Newbie asking To Cone or Not Cone the Muzzle

[Robby]

I have coned two barrels, and I will never do it again. Like John Hinnant, I have my own standards for accuracy, and they aren't for everybody, and I'm not the accuracy nazi, so cone away. I do crown my barrels, use a tight patch ball combination, and use that un-PC tool, the dreaded short starter.
Robby

 

[rabjr]

I'm far from a paper puncher myself but can cloverleaf my .58 at 50 yards and on a good day cover most shots with my hand at 75. Thats good enough for me cause unless I scope it, I'm not going to do any better than that. I too use a thick patch and can load a clean barrel with my ramrod only, after that I need a short starter unless I swab. When I look at most of my shots at Deer avg's 40 yards, I'm accuate enough. :v

 

[Ketchakah]

I do agree with DP,
The last rifle i coned was very deeply done. It really isent nessasary to do it so much. I will cone the next one but just slightly as to releive the lands at the muzzle.

 

[Robby]

Swampy, My comments weren't directed to you personally, I have no doubt, you set a high standard for yourself. I have read here, other forums, and heard many times, "well, its good enough for hunting". I think coning is a crap shoot, some times you win and things improve (rarely), sometimes you break even (no change), and some times you loose (the norm), why take the chance. My first experience with coning was with a .58, as well. Originally it consistently would shoot 2-1/2" to 3-0", with clover leaf's at 100 yards, owing to my old man eyes,I was pretty happy with that. After coning the groups opened up, 6-0" to 8-0" with fliers, not my idea of a hunting gun. After a lot of range work with different powder patch and ball combinations, including revisiting the cone itself, I was able to get the group down to About 4-0", but still had fliers, and, after thumb starting, I had to use a short starter anyway. The barrel is now a .60 cal., and I am happily shooting clay pigeon's and water filled mustard and catsup bottles consistently at 100 yards again. "God is in his heaven, and all is right with the world." If it works for you, great! I wish no ill will on anyone, well not anyone, but I don't want to get political. :grin:
Robby

 

[rabjr]

I hear ya. :v

 

[CoyoteJoe]

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.

I wasn't going to comment on this but the above post requires a response. I used the Joe Woods tool on a Green Mountain .50 caliber barrel and the loss of accuracy was pronounced. I was thankful it was a half stock because I ended up cutting two inches off the muzzle end to get rid of the cone.
IIRC I believe the Bevel Brothers tested this and they also reported diminished accuracy.

 

[MSW]

Flash Pan, for whatever it's worth, i would cone the barrel unless you're going to use it exclusively for chunk gun work. while there are a bunch of theoretical reasons that coning is not a good idea for accuracy, as a practical matter, my wobble far exceeds them, so i see no appreciable loss of acuracy in the two barrels i've coned.

that's my own personal opinion; free advice and no doubt worth every penny.

as regards the 'tests,' remember that few of these are extensive enough to be considered statistically significant (i.e. sample set greater than thirty two -- really, you want to cone thirty two barrels?? ) and that brings them into the realm of 'anecdotal studies" (as opposed to peer reviewable studies). Does this mean that the folks who say cone, or those who say 'don't cone,' are all wet? no- not at all, it simply means that they're an expression of what worked or didn't work for them, and not a scientifically reproducible result.

coning can be a tricky thing, so have the builder do it, or, if you want to do it yourself (and there's no reason you shouldn't) i would advise that you get a tool from Joe Woods, follow the directions exactly, and go slow.

well, that's my tirade for today- hope you enjoyed it.

p.s. pm sent

 

[Joel/Calgary]

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:

I read that it was with a small file and a very well calibrated eyeball, but this is hearsay as I can no longer remember the source. Someone posted a picture of the muzzle of a rifle that he had done this to, and added some decorative file work to boot!

So far, I've done well enough with just rounding and deepening the crown to maybe 1/8" or so, rather than fully coning, a.k.a. "relieving", the muzzle.

edit - Whoops - I hadn't read down to Mike's post about the file, or Dan's picture of his 2-bevel crown. Mine are more rounded, rather than plane angles, but not as beautifully polished.


Regards,
Joel

 

[Dphar]

Flash Pan, for whatever it's worth, i would cone the barrel unless you're going to use it exclusively for chunk gun work. while there are a bunch of theoretical reasons that coning is not a good idea for accuracy, as a practical matter, my wobble far exceeds them, so i see no appreciable loss of acuracy in the two barrels i've coned.

that's my own personal opinion; free advice and no doubt worth every penny.

as regards the 'tests,' remember that few of these are extensive enough to be considered statistically significant (i.e. sample set greater than thirty two -- really, you want to cone thirty two barrels?? ) and that brings them into the realm of 'anecdotal studies" (as opposed to peer reviewable studies). Does this mean that the folks who say cone, or those who say 'don't cone,' are all wet? no- not at all, it simply means that they're an expression of what worked or didn't work for them, and not a scientifically reproducible result.

