Problem with Coned barrel

[zimmerstutzen]

My comment was directed to the alleged fact that esteemed builders and smiths on some other forum claim coning has absolutely no effect on accuracy.

I know several builders who are exceptional in their craftsmanship. And here in PA we have at least a few dozen excellent builders and gun smiths. I am in awe of their abilities. That doesn't mean that they can shoot a one hole group at 100 yds, or that their guns do.

The guys who know what shoots super accurately aren't that concerned with whether a gun looks like a Dickert or an Angstadt.

Ask a bench shooter or chunk gun shooter if he would cone his barrel and then cover your ears and duck. Because more than 4 letter words are likely to be tossed.

Sorry if you took offense and perhaps I should have clarified better. There is no rational correlation between knowing how to engrave a patchbox and being able to shoot a one hole five shot group at 100 yds, especially with a coned barrel.

Now, if you were to get a guy that makes his own winning bench and chunk barrels to show me that coning doesn't affect accuracy, I'd believe it.

Hunters shoot to hunt. Builders make pretty. Competitive target shooters know accuracy. The best of the best compete at Friendship. Serious target shooters are so fussy about their muzzles and the crowns, there is no way they would mess it up by coning their gun.

 

[tg]

"Highly regarded builders etc. don't mean manure to me unless they are also top shooters at Friendship'

I would guess that some of the best builders of MLs particularly historicaly correct guns may never get to Friendship.

 

[zimmerstutzen]

You guys keep taking the statement out of context. It was in response to the esteemed builders who claim that coning doesn't affect accuracy. They can build all kinds of fancy rifles, but the proof of accuracy and coning won't be found in fancy engraving or copies of certain schools of rifle building. The proof will be found at a place like Friendship, on the range.

How many guns used at Friendship by the shooters that place or win have coned muzzles? One or two of thousands?

 

[necchi]

Ask a bench shooter or chunk gun shooter if he would cone his barrel and then cover your ears and duck.

:hmm: How does that interesting tool called a
"False Muzzle" play into this?

 

[Robby]

My comment was directed to the alleged fact that esteemed builders and smiths on some other forum claim coning has absolutely no effect on accuracy.

I know several builders who are exceptional in their craftsmanship. And here in PA we have at least a few dozen excellent builders and gun smiths. I am in awe of their abilities. That doesn't mean that they can shoot a one hole group at 100 yds, or that their guns do.

The guys who know what shoots super accurately aren't that concerned with whether a gun looks like a Dickert or an Angstadt.

Ask a bench shooter or chunk gun shooter if he would cone his barrel and then cover your ears and duck. Because more than 4 letter words are likely to be tossed.

Sorry if you took offense and perhaps I should have clarified better. There is no rational correlation between knowing how to engrave a patchbox and being able to shoot a one hole five shot group at 100 yds, especially with a coned barrel.

Now, if you were to get a guy that makes his own winning bench and chunk barrels to show me that coning doesn't affect accuracy, I'd believe it.

Hunters shoot to hunt. Builders make pretty. Competitive target shooters know accuracy. The best of the best compete at Friendship. Serious target shooters are so fussy about their muzzles and the crowns, there is no way they would mess it up by coning their gun.

:thumbsup:
The only thing I might have issue with is "minute of deer" accuracy. Some of us that build and hunt with these guns are every bit as concerned about accuracy as a bench shooter. "good enough for hunting" kind of raises my hackles. :grin:
Robby

 

[Rev_William]

Out of curiosity when did coning a barrel start? I mean is this something shooters have been doing since matchlocks or something that started in the last 50-70 yrs?

 

[Dean2]

zim*

Your point seems real clear to me. The question is; is coned as accurate a target rifle or not. Your experience, and that of the many that shoot purely to get the smallest groups, says coned is not as accurate. Has nothing to do with who the builder is, except some very good builders seem to be wrong on this point of coning not affecting 'ultimate" accuracy. Couldn't be much clearer than that.:thumbsup:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

When did coning start?
As explained to me back around 1975 by an old timer, that intentionally coned his muzzle. The effect of coning was noticed noticed as the soft iron muzzles of early guns wore. Perhaps not so much at first, but as technology advanced and crude machinery could make moulds that turned out more uniform bullets, and early rifles. Apparently it wasn't a big deal with smooth muskets where fit was not considered as important.

As barrel muzzles wore, shooter realized that starting the patch ball combination was easier.

The two or three original guns I have owned certainly showed signs of minor muzzle wear, but do not show any signs anything that could be called coning.

