Coning a barrel

[Shovelbuck]

have there been any bench rest studies done on the effect of coning?

Wasn't there a member here a year or so ago that ordered a barrel and was going to do this type of test? I sure seem to remember a post on that.

[Dphariss]

Unless you jigger it, a coned barrel should shoot no better/no worse than it did "un-coned" - all else being equal....

This has not been proven to be the case.
But everyone has their own accuracy expectations.
Here is a question that we might think about.
Why to the bench rest RB shooters often use FALSE MUZZLES? Installed at considerable expense. I suspect a couple of reasons, the flat muzzle shoots better and its impossible to ding the muzzle when loading.

The current "coning" craze is a modern construct invented/used by people with a fundamental misunderstanding of original rifles and how a ML RB rifle should be loaded for best accuracy.
Since the accuracy thing seems to still be in question here is an experiment. Since there are a number of people on this board who are within reasonable driving distance of Friendship they can go to the Fall Nationals and ask every shooter on the benchrest line about coning (AFTER THE MATCH!) and see how many of the WINNERS and even top 5 shooters have coned their barrels.
I bet I already know the answer.

I also find it hilarious that some with coned barrels report that they load as hard if not harder than unconed barrels.

Dan

[Bob Roller]

If funneling or "coning" were an asset to accuracy,I am sure that ALL the top makers
of match rifles in days long gone would have used the idea.Bill Large, to my knowledge
never made one with a funneled muzzle unless it was as an experiment to see if there was
any merit to the idea.Harry Pope who was not a maker of round ball guns said that the base
of the bullet and the muzzle were what steered the bullet.Prove him wrong if you can.
False muzzles are what Dan said they are,they protect the real muzzle from damage and also
expose a sharp,90 degree angle to regulate gas escape when the gun is fired.
One every (what few really)guns I have made,the first thing I do after the first shot is to look at the muzzle
and look for a star burst pattern from the grooves and if it's uniform,I consider it a good finish of the
muzzle and if not,out comes the crowning ball and the old hand cranked drill.Today,I'd take my battery
powered drill but back in "the day"the old geared hand cranked drill was all I had.
When Bill Large was active and at his peak,he expected a really good shooter to make a 4 leaf clover with 5 shots at 100 yards with his barrels and I am one of those who was able to do that and there were others who did it as well.


Bob Roller

[Dphariss]

Has anyone ran any groups befour and after coning?

A friend and I were considering it. But given what was already written here by people with accuracy issues and hard loading it simply died from lack of interest.  Partly because its simply silly and a waste of time. See my other post from this AM.
As I keep saying. Coning as done today is a modern construct.
What reamer would they use to cone this for example? Assuming its coned.



But nobody really pays any attention to old rifle BORES. Bill Large and the people that were recutting old barrels in the 1930s-40s are all gone.
There is an answer to how old barrels were crowned/coned though.
Someone should buy a set of plug gages in .001 increments from maybe .250 to .650 ( this is only 400 gages) a reasonably accurate depth gage, a dial or digital caliper would work then go around and plug every old rifle they find and see how they are "coned". Put in a plug and see how deep it goes then try one .001 larger/smaller etc etc etc. Of course the plug gages are going to cost something in the realm of $3000 but hey we need to know right? Actually they should be in .0005 increments but then it would cost twice as much.
I think this is far better than me wasting my time and money on the project. It would also give an accurate list of bore sizes rather than guessing which seems to be the standard with most old Kentuckys.

Dan

[Robby]

Coning, and the Golden Mean, all in one topic!!! This should take us well into the new year!!!
Robby

[rich pierce]

Before a heated discussion of the pro's and con's of muzzle coning develops, have there been any bench rest studies done on the effect of coning?

Thanks to Larry Pletcher's high speed flint ignition studies, we have the science on the value of a coned touch hole.

Tom, there are so many variables involved in coning, loading and bench shooting that it is unlikely anyone will ever do a test that results in statistically relevant data.  I'd want a minimum of 4 or 5 calibers tested, at least 6 coning operations for each caliber, and blinded shooters testing the barrels for accuracy (handed scope sighted loaded guns).  A minimum of 5, 5 shot groups at 100 yards per barrel, same weather.  Hard to achieve and what's the payoff?

[Long Ears]

With what Rich said all we have here is everyones personal opinions that are not supported by much more than their individual experience, some more than others. Some talk louder than others is the main difference. The cool part of this forum is the user gets what they ask for, some opinions. They have the option to do as he or she chooses. Between this and the Golden Mean nobody knows for sure.. Good stuff and thanks! Bob

[Acer Saccharum]

Nobody pays attention to old bores......

[Jim Kibler]

Unless you jigger it, a coned barrel should shoot no better/no worse than it did "un-coned" - all else being equal....

