Barrel Coning Distilled.

[redheart]

Distinguished Gentlemen,

Having an intense interest ,and a little but not a substantial amount of experience on this subject I would like to present a crude distillation of everything I have heard and/or read on this subject

I have to believe that the interest in this subject comes in a large part from the  absence of the style of crown that we so so commonly see on modern arms showing up original pieces.

It seems there are there are many, including myself that want to experience these arms as they were originally made.

 In compiling all that that I have read, it appears that respectable accuracy can be achieved, with a coned muzzle, but that accuracy is typically obtainable by spending the time to perfect a target load and a more powerful hunting load that is compatable to the cone.

The modern crown treatment seems to be much more forgiving of load variations.

It appears to me that in studying coning in general, that the problems with accuracy stem from the release of gasses surrounding the patch/bullet combination before the bullet/patch combo actually exit the muzzle causing a turbulence and therefore a variation that affects accuracy.

It seems that a low velocity load may cause less turbulence and therefore less variation, and a hotter load may perhaps exit the muzzle so quickly that it to some extent bypasses this turbulence or early disintegration of the patch thus avoiding much of the variation.

But it seems that the match or benchrest shooter may want to avoid this additional possibility of variation and indeed this seems to be their consensus.

 The historical shooter, wanting to relive a historical type of loading without a short starter and willing to take the time to develop a load combination that brings them faster loading with an acceptable degree of accuracy, may find coning to work out just fine.

I  humbly submit to any thoughts or refinements that you may have on this matter.

[AndyThomas]

I have to believe that the interest in this subject comes in a large part from the  absence of the style of crown that we so so commonly see on modern arms showing up original pieces.

I cone the muzzle on my rifles for two reasons.

One, I've found it easier to start the ball down the barrel with a cone (I use the Joe Wood long cone).

Two, I like the muzzle of my rifles to look like the old rifles, i.e., with no modern crown, and with the rifling flared out. As you state, the turbulences as the ball leaves the bore can cause accuracy problems. If the decorative flares are not exactly the same, then they could cause uneven turbulence. With a cone, the cone itself becomes the crown and the gases then come around the ball before it reaches the flared rifling, causing less of a turbulence problem. This is, of course, opinion, not based on experience.

Andy

[redheart]

I have to believe that the interest in this subject comes in a large part from the  absence of the style of crown that we so so commonly see on modern arms showing up original pieces.

I cone the muzzle on my rifles for two reasons.

One, I've found it easier to start the ball down the barrel with a cone (I use the Joe Wood long cone).

Two, I like the muzzle of my rifles to look like the old rifles, i.e., with no modern crown, and with the rifling flared out. As you state, the turbulences as the ball leaves the bore can cause accuracy problems. If the decorative flares are not exactly the same, then they could cause uneven turbulence. With a cone, the cone itself becomes the crown and the gases then come around the ball before it reaches the flared rifling, causing less of a turbulence problem. This is, of course, opinion, not based on experience.

Andy

Andy,
Thanks very much for the info!
You've pretty much put it all in a nutshell for us.

[Pete G.]

My own thoughts are that we use much tighter loads than were used historically. Cloth was handmade on a loom from hand carded fibers, so thickness varied, even in the same piece of cloth. Variations from one piece to another probably even more so. How many historical writings mention measuring cloth with a micrometer? Most primitive styles of molds do not cast a really good ball either, so there are tight and loose spot around the perimeter of the ball. All of this adds up to a rifleman who was not as much concerned about MOA as he was about Minute of Indian/Deer.

Try a soft thick patch and a smaller sized ball for a hunting load and you won't need a starter. A deer at 50 yards is a pretty good sized target and is easy to hit (until you flinch, or hurry up your shot, or think about the shot too much or.....well there are hundreds of reasons why we miss deer, but most do not involve the thickness of a patch.)

[redheart]

Pete,

It's great that you put a historical perspective on the subject, and your point that it could  have proven difficult or nigh impossible to find patching that was consistent in thickness is quite plausable.

I agree that the advantage of quick loading was likely more important than gilt edged accuracy to the frontiersman and that this advantage is lost by using a patch or ball that's too tight.

It stands to reason that the many differing opinions we get on coning are due to variations in the depth, angle,diameter and even occaisional botching of the coning job, affecting the accuracy to different degrees.

As Dan Phariss has mentioned, In John Baird's book "Hawken Rifles" pg. 42 they describe an original barrel with coning only 1/4" long and flaring out only .0025" which seems to be a very light coning treatment indeed, but this may be just enough to compensate somewhat for patch thickness variation without affecting accuracy but, doesn't seem to be enough to lend itself to fast loading.

It seems that to get the fast loading advantage you would in most cases have to wipe out the rifling at the muzzle or come close to it.

If you look at the Hawken & Leman rifle photos of the Jim Gordon collection at least several of the muzzles appear to be coned to the extent that the rifling at the muzzle end appear to indeed be wiped out and a decorative rifling effect filed in at an approx. 45 degree angle to an approximate 1/16" depth or slightly more. Having not seen these rifles personally I can't confirm this. Also unclear to me is whether this fake rifling is typically aligned with the lands or the grooves.

I'm wondering if the original reason for the called decorative muzzle might also have the practical effect of allowing a little bit more lube to stay on the patch during the initial start down the bore.

My interest in this subject stems from wanting my rifle to have a correct historical appearance and still have the best possible accuracy and help others to do the same without destroying the accuracy that they're accustomed to.

Any personal experiences, especially from those who have compared their pre and post coning accuracy on paper will certainly be welcome.

[Longknife]

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



Full stock percussion rifle, with back action lock marked J.S. BOGG???  Muzzle measures .344 and tapers to a .320 bore in about 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.



Here is an interesting one marked W. Hawken I do not have any measurements on this one but I can tell from the pictures that it had an extremely deep coning job done to it.





In summary I do believe that it was a common and normal practice to "funnel" or "cone " the muzzle of every barrel made. These gunsmiths would not produce inaccurate rifles.....

[wattlebuster]

Last june I got in a new custom 62 that I had been waiting on for a while. The barrel was not coned. I tested quite a few loads off of sand bags and found the load I liked. Then I coned the barrel using Joe Woods cone tool just as the instructions said and I could not tell any difference in grouping. No better but no worse. Im not a target shooter so I dont micrometer my groups. All Im after when I cone is smooth loading. If I were a target shooter then I probably would'nt want to touch the muzzle of my barrel with anything but Im not. Im just a hunter and weekend stump/gong shooter so therefore all my rifles are coned. I am NOT suggesting to anyone to cone their barrel Im just telling my experiences with coned barrels on my rifles. If you want a coned barrel then go for it but if your not sure then I would stay away from it. Its all in what you want your gun to do.

[redheart]

Thanks for the great info Longknife!

I'm a bit surprised that most of the cones are quite short.
Perhaps this is one of the secrets to not losing your accuracy after coning, keeping the cone under 1/2" in depth.
It also seems like coning may help delay rod wear.

[redheart]

Last june I got in a new custom 62 that I had been waiting on for a while. The barrel was not coned. I tested quite a few loads off of sand bags and found the load I liked. Then I coned the barrel using Joe Woods cone tool just as the instructions said and I could not tell any difference in grouping. No better but no worse. Im not a target shooter so I dont micrometer my groups. All Im after when I cone is smooth loading. If I were a target shooter then I probably would'nt want to touch the muzzle of my barrel with anything but Im not. Im just a hunter and weekend stump/gong shooter so therefore all my rifles are coned. I am NOT suggesting to anyone to cone their barrel Im just telling my experiences with coned barrels on my rifles. If you want a coned barrel then go for it but if your not sure then I would stay away from it. Its all in what you want your gun to do.

Thanks for the info Wattlebuster

I hear this alot from guys that have used the Woods coning tool.
How deep did you make the cone and how much rifling did you leave at the tip of the muzzle?

[smallpatch]

I've coned nearly every rifle I've built in the last 5 or 6 years with a Joe Woods tool.  The overall cone is about 1" to 1 ½".
. I usually remove all bit the last remnants of the rifling. Some guys I know , leave a little, and still use a short starter on very tight target loads. Don't need to beat it in with a mallet,so it doesn't deform the ball so much.?!?
My understanding is that the new crown, is now where the cone begins, not at the muzzle. Leaves the muzzle free for decoration if desired. I.e. the hiney muzzle!!
I personally wouldn't be without a properly coned muzzle.
Your opinion may be different

[Kermit]

All of this adds up to a rifleman who was not as much concerned about MOA as he was about Minute of Indian/Deer.

And not a few were concerned about "minute of genocidal white European land grabbers.". 

[Blacksmoke]

As the "coning" debate is here again , I have decided to add some words from own experience - 30 yrs. of hand cut rifling hundreds of barrels and "proofing" them on a mechanical proofing bench which eliminates the human factor.   I have found that barrels with a tapered bore( larger at the breech and narrower at the muzzle) will shoot a tighter group than those with out.  Here I must admit that I have never proofed a barrel which has had the so called "coning" treatment.  In muzzle loading ballistics there are many variables which to consider with reason and experiment.  The only true way to answer the "coning" question is to test a number of coned barrels against those that are not on a "proofing bench".  As to the historic practice of muzzle treatment and "coning" there is a wide variety of examples still in existence to reference. However remember that today we want our muzzle loaders to shoot 1" groups to 100 yds. because of competition on the firing line.  Whilst the long rifle of yesteryear was not a gun made for competition so much as it was a tool for survival in the wilderness or frontier.
  To mention one of the main problems that muzzle loading shooters face is the choice of patch and lube.
In my experience the "blown patch" is a concern.  Today we tend to use a very tight ball and patch combination - such as a .495" ball surrounded with a  .015"patch  in a .500" bore. Without wiping between shots  you will have to hammer the next round down the bore.  This tight ball and patch combination will lend it self to torn or blown patches, not to mention ball deformation.  I have found that a .020" undersized ball and a thicker patch- .030 will work the best.
  Anyway before I blabber any further - the offer is still open to any one who wants to come and test barrels with me.  Accommodations and meals are provided free, all you will need is to provide your transportation here and some barrels to be tested and I will donate my time, for a week, powder and the proofing bench.  This would also be a kind of product review - very much like Larry Pletcher did with different lock times.   Any takers can contact me at : hjt65@hotmail.com   Sincerely,   Hugh Toenjes

[redheart]

I've coned nearly every rifle I've built in the last 5 or 6 years with a Joe Woods tool.  The overall cone is about 1" to 1 ½".
. I usually remove all bit the last remnants of the rifling. Some guys I know , leave a little, and still use a short starter on very tight target loads. Don't need to beat it in with a mallet,so it doesn't deform the ball so much.?!?
My understanding is that the new crown, is now where the cone begins, not at the muzzle. Leaves the muzzle free for decoration if desired. I.e. the hiney muzzle!!
I personally wouldn't be without a properly coned muzzle.
Your opinion may be different

Smallpatch,
Thanks for the info but, can you tell us what caliber and load you shoot, and what kind of accuracy you get

[wattlebuster]

Redheart I coned it just a little at a time. I kept trying the patch an ball until I got a easy thumb start and stopped there. That is all I try to achieve is a easy thumb start an the ramrod pushes it on down with just a little bit of pressure. There is still quite a bit of rifling at the muzzle but I have not measured it cause I did'nt see the need. It shoots and loads how I like a hunting rifle to shoot.  Thats the way I did all of my rifles as they are HUNTING rifles. If I were a target/line/bench shooter then I probably would not cone such a rifle as in my opinion there would not be a need to do so but its just my opinion an aint worth a cup of coffee

[smallpatch]

Redhart,
I've built at least 15, I'd have to go back and count for sure. They range from .32 to .60 caliber, and will all shoot better than I can hold them.
I'll post a photo of a .60 cal Getz, first 5 shots out of the barrel.  No load work up or sight adjustment.

Looks like it shoots pretty good to me.


Here's a photo of the "hiney muzzle" as Don Getz calls it.

[redheart]

Thanks smallpatch,
It's hard to argue with that kind of shootin!
I was afraid to ask what a hiney muzzle was, it sure is beautiful!
Did you use the Woods coning tool?

[smallpatch]

Red hart,
Yes, I've used Joe's cloning tools exclusively.
This was my first hiney muzzle, and not done perfectly, but the little scallops are supposed to look like little butts. Mine got flattened out a bit.