I just got the 'Bible' on Japanese Tanegashima matchlocks and although they don't have a word for 'coning' a barrel, it was done to their arms too!
Coning
- Thread starter Crow#21957
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Just finished coning a .50 Plains rifle. Taking it out on a shooting date tomorrow. I will let you know.
Snapshot in Norway
40 Cal
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2021
- Messages
- 157
- Reaction score
- 267
They most likely do not have a word for NO either, just may bee...!
And… ??
I am not a fan of coning, because I like to cut the patch at the muzzle. If coning is a little too deep it's easy to pull the patch out while you are cutting it. I did have a Rice barrel that someone had coned and it shot just so so. I cut it back past the coned portion and put a regular crown in it and it's now a tack driver. I don't use a short starter either. But I have known several folks that swear by coning, so your mileage may vary.
And..... I guess I forgot to follow up, my apologies. It made loading quicker and smoother. No short starter needed. If one uses a piece of cloth and cuts it after starting the ball, you would go through more of it since the ball is seated a bit farther down the muzzle. I personally use pre lubed patches. I saw no difference in accuracy. I liked it so much that I went ahead and coned my Pedersoli Kentucky 50. I will probably do the procedure on the mountain 54 in the future.
Thank you so much for replying. Guess I need to look into getting one of those tools.
What caliber are you looking for?
I coned my Rice 54 barrel awhile back with the Wood's tool. It was the most accurate barrel I've had before I coned it and if anything it may shoot better after coning, although that could just be me getting more used to the rifle. It was a good day when I gave my short starter to a friend who needed one. Hunting I use precut greased patches and at matches I use precut spit patches since I've never noticed any better accuracy cutting at the muzzle. I mainly shoot offhand so if I shot more benchrest I might notice some difference.
50 to start. I need to wait a few weeks until I have the $$ then later, I have a 32, 2x 36, a 45, 54 and 2 58’s.
I’ve watched Mike’s videos. Looks good. Just need to get money together
Mike in FL
50 Cal.
So the reason to cone is easier loading. Guess what? Loading a muzzleloader is not as fast as a semi auto loads itself, BECAUSE IT IS A MUZZLELOADER. Not supposed to be fast. I'd need proof that coning was done in the 18th century before I'd consider it. Is coning not another modern crutch? Like plastic speed loaders? Scopes? In-lines? Recoil pads? Cartridges? Stainless barrels? Fiber optic sights? Synthetic stocks? Etc, etc.
I have a Hoyt re-bore .54, the bore is so tight at the muzzle I had to buy a, 526 ball mold to be able to load it. I coned it with a Joe Woods coning tool, now I can load a .530 easily and probably a .535.
I build all my rifles and fowlers the way I want them, I never copy someone else's work or been a thread counter like some here. The only one I want to please with what I build is me, and I am pleased with my work.
I am reminded of a lesson I learned when I was around 14 years old; my younger brother was making a bowl of cereal for breakfast, we called him the candy kid he loved sweets so much. He was putting heaping teaspoons of sugar on his cereal one right after another, after about the 6th teaspoon I said in a loud voice "dang Joe that is a lot of sugar".
He looked me right straight in the eye and said " I am making my cereal for me, NOT YOU"! You know, he was 100% right, I had no business telling him how to fix his cereal.
Mike, I am building guns FOR ME, not you................
I build all my rifles and fowlers the way I want them, I never copy someone else's work or been a thread counter like some here. The only one I want to please with what I build is me, and I am pleased with my work.
I am reminded of a lesson I learned when I was around 14 years old; my younger brother was making a bowl of cereal for breakfast, we called him the candy kid he loved sweets so much. He was putting heaping teaspoons of sugar on his cereal one right after another, after about the 6th teaspoon I said in a loud voice "dang Joe that is a lot of sugar".
He looked me right straight in the eye and said " I am making my cereal for me, NOT YOU"! You know, he was 100% right, I had no business telling him how to fix his cereal.
Mike, I am building guns FOR ME, not you................
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 424
- Reaction score
- 656
I shot my round ball rifles since coning them. None suffered accuracy for it. Made loading a lot easier, too.
