea to some one who merely stole the idea and wrote it up differently.

 

[Wirehair]

A single target and gun is the very definition of anecdotal. You make no mention of he type of rifling and two shots is not a group. You have good accuracy if you are only after minute of deer. Unless you can show us at least 100 shots before coning and 100 after, there is no scientific statistical proof of anything.,

Saying a gun is accurate is very relative. And super accuracy means many different things to different people. Good enough for boiler room on deer, good enough for a neck shot on a deer, good enough to bark a squirrel, or to literally drive thumb tacks at 100yds.

Which of those accuracies are not affected by coning?

Most of the information shared in this forum is anecdotal. If a rifle groups 5 shots in 2" with an unconed barrel and then shoots a 3/4" group with the barrel coned, that is significant. If that improvement is repeatable, then coning worked in that barrel. Instead of criticizing the post, provide the scientific data disproving why the improvement was not the result of coning but rather some other effect. If you don't have the data, then take the initiative to conduct a 200 shot test on multiple barrels/rifling and post the results.

 

[sturmkatze]

I take notice you are thoroughly unable to answer the simple question about the configuration of your rifling. What are we to infer from that?

You failed to include any studies or even published articles on efforts made to study the effect of coning on different types of rifling. Safe to say your have none?

I didn't call you ignorant, you did. I merely pointed out that you apparently didn't know the purpose of a false muzzle if you equate a cone to a false muzzle.

The opportunities I gave you to inform us about the rifling of your 2 guns, and non anecdotal evidence in support of coning not affecting accuracy went totally unanswered. That alone speaks in volumes.

Why do liberals and those like, always demand you give them “proof”? Do your own research.

 

[Uncle Miltie]

And Clark's was neither the first nor the last. As is the nature of patents, there can be numerous filings with various steps of improvements. Just like the telephone was developed several places around the world nearly simultaneously, and there were patents before Bell's, but Bell gets the credit, even though not the first. The patent office also rejects applications if the patent office examiner decides the invention or idea is not sufficiently novel, even though another examiner a year later grants a patent for the same idea to some one who merely stole the idea and wrote it up differently.

I know of no earlier patents for a loading muzzle but if they were issued before cloth patched (picket) bullets were used they are meaningless as Clark's device was made to bullets in a choked bore.
Any patents afterward were simply attempts to improve the Clark device: again meaningless as muzzles made by George Schalck and Harry Pope are to my eye very much like the Clark muzzle.
Clark's muzzle was used until 1900 or so by makers of the heavy bench rifles.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I know of no earlier patents for a loading muzzle but if they were issued before cloth patched (picket) bullets were used they are meaningless as Clark's device was made to bullets in a choked bore.
Any patents afterward were simply attempts to improve the Clark device: again meaningless as muzzles made by George Schalck and Harry Pope are to my eye very much like the Clark muzzle.
Clark's muzzle was used until 1900 or so by makers of the heavy bench rifles.

About 1980, I actually went to the patent office and went through old firearm patents that were on file for the period of 1800 to 1824 There was patent drawing for a false muzzle dated 1811. Now it is possible that a patent was not granted based on that submission and Clark got one later for a similar design with a better submission. Records were not computerized for the public then Yes Schalck and Popes are very much like Clarks's and popes in line loading device was very much like the bullet seaters for muzzle loaders that existed before the false muzzle. The false muzzle is still being used for modern made slug gun barrels, especially for cross patch bullet guns. and many light bench guns.. Choked bores were also used in round ball barrels. It served a similar purpose to progressive rifling. Obturation upon ignition swells the round ball into the rifling and the slight choke at the muzzle cuts down on blow by and gives a slight bump in velocity.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Most of the information shared in this forum is anecdotal. If a rifle groups 5 shots in 2" with an unconed barrel and then shoots a 3/4" group with the barrel coned, that is significant. If that improvement is repeatable, then coning worked in that barrel. Instead of criticizing the post, provide the scientific data disproving why the improvement was not the result of coning but rather some other effect. If you don't have the data, then take the initiative to conduct a 200 shot test on multiple barrels/rifling and post the results.

it would be eminently stupid to take a premium target barrel and cone the muzzle. Why not do a legit survey of the number of chunk gun shooters who coned their barrel, the number of light bench shooters with coned barrels, how many match paper shooters compete with coned muzzles.

I have done enough round ball match shooting to know what kind of groups can be expected from a rifle barrel at 50 yds from a rest. I have shot 5 shot 50 caliber groups at 50 yds under an inch with a smooth bore off a rest. If a rifle can't do that, there is something else wrong. most likely a defect in rifling, bad sights or a bad crown. That is just logic. If changing the muzzle corrects the problem, it certainly wasn't the sights or rifling but the crown. Simplest of logic applies. Can coning correct deflection by a bad crown, of course, especially if the barrel was not made for precise accuracy in the first instant. Which is why I asked about the configuration of the rifling. and still no answer. Certainly the owner of the rifle would know what rifling he has, and if a target shooter, he would know the shape of the grooves and width of the grooves vs the lands, twist depth of rifling, etc.

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

Wow, first you call me ignorant and then you let Eric know that you know more about his rifles than he does and I guess neither of us knows as much as you do about false muzzles.......and you do not know anything about me.

Another internet expert that now goes in to the ignore lock box.

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

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Why do liberals and those like, always demand you give them “proof”? Do your own research.

For the exact reasons stated. Some yahoo says my coned barrel shoots the same dismal group as I got offhand, so for the entire rest of the world, it must be a scientific truth that coning does not effect accuracy, no matter what type of barrel, projectile or shooting discipline. So if ten shooters (out of 45,000) say they got the same dismal groups, that reinforces your irrational science? The same folks who look out the window and don't see the earth as a big round ball and for whom the earth is flat everywhere for everyone else on earth.

The "do your own research" folks are the very ones putting forth an untested idea for others to follow and when asked for proof that accuracy is not affected, we get well Caleb shot the same with his rifle when he sighted for deer with a paper plate last fall, and Bubba shot a tad better on July 29 of 2012, so it must be true. With out knowing what rifling, barrel, or any of the other variables that may account for the difference. And even worse when the rifle owner has no clue what barrel he is shooting. You want to challenge conventional thought, then you prove it.

 

[Wirehair]

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

I couldn't agree more. I'm following this thread to hear what experience/knowledge people have on this subject. I don't have any rifles with a coned barrel, but there may be a good reason for doing so. I hope others share their findings regarding accuracy, anecdotal or not.

 

[sturmkatze]

For the exact reasons stated. Some yahoo says my coned barrel shoots the same dismal group as I got offhand, so for the entire rest of the world, it must be a scientific truth that coning does not effect accuracy, no matter what type of barrel, projectile or shooting discipline. So if ten shooters (out of 45,000) say they got the same dismal groups, that reinforces your irrational science? The same folks who look out the window and don't see the earth as a big round ball and for whom the earth is flat everywhere for everyone else on earth.

The "do your own research" folks are the very ones putting forth an untested idea for others to follow and when asked for proof that accuracy is not affected, we get well Caleb shot the same with his rifle when he sighted for deer with a paper plate last fall, and Bubba shot a tad better on July 29 of 2012, so it must be true. With out knowing what rifling, barrel, or any of the other variables that may account for the difference. And even worse when the rifle owner has no clue what barrel he is shooting. You want to challenge conventional thought, then you prove it.

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.

 

[Eric Krewson]

Good grief Z, you are right about everything and the grand poohbah of everything muzzleloading, forgive our collective ignorance.

The iron box awaits you; this is where argumentative, disrupted folk like yourself always belong.

Done, I will no longer see your posts, you are blocked.

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

I couldn't agree more. I'm following this thread to hear what experience/knowledge people have on this subject. I don't have any rifles with a coned barrel, but there may be a good reason for doing so. I hope others share their findings regarding accuracy, anecdotal or not.

I will lend something substantive (I hope), I have a 40 year old cva plains rifle that I coned and tested exhaustively to see how it would affect performance. I figured I would use it as a test bed of sorts before I committed to doing it to any other more expensive gun. Maybe do it to a pawn shop or gun show rifle first and then decide.

 

[Flintlock Whiskey]

Good grief Z, you are right about everything and the grand poohbah of everything muzzleloading, forgive our collective ignorance.

The iron box awaits you; this is where argumentative, disrupted folk like yourself always belong.

Done, I will no longer see your posts, you are blocked.

Sometimes I do wonder what makes people like this "tick", but not enough to waste time with it. I've seen this sort of thing before and it often ends with them being kicked off the forum.

 

[oldschoolhunter55]

I couldn't agree more. I'm following this thread to hear what experience/knowledge people have on this subject. I don't have any rifles with a coned barrel, but there may be a good reason for doing so. I hope others share their findings regarding accuracy, anecdotal or not.

me too.im sitting on the fence trying to learn something from these guys