coning can be a tricky thing, so have the builder do it, or, if you want to do it yourself (and there's no reason you shouldn't) i would advise that you get a tool from Joe Woods, follow the directions exactly, and go slow.

well, that's my tirade for today- hope you enjoyed it.

p.s. pm sent

The problem with coning till the ball can be pushed flush or below with a thumb is that the ball will be loose as it clears the muzzle.
If it is loose the gas escape, assuming the pressure is high can cause strange things to occur.
Loose fitting balls in smoothbores, such as used in issue musket loads in all probability gets slammed back and forth as they go up the bore due to the dynamics of the flowing gases. See Bernoulli's principle. High speed gas going by on once side will suck the ball to that side then the gas escape on the other will pull it back. The ball getting more scraped and smaller each time.
Recovered "naked" balls will show this when there is any significant gas loss.
This is the thing that would keep me from funneling a bore very deep. I have a piloted coning tool I made but its only been used on a 45 caliber pistol I made for my son and then only enough to relieve it slightly. Would take a careful look to notice.
I prefer the rifle to out shoot me and I have "trust issues" with coning to any significant extent.

Dan

 

[zimmerstutzen]

I just remembered an odd barrel I have laying somewhere. While most crowns are 45 or 60 degrees and are just a straight angle only a 1/16th of an inch or so. I have a rifle barrel of unknown origin that has a deeply curved crown. Sort of like the bore bells out like the horn of a trumpet. The barrel is 15/16 across the flats, but the last 1/4 inch of the bore at the muzzle bells out. I seem to recall that one of the production mountain rifles years back came with similar crowns.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Dan: The Target shooters, who seem to be always studying more ways to extract more accuracy from their guns, have found that the gas escapes the muzzle behind both RBs, and Conicals, at 11 degrees. Some shooters are using tapered reamers to put an 11 Degree bevel on their muzzles, to " Control" the escaping gas.

I think the only "Accuracy" problem with coning muzzles is that there is NO standard agreed upon as to the proper angle to use.

In the real world, by the time a PRB is leaving the muzzle, its going as fast as the gas is expanding behind it, and the gases do NOT cut patches, nor melt RBs, or conicals by escaping around the PRB as it passes through the cone.

As I understand the process, a properly made cone does NOT EXCEED the GROOVE Diameter of the barrel. If a proper sized fabric patch is used, the grooves are completely filled and block expanding gases. The "BUMP" a RB gets when the gun is fired upsets the RB so that it pushed the fabric patch Tightly into the grooves. This Physical condition between the Ball and Patch remains until it leaves the muzzle and the patch is violently whipped off the ball when it hits the air outside the muzzle.

I concede that as the PRB goes through the coned section, the patch is no longer pressed by the lands, because coning removes a portion, to all, of the lands.But the patching forces into the grooves remains forced into the grooves, and acts as a physical block to gases behind the PRB, even during the very short trip through the CONE.

As the Ball continues to accelerate through the coned barrel, little if any gas is going to get past that patch to damage the ball, or change its direction of travel, PROVIDED, the coning has been done properly, and the crown of the muzzle was executed properly before the muzzle was coned. If gases do blow by the patch, that fact would be visible on the spent patches, (reinforcing the importance of reading your spent patches). Using a Groove diameter OP wad behind the PRB would further seal gases behind the ball, and protect the ball as it passes through the cone.

I am not advocating that coned barrels are more accurate than non-coned barrels. I am not even suggesting that target shooters should cone their muzzles. However, the dirth of historical evidence that any hunting pouch made before 1840 or so contained any hint of a short starter, and much evidence indicating that coning of muzzles were common on hunting RIFLES before 1840, I think those current BP hunters should consider coning their muzzles IF THEY WANT TO EXPERIENCE how guns were actually loaded back in that period of history. The Accuracy of a coned barrel is good enough to take game at any reasonable range. Eliminating the need to use a short starter to load a gun in the field can be a blessing to SOME PEOPLE.

It is an individual choice, however. For those who want to know what loading and shooting a coned barrel is like, I hope someone else in your gun club has done it, and will give you the opportunity to load and shoot his gun before you decide if this is what you want to do with your gun.

I would personally discourage NEWBIES to this sport from coning any barrel until they have shot their guns long enough to know what methods they find most comfortable loading and shooting their guns in field conditions. :thumbsup:

 

[LRB]

I'm with Dan on this. I just don't trust coning. I can load my gun without a starter if I want, and even after it is fouled. I am getting 1 1/2" groups at 50yrds with my load, and could do better if I could see better. I don't need coning, but I just gotta get new spectacles.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Getting old takes courage, that is for sure. The eyes screw with everyone, if they live to be old enough. :thumbsup: