AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Gun Building => Topic started by: JW on September 02, 2016, 08:41:05 PM
-
Hello, Gents.
I have a question for anyone who has used one of Joe Wood's coning tools: Is it necessary to remove the barrel from the stock in order to use the tool? The gent from whom I might be buying one from said that it did, but I want to know why. He didn't really answer my question. I don't care for taking barrels out if I don't have to.
Thanks!
James
-
Wasn't familiar with what Joe Wood's coning tool looked like so I did a search for one and found a photo of one that Tim Boone posted. Here it is:
(https://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c18/DrTimBoone/Gunmaking/Christmas2006andGrant031.jpg)
It looks pretty much the same as the one I used on my rifle and I did it while in the stock. No problem at all. The jag end goes in the bore, the fine grit paper will do the coning. I turned the tool with a hand tap holder. This can be done without removing the barrel from the stock.
You will need to clean the abrasive/oil out of the bore but that is no different than any other cleaning of the barrel.
Dennis
-
Dennis,
That's what I thought. The gentlemen told me that the instructions specifically said to remove the barrel, but I thought that seemed unnecessary and he couldn't tell me why. I believe you're right.
James
-
Good afternoon; The Jag end that Dennis ,refers to in the picture, is the a pilot which holds the bore diameter true to the Coning tool. In this case per the picture .540 bore, pilot size .535 - .002. I have at this time used four (4) different sizes of this Wood Coning tool and had perfect success with each one. The process takes me about an hour plus to complete. Have a great holiday week end. AJ. PS. I cone the barrel before installation. That's just me.
-
Am interested in doing a .54 elk rifle. Does the coning eliminate the need for a short starter w/ a fairly tight PRB? Also...the angle seems to be very slight and how is the grit paper held onto the mandrel? Also.. is the cone dia at the muzzle as large as the groove dia?. Can a loading block still be used w/ a coned muzzle....might lose control of the PRB coming out of the loading block. Any answers would be greatly appreciated.....Fred
-
Good afternoon; A) In most cases a short starter is not needed. B) Grit paper held in place with Duro"All purpose Spray Adhesive". Fast dry easy to remove. C) The depth 1 to 1 1/2 , depth of tooling is up to you, remove the corners of rifling or leave some edges. Check ball desired with large patch material and ball used to fit and remove handful of patch material with ball so it will be easy to hold on too.
D) continue to use loading block if so desired. I just spit the patch push the ball in and cut the patch.
Hope this will help you flehto, best I can do. Thanks, AJ. PS. Accuracy has been a non -issue for me, nothing has changed.
-
I've used a Joe wood coning tool on both .45 and .54 barrels. I abrade the barrel to the point that the patched round ball can be started with my thumb... but at that point I still use a short starter. The abrasive paper is held onto the tool with double sided tape. At the muzzle, the diameter, after coning, can be as wide as the groove diameter... it depends on how far you want to go.
By the way, before coning, I shot a group at fifty yards (several) and found no accuracy difference after coning.
-
I remove the barrel and turn barrel and tool I opposite directions. I think I read that in the instructions. I have coned all my guns,.32,.45.50,.54. with Joe's tools I use a thin loading block so I can find the muzzle easy and push the patched ball through with the ram rod-no short starter. I go progressively finer with my sandpaper starting with 400 and ending up with crocus hyd valve spool paper. If you lap the bore with some JB paste after, it smothes it more yet.
Good luck,Turtle
-
I remove the barrel and turn barrel and tool I opposite directions. I think I read that in the instructions.
Mine did not mention turning the barrel, just the tap wrench. The only reason I can see to remove the barrel and turn it in the opposite direction would be to speed the job up. Guess you could just turn the tap handle twice as fast :D
Dennis
-
Thanks to all for the expert info. Has anybody got Woods' contact info?. Again, thanks.....Fred
-
I coned a .58 Rice barrel some years ago without removing the bbl. it's just about goof proof
-
Wood Coning Tool.
Joe Lane Wood
THE FIRELOCK SHOP
5311Briar St.
Amarillo, Texas. 79109
.
-
Thank you.....Fred
-
I have coned many barrels with Joe Woods coneing tool and every one was satisfactory. I found no increase or decrease in acuracy with any one of them. When I first started using that tool I shot the barrels before and after coneing. I don't bother any more I am coonvinced that it makes no difference.
If you cone it to the point of removeing all the rifling you don't need a short starter. The instructions that I got with the first coneing tool said to remove the barrel and rotate both the tool and the barrel at the same time. I am guessing that by rotating both you are not as likely to lean
on one side more than another. That is the way that I do it, and I wouldn't recommend doing it any different.
The instructions say to use a tap wrench and turn the tool by hand. I have become so comfortable with the tool that I use my electric drill at a very slow speed and rotate the barrel at the same time. I don't recomment doing that until you have become very familiar with the procedure and get a feeling for the tool. I think it would be much harder to rotate the barrel if it was still in the stock. Why would you not remove the barrel from the stock ?
I know some shooters are very much against coneing and I don't know why, I have never had
a problem with any of the dozen's of barrels that I have coned. NOT A ONE !
DAVID PRICE
-
What David said +1. All my barrels are coned and I love them. They hit what I aim at an thats all I ask them to do. My last was coned by the man that made the barrel (Charles Burton) an its a very accurate rifle. Dont be scared to cone if its what you want to do
-
I too have graduated to using an electric drill. Its easier on my arm and shoulder. I have researched this because of my good results, and poor results reported were with other methods than Joe's tool. Another tip- pulling the tool out of the barrel often and brushing off the sandpaper off makes a faster job with fewer sandpaper changes. Don't start with sandpaper courser than 400 or it will take forever to remove the scratches. I got my selection of coning tools by doing others guns for free if they buy the tool except for my .32. A warning, once I shot one coned gun-Il had to do all my others.
Turtle
-
I used one of Joe’s tools in .45 and another in .50. Both projects turned out great and I did not need to use a short starter after that either. The instructions said to rotate the barrel in one direction and the tool in the opposite. The barrel and stock on my rifle was thin enough so I could turn it in one hand and the tool in the other. Didn’t take too long and the only thing I had any trouble with was getting the glue to stick to the paper and tool. The tape I bought wasn’t strong enough to hold. Now, I need to get a tool to do my .54.
-
All of my 45's, 50's and 54's are coned with Mr. Wood's tools. I always remove the barrels and feel it is easier and I pull the plugs too. The hard part lately, is finding the light duty carpet tape. All I can find is the heavy duty stuff and that stuff don't work. I fact, I should sell my tools cause I'm all done. JZ
-
The reason you turn the barrel, is to make sure you are applying equal pressure to all sides of the barrel.
Joe’s tools are great.
-
I've done several guns with Joe's tool both barrel in and out. Takes a bit of time but sure makes loading easier. If stocked I stand on the stair so there is room to maneuver it. Push a cotton ball down the bore a bit that I can fish out later with a bore brush to keep most of the $#@* out of the breech plug. I'm a fan of a coned muzzle!
-
My first two swamped barrels had a coned muzzle, coned by the barrel maker. The cutting was done very nice but deep into the bore ( maybe 2+ inches ) and with no lands at all at the muzzle. This made for some real easy loading with pre cut patches and a short starter. BUT I tried and tried to get those two rifles to shoot decent groups with many different load combinations and never got acceptable to me accuracy. 4+ inch 3 shot groups at 50 yds was about as good as I got. I sold the guns.
-
I do not remove the barrels.
-
I second (or third) what Dave Price said. We’re talking specifically about the Joe Woods coning tool. Every time this subject comes up the anti-coners pop in to tell their tribulations with generic coned barrels. It seems all coned barrels are not the same. I have not heard of anyone having a bad experience with the Joe Woods tool when they follow the instructions. And the instructions are fool proof. After all, I have done it successfully so it can’t be too challenging.
The instructions state to use light duty carpet tape. Do not use heavy duty tape. You want the thin stuff.
I take the time to pull the barrel from the stock and turn the barrel in the opposite direction that you turn the tool.
My goal in using this tool was to eliminate the short starter and it also eliminates cutting patches on the muzzle which is not an issue for me. I like using precut patches that I make myself. If you want to eliminate the short starter but still like to cut patches on the muzzle, then I do not recommend the Joe Woods tool; perhaps there are other coning options to better suit your needs.
-
Yeah - you are right, JohnnyFM. I wonder why Accuracy shooters don't use them, bench, plank or chunk?
-
In the early 1990's I made a portable muzzle facing tool that can be powered at the range with a charged portable drill or used it the shop with an ordinary electric drill. It is a fly cutter with a land diameter insert and a 1/4" guide.It is held snug with a tapered set screw that pushes a brass plug against the bore.I tested it at Friendship during a BPCR shoot and got 9 out of 10 hits at 500 yards in a practice session.
I also used it on my 451 muzzle loader with equal results.The test is ONE shot and then look at the star burst pattern on the muzzle and if it's strong and equal,the job is done.This idea could be adapted to a cone/tapering cutter.Harry Pope said that the base of the bullet is the
"steering end" but all is lost if the muzzle is not right*.A funneled muzzle on a round ball may be OK and will help loading.
Bob Roller
* Harry Pope never thought of a round ball as a projectile.
-
Yeah - you are right, JohnnyFM. I wonder why Accuracy shooters don't use them, bench, plank or chunk?
Most likely it is an additional step that does not give EXTRA accuracy potential. On a field gun it does give a little advantage beyond ease of loading, and that is that since the rifling is an inch +/- back into the bore, a light ding on the muzzle is less likely to affect the rifling. Which is the actual purpose of the crown on newer target rifles.
-
I've coned about 15 of them I guess. Most of them I had to tweak the load just a tad, because i changed what i built the load upon. Change barrel configuration, powder, ball size, patch, patch lube, even how many times you swab & what you swab with or not at all, will make a dif. most of the time. You change something, it usually changes the group or the POI. Some things effect it more than others.
After coning my .54 cal deer rifle, I had to bump it up 2 grains to get back to where I was. I have no issues
with it & just play with each one accordingly. Had a couple I had to do nothing. Never had any I felt I lost accuracy,
I just tweak the load a tad.
-
Resurrecting this thread, I guess....I don't have Mr. Woods' coning tool but, pictured below, is one that I've had for years. If memory serves correctly, I believe Steve Bookout of Toad Hall Rifle Shop manufactured this. Unlike the Woods tool, this one uses a bushing rather than a patched cleaning rag to support the "starboard end" of the cone. You do have to point the barrel downhill just slightly in order to keep the bushing from sliding down into the barrel. I coned my .54 years ago but rather than turning the cone by hand, I just gave it a couple quick spins with a drill and called it good. Thumb-started the patched ball & it shot very well with no adjustments. Have had no further need for a short starter.
My Q is this: does it seem to anyone that the bushing down in the bore could be problematic as opposed to the essentially stationary cleaning jag? Even if the bushing turned, it's made of brass so..no problem, right? Reason I'm asking is I"m getting ready to cone my .40 barrel. Thought I should double check with the expert crowd...
(https://i.ibb.co/x272nRV/Coning-Tool.jpg) (https://ibb.co/grRr0Bs)
-
A friend, now passed on to his reward, had a .40 cal rifle that had about 1 1/2" of coning on the muzzle. It had a .400" bore, with about .010" rifling depth.
He could not load the combination in that muzzle, that I used in my .398" bored barrel, having .010" rifling. I used a short starter and even with THAT tool,
he could not load the combination. It was a .400" ball and my .0225" denim patch. That combination loaded easily in my bore and I will show you a picture
of that crown. It is rounded and roughly 1/8" deep = NO CONE. Done with emery and my thumb, starting with 320 grit and finishing with crocus cloth.
(https://i.ibb.co/xSdNnYw/40-Goodoien.jpg) (https://ibb.co/zhDz3FC)
-
I have coned two rifles with Joe Woods tool, on these threads there is always someone who has never used the tool who will tell us we will never get any kind of accuracy and will ruin our guns if we use this tool.
76-year-old eyes that see a slightly blurry back sight, coned .54, 50 yards off sand bags, initial sight adjustment after coning.
I was hitting low so I added 5 gr of powder, I aimed high with the first shot and hit high. I went back to my 6:00 hold with the slightly stouter powder load and shot the next two shots.
One of you nay sayers, tell me again how I am ruining my barrel with a Joe Woods coning tool.
(https://i.ibb.co/FVPXhy3/haines-coned-group.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8chbmfs)
Another thing, the nay sayers tell us "coning" is not historically correct for an 18th century rifle, that is because it was called "funneling" back then, not because it wasn't done.
-
Just thinking about this often brought up topic. JMHO but to test the accuracy I think a before and after 5 shot group test would be more appropriate. ;)
-
I was glad to see this subject discussed here. I have recently purchased a couple different type coning tools. One was the Joe Wood tool in 50 cal. The other a type that allows it's use with any caliber simply by using the correct sized JAG which screws into the end's 10-32 threads.
I have done three guns and am very satisfied. However, I did not get any instructions with either tool. And I hear you folks talking about the "instructions"? Sure wish I had a set of instructions, and here is why.
I have tried using spray adhesive and with mixed results. Soon as I add a little oil it desolves the glue. There has to be a better way. I mean, I get the job done but I think it could go easier if I had some instructions.
Also, two of the guns were smooth bore fowlers and they went a lot easier. With the rifle, seemed like the emery paper kept getting snagged on the rifling. Used a lot more paper, etc.
Finally, I would not try it with the barrel in the gun. Maybe I am just too sloppy or haphazard, but how could I clamp the barrel in a vice while in the stock? Or turn the barrel opposite the coning tool. (which I did not know to do as I have no directions). And finally, it can be a little messy especially using oil . Not to mention emery paper in the vicinity of the end of your nice shiny stock>
Anyone have any directions I could get from them?? I have a few more pieces I'd like to do.
Regards, to all
-
A good lathe with a big enough bore thru the spindle is the only way I would try this and then use Morse Taper reamers according to bore size.
The biggest mistake I made was not getting a better lathe back when American made ones were still new.A 14x40 or 48 Clausing was one I looked at but didn't buy when I had the money.20/20 hindsight and too late now.
Off topic question,How many of US on this forum would be non functional without spell check in place??
Bob Roller
-
Send Joe an email or call him. The Firelock Shop, 5311 Briar St., Amarillo Texas 79109 (806) 352-3032. e-mail flintsteel@cox.net
I think the any caliber tool may be from Ed Hamberg known as Longknife on this forum. Check with him.
-
Here are the instruction for my universal coning tool. You can cone any caliber from .32 to .75 with one tool. I always e-mail this link to my customers.
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=4375.0 (https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=4375.0)
-
What David said is correct uneven pressure is the problem. With different barrels of the came caliber the guide may not fit the bore tight enough causing an uneven cut. We have all been there trying to file a flat area flat, probably splitting hairs here just a bit of perfectionist in me.
-
Am I correct in understanding the coned portion is about 1.5" to 2" long when a bore has been coned just enough to remove all trace of the rifling at the muzzle? I might be wrong, but I believe a morse taper would create a much longer cone.
-
I have coned two rifles with Joe Woods tool, on these threads there is always someone who has never used the tool who will tell us we will never get any kind of accuracy and will ruin our guns if we use this tool.
76-year-old eyes that see a slightly blurry back sight, coned .54, 50 yards off sand bags, initial sight adjustment after coning.
I was hitting low so I added 5 gr of powder, I aimed high with the first shot and hit high. I went back to my 6:00 hold with the slightly stouter powder load and shot the next two shots.
One of you nay sayers, tell me again how I am ruining my barrel with a Joe Woods coning tool.
(https://i.ibb.co/FVPXhy3/haines-coned-group.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8chbmfs)
Another thing, the nay sayers tell us "coning" is not historically correct for an 18th century rifle, that is because it was called "funneling" back then, not because it wasn't done.
No where did I say coning would ruin the accuracy of your barrel. What I noted, well read it again, - it's about loading tight combinations.
-
About a dozen or so years ago I was making a half stock that would have a 34 inch barrel but I had a 42 inch GM on the gun planning to cut it down after I got it to the in the white stage. Then I was thinking it might be a good time for a before and after coning test with the 42 inch barrel before I cut it back. I got one of Ed,s tools to try but never got it done as a fellow came along and bought the gun. I still think a before and after test is the best way to see any difference in accuracy.
-
Am I correct in understanding the coned portion is about 1.5" to 2" long when a bore has been coned just enough to remove all trace of the rifling at the muzzle? I might be wrong, but I believe a morse taper would create a much longer cone.
My universal coning tool makes a much shorter cone. In the original coned barrels that I have inspected the cone is usually about the depth (into the bore) of the diameter of that caliber ball. Here is the type of cone that My tool produces.
(https://i.ibb.co/KmTq2Tk/mlcrown.jpg) (https://ibb.co/cx4F64H)
-
Thanks - so about 1/2" deep for a .50 cal. That is quite a bit less than I had envisioned. I believe it is also considerably less than my coned Getz barrel. Purely for reference, a morse taper would cut a cone approximately 4" long, given .010" rifling.
-
I use to own several of Joe Woods coning tools and he's a great guy by the way ... haven't seen him in many years ..
But I now own 2 of Ed's coning tools ..in case one wears out (never gonna happen ..) .. its the best thing going for this business ... so I sold the ones from Woods ..
All the original rifles I have had a chance to look at and notice a cone .. they only go about 1/2" to 3/4" deep into the bore from the muzzle , the very same way that Ed's tool will cut .. takes me about 20 minutes and that includes filing a decorative touch ..
I hate a commercial crown .. and have Jason or Bob Hoyt not to crown my barrels so I can use the cone .. almost got em trained !!
Good stuff , great topic ..
-
It wasn't you Daryl, I have seen it said from others posted on different sites.
One guy on the ML Forum essentially implied that we were all idiots for using a coning tool, he got so caustic we finally had enough of him and blocked his posts. I think he was banned or left, thank goodness.
-
Joe Woods coning tools are awesome! I just used one yesterday on a .50 Cal barrel. Pretty simple to use and doesn't take a lot of time. Just follow Joe's instructions and it will turn out great. It will make loading a breeze. I have several in different calibers and have never seen any adverse affect on the rifle accuracy.
-
Coning barrels, as is apparently done by some is for people that don’t know any better. Not an insult, just a fact. As I have repeatedly posted people need to read page 42 of John Baird’s “Hawken Rifles..” So if you are coming more than a very few thousandths at the very muzzle its almost surely going to negatively effect accuracy. Remember that precision measurement was impossible until the late 19th c. So the .0005 initial (5 ten thousandths) increase in bore dimension in the barrel measured was surely unnoticed by the maker. Gas escape at the muzzle must be absolutely uniform. Boring the barrel oversized at the muzzle can allow inconsistent gas escape and result in the projectile being deflected. And even a tiny amount is greatly magnified as the distance to the target increases.
But most of us shoot matches that are at large hit of miss targets and in many cases a smoothbore can shoot perfect scores or near it so accuracy is not all that important I guess. But try shooting a smoothbore in a 60 yard string measure rest match and it will show what the difference is. There are and always have been 3 classes of shooters. Gunowners, shooters and riflemen. The Militia Laws of the Colonies and early Republic resulted in masses of “gun owners” (and as a result a lot of smoothbores in estate inventories) who could not “hit a bull in the butt with a banjo”. But they were required by law to have a gun and ammo. Then the people that shot for fun or could not see well enough and finally the serious guys. And TRUST ME the serious guys who do the work and research very often really PO the “shooter” class at matches and yeah myself and a couple of companions used to PO people at a certain match in Montana years ago. The “shooters” that ran one of them actually banned two of us on a flimsy excuse and the third member was insulted he was not banned as well.
A good rifle with load development should shoot all shots touching at 50 yards or even 100 if its calm. But it takes better sights usually than most ML have, a tang sight or a scope. And it needs to do it more than once.
-
I can certainly see why you were banned.
-
Most of the old rifles I have seen had a hand filed cone or relief at the muzzle that allows easier ball starting. There is no way that could be an exact procedure. However; if you believe the claims of accuracy made by the writers of that time, it must have worked? Maybe it just affects the ball the same every time and the effect is repeatable for accuracy?
-
This is my group adjusted for point of aim. I have always shot a three-shot group and measured center to center to determine MOA, taking into consideration my first Red Rider BB gun (no bird was safe) I have been doing this stuff for 70 years.
One poster suggested without a 5 shot group my target had no merit so I adjusted my target to reflect point of aim and impact.
I held on the center of the bull for the first shot that hit high, I took a 6 o'clock hold on the bottom of the orange dot for the next two shots which both hit slightly above the bull. I measured from the bottom of the dot to the center of the first two shots and the distance from the center of the bull to the center of the high shot, both measurements were the same.
I dropped the high shot to reflect the point of aim and came up with this, that's good enough for me. The barrel is a Rice .50 that I had Bobby Hoyt re-bore to .54 because I like a .54 for deer.
(https://i.ibb.co/4K0sRhV/100-7952.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLTXF3m)
-
This is my group adjusted for point of aim. I have always shot a three-shot group and measured center to center to determine MOA, taking into consideration my first Red Rider BB gun (no bird was safe) I have been doing this stuff for 70 years.
One poster suggested without a 5 shot group my target had no merit so I adjusted my target to reflect point of aim and impact.
I held on the center of the bull for the first shot that hit high, I took a 6 o'clock hold on the bottom of the orange dot for the next two shots which both hit slightly above the bull. I measured from the bottom of the dot to the center of the first two shots and the distance from the center of the bull to the center of the high shot, both measurements were the same.
I dropped the high shot to reflect the point of aim and came up with this, that's good enough for me. The barrel is a Rice .50 that I had Bobby Hoyt re-bore to .54 because I like a .54 for deer.
(https://i.ibb.co/4K0sRhV/100-7952.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLTXF3m)
I like 5 or more shots to determine where the rifle is shooting because of FLYERS. A friend came out to sight in his new rifle a week before deer season. First shot was about 4 inches left and next 2 were about 3 inches right but touching each other at 25 yds. He adjusted to the left for the 2 right shots. When he missed a rested standing shot at about 50 we had to check it out and found that he was off the paper with 5 shots to the left.
-
I don't have access to my notes right now, but IIRC the half-dozen or so originals I measured for cone had about .02 widening from about 1/2" (or maybe 3/8") inside. The caveat is that my calipers only went about 1/2" back inside the bore, so the true bore size may have been smaller and the cone longer than I was able to measure. The taper was pretty consistent from gun to gun, though - I think the only one that didn't show coning was a post-1820 rifle, and I think that there was one with considerable deterioration at the muzzle that showed more, but I can't remember all that much.
I'd like to reiterate a point I made on the recent thread on short starters - period manufacturing techniques introduced a very slight choke in the bores, whereas modern techniques (AFAIK) do not. It is even possible that bores were intentionally choked, as we know fowling piece bores could be deliberately chocked and flared, if only to ensure that they weren't inadvertently funneled. Ergo, I don't think we can just assume that modern experience different load types in contemporary bores is representative of how original barrels may have behaved. I think it possible that tight loads such as used by modern target shooters may not have shown more accuracy over a looser load with a thicker patch in period bores - a thicker patch with more "give" might very well handle variations in bore-size better, particularly when using smaller charges with less chance of ball obturation. That would go a long way with reconciling the discrepancies between modern experience and what we can reconstruct of 18th and early 19th century practice.
I also wonder if changing manufacturing techniques in the 19th century might have produced more consistent bores, and if so then there might be connection between the widespread use of factory-made barrels and changing methods of loading, including the increased popularity of short starters and the successful use of conical bullets (toyed with for ages but seldom used for otherwise unknown reasons).
-
After all the bore polishing with scotch bright, JB bore paste and Bore Bright and a dedicated load development, my rifle seems to shoot dead on with the first shot and shoots the same with a dirty barrel. As this was the initial sight in, I didn't notice any fliers but because I was filing sights and drifting them at the same time, there could have been one.
I have her really slicked up;
(https://i.ibb.co/TKvsvr6/haines-after-scrub.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1svkvb1)
This is a before the scrub picture;
(https://i.ibb.co/vQGB9Dq/haines-before-scrub.jpg) (https://ibb.co/mXwBpST)
-
Those cross-wise reaming marks are hard on patches. You did well to try to get rid of them and smooth things up.
My .69 GRRW barrel was bad for those reamer marks, but shot well, right off the bat. I did have to go to a .030" patch(12 ounce), though
so they would stand up to the heavier loads. Now, about 5,000 or more shots through her, she does well with a 10 ounce(.021") patch, same ball.
Edited.
I'm not sure why some guys still insist on easier loading with a cone.
Leatherbelly and I found that to be not true at all & actually the reverse was true.
His coned muzzle made it almost impossible to use the same combinations I was using in my slightly tighter bored rifle barrel.
-
This is my group adjusted for point of aim. I have always shot a three-shot group and measured center to center to determine MOA, taking into consideration my first Red Rider BB gun (no bird was safe) I have been doing this stuff for 70 years.
One poster suggested without a 5 shot group my target had no merit so I adjusted my target to reflect point of aim and impact.
I held on the center of the bull for the first shot that hit high, I took a 6 o'clock hold on the bottom of the orange dot for the next two shots which both hit slightly above the bull. I measured from the bottom of the dot to the center of the first two shots and the distance from the center of the bull to the center of the high shot, both measurements were the same.
I dropped the high shot to reflect the point of aim and came up with this, that's good enough for me. The barrel is a Rice .50 that I had Bobby Hoyt re-bore to .54 because I like a .54 for deer.
(https://i.ibb.co/4K0sRhV/100-7952.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hLTXF3m)
For initial load testing 3 shots are fine. It saves powder and lead. Shooting additional shots at an already bad group will not make it better.
However, its necessary to CONFIRM the load with more shooting and longer shot strings.
There is also the rule of compensating errors where errors in holding or sight alignment can result in a poor group being a good one. I.E. the error in holding and/or sight alignment puts a flyer(s) into the group. Even a telescopic sight can do this with holding errors.
-
Barrel smoothing.
Back in the day 0000 steel wool on a patch for a tight fit worked wonders in removing burrs (patch cutters) at the edges of the lands. This was routinely done on some barrels by some makers. Its also a really good idea to check bore uniformity with barrels from ML “custom barrel makers” before building a rifle around the thing. Loose in the middle and tight at both ends don’t work.
There are a lot of reamed and cut rifled barrels with rough lands and burrs are the edges of the lands that can be an “issue”. Steel wool/Scotch brite will remove burrs. But saw tooth lands need more “adjustmentz”. It is possible to buy from suppliers such as MSCdirect a “barrel lap”. This is an adjustable brass lap that when adjusted to size and coated with 320-400 grit lapping compound to smooth reamer marks on the lands. It will not greatly enclarge the bore and should not be pulled/pushed all the way out of the muzzle as it will cause belling as will any lap if this is done every stroke as the compound resets as the lap enters the muzzle. This create a slight coning. These laps can be bought for both through hole and blind hole designs. I have a through hole for 62 cal and a blind hole for 54. Both were used on barrels with rough lands. One was a 54 rifle that was loading extremely hard down the barrel some inches and I smoothed the lands without pulling the breech and the other was one I had recut and it was rough reamed. Its going to pistol barrels.
-
I shot MLs for DECADES with a simple crown, 32-36,40, 45, 50, 54 and 58 caliber with no need for “coning”. The only thing I had ever seen similar to this was a friend who had. 58 cal flint “Hawken” that was bored smooth about 3” down the bore.
I also once saw a light fowler labeled “militia rifle” at a show and when I asked about this apparently smoothbore gun the owner said look down the muzzle. It was smooth down about 3-4”. Apparently to keep the rifleman from being bayoneted if captured. The rear sight was identical to those I have seen on trade guns, a sharp chisel used to raise a “flap” on the top flat then a notch cut in this for a rear sight. So there were some pretty strange things done even back in the day.
The saying “only accurate rifles are interesting” is very true. Since I could and for years did and still could, load a heavy ticking patch and .535 ball in a 54 Douglas barrel with just the rod why bother coning? Someplace I have a video I did of this and I even posted it on this sight years back or one of the other ML sites maybe. Will see if I can find that.
So far as being an a$$hole and talking mean. Sometimes people need to be jarred loose so they THINK about subjects and not just go with the flow.
ML barrels are cheap. A 20” cut rifled barrel for my brass suppository match rifle is about 500-600 bucks now and they are (at my rate of shooting trash after about 4 summers no matter how good it shoots. Some change them every year but I don’t have access to that many matches. They are simply expendable like shooting patches to a ML shooter.
I love shooting making and shooting MLs. But I like to shoot. I like to shoot competition. I don’t much care how the ammo is loaded. Or what the propellent is. ML matches are just for fun and connecting with other ML shooters.
-
I have coned two rifles with Joe Woods tool, on these threads there is always someone who has never used the tool who will tell us we will never get any kind of accuracy and will ruin our guns if we use this tool.
76-year-old eyes that see a slightly blurry back sight, coned .54, 50 yards off sand bags, initial sight adjustment after coning.
I was hitting low so I added 5 gr of powder, I aimed high with the first shot and hit high. I went back to my 6:00 hold with the slightly stouter powder load and shot the next two shots.
One of you nay sayers, tell me again how I am ruining my barrel with a Joe Woods coning tool.
(https://i.ibb.co/FVPXhy3/haines-coned-group.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8chbmfs)
Another thing, the nay sayers tell us "coning" is not historically correct for an 18th century rifle, that is because it was called "funneling" back then, not because it wasn't done.
Looks to me like you are doing everything right! All shots touching, it doesn't get any better!
-
Lots of good info Dan, thanks.
My rebore job was questionable at best, I did a lot more to this barrel than I let on to get any kind of accuracy from it and stop it from shredding patches into little balls of fluff.
It shoots and loads great now and I could reshoot the patches.
-
I have tins of my .69's patch recoveries that I use often for the monthly matches.
More lube and away they go.
Once back in the late 80's, I used the same patch for a 5 shot group fired at 50yards offhand. The group turned out quite nice, about 1 1/2 to 2" in diameter.
12 ounce denim and Windex (at the time) for lube. Due to having to go retrieve the patch after each shot, the barrel never got hot, which is a
problem with that rifle.