Newbie asking To Cone or Not Cone the Muzzle

[Flash Pan Dan]

Howdy,

I’m new here but I did a lot of shooting back in the 70’s and am now getting back into it. You can read my intro in the Welcome to the Camp Forum. I just ordered an Iron Pennsylvania rifle from TVM. Since I’ve noticed from other posts that the details of such an order are often requested, here they are;

50 cal, swamped barrel, Deluxe Silar lock, Super Premium Maple, and single lid patchbox.

My question is; How many of you folks cone or heavily chamfer the muzzle of your barrels? And what have been your results?

 

[rabjr]

Welcome to the forum.

I have 3 rifles one I built a 1792 Contract rifle in .54 cal and two Custom rifles one .58 and one .36, that have been coned using Joe Woods coning tool. I haven't had a chance to spend time with the .36 yet but the .54 and .58 keep putting deer in the freezer. Both shoot better than I can hold them and load nice too. So coning purely up to you whether you want to do it or not. Done right, theres nothing wrong with it as far as effecting accuarcy from what I see. :thumbsup:

 

[paulvallandigham]

I agree with Swampy. If this is a hunting gun- not a target rifle, coning is a matter of choice, and how you want to load the rifle. If you cut patches at the muzzle, rather than use pre-cut patches, then coning facilitates getting the job done with fewer movements.

Basically, a coned muzzle will let you push a PRB into the muzzle with our thumb or finger, and then cut off the patch with a knife. NO short starter needs to be carried or used. If the coning is done properly there is NO loss of accuracy. Joe Woods' tools do the job well. I have his tool in .50 cal.

 

[Stophel]

I can do that without a cone. If the ball and patch are so tight that you can't start it with a hard press of the thumb (or at most, with the butt of your knife), then it's too tight, as far as I'm concerned.

Some rifles 250 years ago were coned. These had no bevel crown and the rifling grooves were flared out to match the cone. Now, if someone does their cone like that, I'll be impressed. :wink: I've thought about doing one, but still haven't figured out just how to go about it... :hmm:

 

[cptleo1]

Cone it using a Joe Woods coning tool.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I've thought about doing one, but still haven't figured out just how to go about it...

You'll be needing a file Chris. :wink:

 

:grin:
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/223037/

 

[Ketchakah]

I agree with Stophel,
Most rifles will start a ball just fine as long as you dont patch too tight. But I do like a coned barrel. I dont use starters or other such gadgets in my shooting. the coned barrel does allow you to patch a bit heavier and still get the load started easilly.
Joe woods tool has worked well for me on a .50 that I owned and i will use it again when my new rifle is done. I do plan to cone the barrels of my kids .45s as well, but that will require a second tool.
Personally, I like the coned barrel. It has not affected accuracy and as a matter of conversation, I think it has improved it as i can use a thicker patch that translates to a tighter load.

 

[Coot]

I have coned both a .50 rifle and .50 pistol and am happy with the results on both. No short starter to carry & the pistol is much easier to load in the field. No apparent loss of accuracy (I am not a bench rest shooter so I would not notice a minute difference). Like others, I have used Joe Woods coning tool.

 

[BrownBear]

Put me on the list of folks that are happy with results using the Joe Woods tool. I've only done it on rifles I was really familiar with, and none showed any loss of accuracy. I suppose I could "improve" accuracy if I used the cone to allow me to use a tighter patch, but that's not why I did it. For a field rifle rather than a range rifle, the ability to load a combo that previously required a short starter without it has a lot of merit. Thumb pressure only, yet shoots like a tighter ball.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

For hunting accuracy, coning can be a convenient loading option. Coning in a target rifle is a poor idea. A coning job done wrong creates a disastrously inaccurate rifle.

I have no coned guns, did try a few over the years. Just a regular bevel crown. I found over the years that most folks' patch and ball combination is too tight. Most guns don't require a palm bruising smack down on the short starter and will shoot just fine with a combination that doesn't include deforming the ball by banging on it.

in my target 45 cal, i can start the ball and patch with my thumb with a firm push. With a short starter it barely takes any pressure to push it down.

 

[Swampman]

Coning doesn't effect accuracy. I'd get the builder to do it.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

Coning just ever so slightly off center will destroy accuracy. Lets put it another way, If coning has no effect on accuracy, why do the top bench shooters use false muzzles? False muzzles are just a coned muzzle that is removeable. Why would they even bother with all the extra machining if there is absolutely no difference in accuracy?

When sub MOA shooting is done, it isn't with a coned muzzle. For some folks hitting a paperplate at 100 yds is great accuracy. I don't agree. Shooting ragged one hole 5 shot groups is good accuracy. If a coned muzzle is just slightly off center, there will be more pressure escaping on that side and throwing the ball/bullet off course.

 

[Swampman]

I've shot plenty of MOA groups with coned muzzles.

 

[Little Wattsy]

Howdy,

I’m new here but I did a lot of shooting back in the 70’s and am now getting back into it. You can read my intro in the Welcome to the Camp Forum. I just ordered an Iron Pennsylvania rifle from TVM. Since I’ve noticed from other posts that the details of such an order are often requested, here they are;

50 cal, swamped barrel, Deluxe Silar lock, Super Premium Maple, and single lid patchbox.

My question is; How many of you folks cone or heavily chamfer the muzzle of your barrels? And what have been your results?

To cone or NOT to cone... THAT is the question!

I wouldnt. I MIGHT if I shot more, meaning if I shot more then 25 rounds in a day, maybe a small caliber at small game or something???? I dont really see the advantage for range work and deer hunting. Just :2

 

[Dphar]

Howdy,

I’m new here but I did a lot of shooting back in the 70’s and am now getting back into it. You can read my intro in the Welcome to the Camp Forum. I just ordered an Iron Pennsylvania rifle from TVM. Since I’ve noticed from other posts that the details of such an order are often requested, here they are;

50 cal, swamped barrel, Deluxe Silar lock, Super Premium Maple, and single lid patchbox.

My question is; How many of you folks cone or heavily chamfer the muzzle of your barrels? And what have been your results?

I think its a waste of time to do a deep cone.
Nor is it necessary for an easy loading barrel.

This is a 2 angle crown I put on a friends hunting rifle. Its heavily fouled after the proof load and the crown shows really well.

This is a 54 Douglas barrel and I can load a .535 ball and a heavy ticking patch (about .018") with just the loading rod.

So I really don't see the need for a deep large diameter funnel.

Dan

 

[Flash Pan Dan]

Dan,

Thanks for the pictures. That helps a lot.

Jack Wilson,

Thanks for the link. I should have searched the posts. It seems like a well discussed topic.

To all,

Thank you all for your opinions and experiences I feel a lot more secure in making my decision to have it done. I enjoy an accurate rifle as well as the next guy, and as Col. Towsend Whelen once said “only accurate rifles are interesting.” But in all the competitive shooting I’ve done over the years I have grasped the concept of ”˜accurate enough’ taught to me by a shooter who was my mentor while I was competing in Highpower rifle matches. He had won many times over at Camp Perry and was state champion more times than anyone could recall. So when a gentleman like that says something you listen. He taught me if I was shooting a rifle and it, with the load I was using, could hold the X ring at 600 yards from position, why do you need to wear out your barrel trying to get a load that could hold a quarter of the X ring from a bench. So if coning a barrel does not detract accuracy and makes it easier to load without the use of a short starter, Well, that sounds like a good deal to me.

Thanks again,

Flash Pan Dan

 

So if coning a barrel does not detract accuracy and makes it easier to load without the use of a short starter, Well, that sounds like a good deal to me.

It is a good thing. About the only people who have negative things to say about coning are people who haven't done it. I don't think you'll find one person on this forum who has done it and was sorry they did.

 

[rabjr]

I know theres different methods of doing it but trust me, if you buy or get a hold of a Joe Wood coning tool, you'll be very happy with the end product. :thumbsup:

 

[hanshi]

Properly coned barrels should work fine but it's not needed IMHO. Dan's pics show a polished crown with lands rounded off rather than sharp. Sharp lands can cut patches when the ball is started. Polishing the muzzle is easy - I can even do it! - and more difficult to screw up. If you're all thumbs as I am, get the builder to cone if that's what you want.