The Doc is out now.
The Doc is out now.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,937
- Reaction score
- 1,044
Don't forget short starters.
People I know who know old rifles tell me that coning was done on the originals. I have a friend who has a Nelson Lewis 40 caliber original that is deeply coned. John Baird in his books on Hawken Rifles mentioned coned muzzles although as I remember he wasn't sure what he was looking at and thought it might have been ramrod wear. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong. All that plus the fact that short starters are seldom if ever seen with original equipment tells me that coning has been around for a long long time. Another thing we don't have to deal with these days is a band on hostiles coming fast for our hair. No time for a short starter when that sort of thing comes down and the rifles of the time were built with that in mind.
Last edited:
Mike in FL
50 Cal.
That's nice sir. Your thing. I surely don't advocate anyone following my example. Didn't recommend my way to anyone. Some how you thought I was referring to you. No, just saying, still saying, I've no proof, just speculation, coning was done in the 1700s. So it's not right for me, just me. Never needed shortcuts in 50+ years, can't/won't start now.
While we're on this, me, just me, when I'm in my 1700's mode, I won't use anything that's not wood and metal, wool or leather, lead or cotton, or brass. No lunch in a baggie, no Bic lighter, no fluorescent orange, no plastic, no batteries, no cell phone or wrist watch, not even plastic-tipped shoe laces, no modern tree stands. Etc.
Not safe or legal and definitely not convenient. I mean to say I'm either in 1750 or not. Been doing that since forever. But I neither recommend it nor promote it. Yes, I drive to the place where said mode begins. And yes I use modern tools and methods prior to getting in the mode. And yes, I'm weird. My self-inflicted methods help me to experience history.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
- Messages
- 2,830
- Reaction score
- 6,062
Just say no to short starters!
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2021
- Messages
- 2,830
- Reaction score
- 6,062
Good for you Mike, I do admire people like you who keep the old ways alive, it is just not my thing.
I took your post to mean that people (not necessarily me) who coned a barrel would continue to seek out easier ways until they gravitated to a tricked-out unmentionable rifle.
My persona is a 70s, as in 1970, hunter who hacked out a B/P rifle because he watched the Daniel Boone series one too many times and had to have one. Actually, I started with a TC in the early 70s, bought an unmentionable in the mid 80s when my new wife started hunting with me, she fell asleep in her tree stand often and I wanted a safety on her rifle just in case. She quit hunting in the mid 90s so I sold the unmentionables and went back to a TC flintlock.
A close friend got terminal cancer and gave me his custom long rifle with a Roller lock and a Bill large barrel, one shot out of his rifle and all of my TC stuff was for sale.
Being a crafty guy, I decided I could build a rifle, boy, did I have a lot to learn. It took me 2 years to complete my first plank build.
Next gun; I had just taken up turkey hunting and tried to use an old Gustomsky trade gun but couldn't get it to pattern worth a hoot. I dusted off way too many turkeys without killing one. I needed a better gun so I made a jug choked English fowler turkey gun with a 38" barrel, a jug choke or 38" barrel isn't historically correct for a 1760s fowler but again I build them to hunt exclusively and build what I want.
My point is we all settle out at a different niche in this sport, some similar but none exactly the same as anyone else. I would never criticize your choice because I actually admire your dedication.
Your post really slammed anyone who would cone a barrel, which as near as I can determine, IS historically correct. I have read numerous accounts of people who own original rifles that were coned.
The guys over at the ALR site really know historical correctness to a T, go over then and ask if there are any originals that were coned, their answers will be enlightening.
I did a quick search; this is an old post from 2013, the pictures are gone but here is the text. There were also no dates attributed to the examples, most appeared to be early 19th century. One poster said he examined a number of Lancaster rifles and found quite a few of them were coned. Another poster said there were no early flintlock rifles that were coned, I guess you can pick whichever camp you want to be in. A cone like we make today with a specialized tool seemed to be rare, most were 1/4 to 1/2" long.
Here is what they said;
Redheart, I am posting some pictures with measurement of original rifles that have had the "coning" treatment. You will probably notice first that you will not see any "crown" as we are accustomed to seeing on modern made muzzle loading barrels. This coning treatment leaves the muzzle hexagon shaped. I am sure that this treatment was done by first deepening the grooves with a round file and then following up with a flat file to "funnel" the lands. I have also seen some that appear to have had a square file used first on the grooves.
Full stock flint rifle by W.Zollman, VA The muzzle measures .437 and tapers to the .400 bore in about 1/2 inch..
Half stock percussion by J. Hayden, OH. The muzzle is .359 and tapers to the .340 bore in a little over 1/4 inch
Half stock rifle marked S. HAWKEN ST LOUIS. In this 40 caliber bore I can detect very little funneling, not even enough to get a decent measurement. I also do not see any crown which leads me to believe it had some kind of coning treatment at time of manufacture.
Doing a little more sleuthing I found that coning was called "funneling" way back when.
Here is a "funneled" Hawken barrel picture that I found.
I took your post to mean that people (not necessarily me) who coned a barrel would continue to seek out easier ways until they gravitated to a tricked-out unmentionable rifle.
My persona is a 70s, as in 1970, hunter who hacked out a B/P rifle because he watched the Daniel Boone series one too many times and had to have one. Actually, I started with a TC in the early 70s, bought an unmentionable in the mid 80s when my new wife started hunting with me, she fell asleep in her tree stand often and I wanted a safety on her rifle just in case. She quit hunting in the mid 90s so I sold the unmentionables and went back to a TC flintlock.
A close friend got terminal cancer and gave me his custom long rifle with a Roller lock and a Bill large barrel, one shot out of his rifle and all of my TC stuff was for sale.
Being a crafty guy, I decided I could build a rifle, boy, did I have a lot to learn. It took me 2 years to complete my first plank build.
Next gun; I had just taken up turkey hunting and tried to use an old Gustomsky trade gun but couldn't get it to pattern worth a hoot. I dusted off way too many turkeys without killing one. I needed a better gun so I made a jug choked English fowler turkey gun with a 38" barrel, a jug choke or 38" barrel isn't historically correct for a 1760s fowler but again I build them to hunt exclusively and build what I want.
My point is we all settle out at a different niche in this sport, some similar but none exactly the same as anyone else. I would never criticize your choice because I actually admire your dedication.
Your post really slammed anyone who would cone a barrel, which as near as I can determine, IS historically correct. I have read numerous accounts of people who own original rifles that were coned.
The guys over at the ALR site really know historical correctness to a T, go over then and ask if there are any originals that were coned, their answers will be enlightening.
I did a quick search; this is an old post from 2013, the pictures are gone but here is the text. There were also no dates attributed to the examples, most appeared to be early 19th century. One poster said he examined a number of Lancaster rifles and found quite a few of them were coned. Another poster said there were no early flintlock rifles that were coned, I guess you can pick whichever camp you want to be in. A cone like we make today with a specialized tool seemed to be rare, most were 1/4 to 1/2" long.
Here is what they said;
Redheart, I am posting some pictures with measurement of original rifles that have had the "coning" treatment. You will probably notice first that you will not see any "crown" as we are accustomed to seeing on modern made muzzle loading barrels. This coning treatment leaves the muzzle hexagon shaped. I am sure that this treatment was done by first deepening the grooves with a round file and then following up with a flat file to "funnel" the lands. I have also seen some that appear to have had a square file used first on the grooves.
Full stock flint rifle by W.Zollman, VA The muzzle measures .437 and tapers to the .400 bore in about 1/2 inch..
Half stock percussion by J. Hayden, OH. The muzzle is .359 and tapers to the .340 bore in a little over 1/4 inch
Half stock rifle marked S. HAWKEN ST LOUIS. In this 40 caliber bore I can detect very little funneling, not even enough to get a decent measurement. I also do not see any crown which leads me to believe it had some kind of coning treatment at time of manufacture.
Doing a little more sleuthing I found that coning was called "funneling" way back when.
Here is a "funneled" Hawken barrel picture that I found.
Last edited:
Similar threads