False Muzzles: About thirty years ago, I actually had a few hours to kill in Alexandria VA and so I went to the US Patent office and found the shelves with the firearms patents from the beginning of our country. They were roughly divided into 20 to 25 year bins. I happened across a false muzzle patent application from the early 1800's. I thought it was from about 1815, but I recently read that the patent was about 1840. Perhaps there were two separate patents. Back then patrons to the patent library actually got to rummage through the original drawings and papers. False muzzles are certainly coned, but intended to be able to start the bullet but leave the muzzle of the actual firing barrel as square as technologically possible. I understand that chunk matches and many light bench competitions do not permit false muzzles. Some say false muzzles are for bullets and make no difference with PRBs. I have an in-line with a round ball barrel and false muzzle and can attest to the fact that it does indeed make a difference, however slight, with PRBs.

Understand that for competition shooters, a 1% advantage may be slight, but makes the difference between placing and "also ran".

 

[Rev_William]

Thanks Zim appriciate the the response. Clears up some of the questions I had. :thumbsup:

 

[Rifleman1776]

False muzzles are certainly coned, but intended to be able to start the bullet but leave the muzzle of the actual firing barrel as square as technologically possible.

Yes, that, but also to protect, as much as possible, the true muzzle of the target rifle. Some are used to swage oversized balls down to bore size.

 

[Dave K]

When did coning a muzzle start? All I can say is, I have an original 33cal. perc. M. Sheetz. When I first acquired it, I thought the muzzle was showing wear. Then the more I studied it, I can see that it is coned and it was not wear. If it was muzzle wear, it would have the wear on one side. Every shooter I ever knew, all hold their guns the same way as they load. The ramrod would contact the muzzle at the same place every time. But the muzzle on this gun is equal all the way around. I can't say when it was coned, when it was built? Sometime later? I can only say it was done a long time ago. Since it is a small bore squirrel gun to me, it is accurate to minute of squirrel head at the ranges I shoot them at. Just a guess, I would think this full stocked gun was made around 1840's +or-.

[/img]

 

[Dphar]

I recently picked up a nicely built .40 flinter. The gun showed very nice craftsmanship but my first range experience with it was very disappointing. I played with .395 and .400 diameter balls, patches from .015, .018, and .020 and even denim that is at least .022. POI was all over the target at 50m. No groups at all. Fired patches were normal, seating effort was normal. It was when I went to what should have been a very tight combo that I realized that short starting the ball was still quite easy, while the ramming effort was very tight. Taking the rifle out into the sunlight from under the range cover showed why...the muzzle is coned.
This is my first experience with a coned barrel. My first thought is to cut the muzzle back past the coning and recrown. But thought I'd ask the forum for other possible suggestions first. Any thoughts?

Coning as is often done now is a detriment to accuracy.
They have taken the "freed" barrel of the past where the bore was slightly enlarged to ease loading and made a parody of it. The subtleties of the process have been lost in the rush to make something "cool" for people who apparently do not understand how to load a patched round ball. So the bores are grossly enlarged and accuracy apparently suffers.
But I get the idea the serious accuracy testing is not part of the program for most shooters "cool" and load easy is more important.
John Baird's "Hawken Rifles" contains a description of the Hoffman and Campbell Hawken with a choked and "freed" bore. It bears little resemblance to modern "coning".

Dan

 

[Rat Trapper]

Highly regarded builders etc. don't mean manure to me unless they are also top shooters at Friendship.
Coning has a purpose for ease of reloading in the hunting woods. (Where minute of deer is all that counts.) Until I see a coned barrel compete off a bench against an identical non-coned barrel I simply suspect those folks are painting "accuracy" with a ten foot wide brush.

Accuracy for most is relative. For the guy former national champion 1,000 yd shooter that lives a few miles down the road, accuracy means one thing. For my brother who is extremely happy to shoot a 4 inch group at 100 with his 30 year old TC Hawken, accuracy is another. For a light bench muzzleloader shooter, a 1 inch 5 shot group at 100 yds, is getting there. I have never seen a serious target shooter use a coned barrel for ultra accuracy.

Very well said

:thumbsup:

This is my thinking as well! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[detent]

we have made some tests on barrels where we deliberately cut crowns & cones of center they generally seem to scatter and high seed photo's indicate that the tipping action is not constant, However sometimes it is and the gun will shoot into one quadrant of the target also bullets very occasionally recover, you might find a bad group at 50yards but a passable one at 100yards although its never going to be a one holer.I would personally never cone more than halt an inch at the most in a muzzle loader as tests indicate that the deeper you go the more the problem becomes (less bullet support on exit)