This has not been proven to be the case.
But everyone has their own accuracy expectations.
Here is a question that we might think about.
Why to the bench rest RB shooters often use FALSE MUZZLES? Installed at considerable expense. I suspect a couple of reasons, the flat muzzle shoots better and its impossible to ding the muzzle when loading.

The current "coning" craze is a modern construct invented/used by people with a fundamental misunderstanding of original rifles and how a ML RB rifle should be loaded for best accuracy.
Since the accuracy thing seems to still be in question here is an experiment. Since there are a number of people on this board who are within reasonable driving distance of Friendship they can go to the Fall Nationals and ask every shooter on the benchrest line about coning (AFTER THE MATCH!) and see how many of the WINNERS and even top 5 shooters have coned their barrels.
I bet I already know the answer.

I also find it hilarious that some with coned barrels report that they load as hard if not harder than unconed barrels.

Dan

Stating that coning is a "modern construct" seems to be pretty presumptuous considering your apparent  degree of exposure to original longrifles.  Yes, it is a debated topic, but there are those who have been exposed to MANY original guns, are capable of carefully and accurately measuring bore diameter as a function of depth and have concluded coning was present in some cases.  I have not personally taken careful measurements, but I have seen original barrels where the appearance left me with little doubt that coning was present.  Now, feel free to tell me that this isn't something that can be judged by eye.  But before you do that, present your data (measurements) showing coning didn't exist.  You have drawn your own conclusions as well.

Jim

[Tim Crosby]

Is Ed Hamberg still selling his coning tool?

Email or links please?

JonS

   http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=4330.msg40386#msg40386


   Tim C.

[jolasa]

Thanks for the link.

Ed Hamberg not answering emails about his coning tool.

Anybody know of someone else selling coning tools?

OR

Does anyone have a coning tool they will rent to me? 
I will pay postage both ways, and make a returnable security deposit. 
Ed Hamberg model preferred, but others if they work well.

JonS

[Bill of the 45th]

Ed's tools are caliber specific.  I have a .54  cal available if thats the size you need.

Bill

[Acer Saccharum]

FYI, this thread started in 2009, and was only revived recently. Some of the '09 info may be outdated.

[Flint62Smoothie]

Test of '1', but I did test a 32" barrel 50-cal 1-66" twist heavy barrel percussion, with a 10X Unertl scope mounted, before and after coning and the groups didn't change. But ease of loading sure did!

This was done long before forums were popular, so no results to show or post, other than anecdotal ... no idea where the targets are post-splitting the house - she got the inside, I got the outside .

[Don Getz]

Joe Wood down in Amarillo, Tex. has been making a neat coning tool for years, however, they are calibre specific.  We started
to do coning back in the early 80's for John Bivins, and after seeing one finished by him, I cheated or copied his method of
finishing them.  That is where I coined the term "hiny muzzle", because when you look at the fancy lands they kind of remind
you of a baby's butt............Don

[jolasa]

Here is a decorative coning job on my 54 cal David Price swivel breech rifle.

See his work here:
http://www.davidpriceflintlocks.com/

JonS

[jolasa]

Just received an email reply from Ed Hamberg.

Yes, he is still making his universal coning tool for $45.00.

The only option is: 8-32 or 10-32 jag threads.

His email is:
longknife1776@sbcglobal.net

JonS

[Dphariss]

Unless you jigger it, a coned barrel should shoot no better/no worse than it did "un-coned" - all else being equal....

This has not been proven to be the case.
But everyone has their own accuracy expectations.
Here is a question that we might think about.
Why to the bench rest RB shooters often use FALSE MUZZLES? Installed at considerable expense. I suspect a couple of reasons, the flat muzzle shoots better and its impossible to ding the muzzle when loading.

The current "coning" craze is a modern construct invented/used by people with a fundamental misunderstanding of original rifles and how a ML RB rifle should be loaded for best accuracy.
Since the accuracy thing seems to still be in question here is an experiment. Since there are a number of people on this board who are within reasonable driving distance of Friendship they can go to the Fall Nationals and ask every shooter on the benchrest line about coning (AFTER THE MATCH!) and see how many of the WINNERS and even top 5 shooters have coned their barrels.
I bet I already know the answer.

I also find it hilarious that some with coned barrels report that they load as hard if not harder than unconed barrels.

Dan

Stating that coning is a "modern construct" seems to be pretty presumptuous considering your apparent  degree of exposure to original longrifles.  Yes, it is a debated topic, but there are those who have been exposed to MANY original guns, are capable of carefully and accurately measuring bore diameter as a function of depth and have concluded coning was present in some cases.  I have not personally taken careful measurements, but I have seen original barrels where the appearance left me with little doubt that coning was present.  Now, feel free to tell me that this isn't something that can be judged by eye.  But before you do that, present your data (measurements) showing coning didn't exist.  You have drawn your own conclusions as well.

Jim

From John Baird's "Hawken Rifles" pg 42.


I assume the measurements were by Tom Dawson.

 
Dan