|
|
Post by Packdog on Jul 13, 2004 14:19:05 GMT -5
I been doing a little checking into this lately and wondered what others have experienced? Anybody coned a barrel and what tool did you use. If you had to do it agin would you still cone one? or did it effect accuracy?
Packdog
|
|
|
|
Post by Fatdutchman on Jul 13, 2004 15:02:58 GMT -5
I haven't coned one YET, but fully intend to do the next one. I have to get me one of the little gizmos from Joe Wood. I have heard and read a lot from people who have done it, and SO FAR, I have seen no reports of adverse accuracy.
|
|
Doc
Spike
Posts: 13
|
Post by Doc on Jul 13, 2004 22:48:44 GMT -5
Hey Packdog.
I have not done one yet, but if you notice on the thread on What are you building now, I plan on coning the barrel I will use on the 45cal Southern rifle I am building. I will use this gun only in the field. I will cone it for easy loading purposes only. I do not think I would cone one for range or competion use. You will get feedback on both ends of the spectrum. I personally think a target or range gun does not need it, because of the use of a short starter. In the field I can see the advantage. I have heard both pros and cons on the issue, but I feel on a gun used in the field it can be an advantage, but no reason to do one used at the range.
JMHO
Doc Will
Keep Yer Powder Dry
|
|
|
|
Post by Packdog on Jul 13, 2004 22:51:16 GMT -5
Chris, I haven't heard anybody say they have screwed on up yet. Just seems wrong to stick anything down the barrel with sandpaper on it after wprking so hard to protect it with stainless rods and bore guides. I hear a lot of originals were coned. Do you think they were all coned or can some be atributed to normal wear from loading and cleaning?
Packdog
|
|
|
|
Post by Fatdutchman on Jul 14, 2004 17:00:23 GMT -5
If you have an old one and it looks like it could have been coned, it likely was. By the time an old American gun makes its way to me, the barrels are in pretty rough shape, and other than seeing that it may be rifled with 7 round, fairly dep grooves, or whatever, I usually cannot tell much more than that. Very heavily pitted out. With German guns, however, which very often (but by no means, always) are in better shape, you can more readily see the coning. The bores are coned and the grooves are also filed out to match...the bores do not fade out at the muzzle...those grooves are deepened too. Those who have had more experience with Longrifles tell me that that's the way they're done also. The muzzles generally seem to be cut off square as well...no beveling or "crowning".
|
|
|
|
Post by Packdog1 on Jul 14, 2004 17:44:47 GMT -5
Do you think filing the grooves back in has any effect or just for looks? I have read a post from Don Getz saying he filed the grooves back in on something he had coned. If memory serves me, he did it for looks.
Packdog
|
|
|
|
Post by Fatdutchman on Jul 14, 2004 20:58:09 GMT -5
I figger that after it reaches the coned section, that's it. the barrel is not gonna have much more effect on the ball. It's for looks, and it looks cool!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by mamaflinter on Jul 14, 2004 23:50:36 GMT -5
I'm assuming by "cone" you mean "crown".
When we built my vernor, it was crowned. However after we got to shooting it, we realized (by my daughter's unintentional dryballing) that the crown was cutting the patches (large slices) upon loading. Doug took a chamfer tool and just touched up the crown to remove any burrs that might be on it but that we couldn't see. The patches then quit being sliced.
Be very careful when crowning a barrel. Go slow and take your time. It's easy to take the metal off but a pain to try to put back on.
|
|
|
|
Post by packdog1 on Jul 15, 2004 10:25:31 GMT -5
Mamaflinter,
I may not be the best to explain this as I'm gathering information myself. Basically, coning extends 1" to 2" down into the barrel from the muzzle. Imagine the crown gently tapering to bore diameter rather than being abrupt. It allows the ball to be loaded without a short starter, only using thumb presure to start it. If this is incorrect, please someone else jump in here.
Packdog
|
|
|
|
Post by Fatdutchman on Jul 15, 2004 15:24:32 GMT -5
I don't think I would consider a cone to be a type of crown. A cone is basically where the bore is flared near the muzzle (kinda like the outside of the barrel!!!). While I doubt it is the best thing for a super-duper target rifle, it should be perfectly fine for a "real" rifle. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by oldways on Aug 17, 2004 14:19:16 GMT -5
I have coned barrels and am very pleased witht he results. It did not affect accuracy in a negative way and it is much easier to load, no short starter at all. It took about a hour start to finish and I think it is well worth it. The cost of the tool is not out of line and can be used over again.
|
|
|
|
Post by packdog1 on Aug 17, 2004 15:39:56 GMT -5
Did you use Joe Woods tools?
Packdog
|
|
|
|
Post by oldways on Aug 18, 2004 21:08:55 GMT -5
Yes, I used the tools from Mr. Woods. I believe they were 38 dollars delivered for each caliber. One of the better purchases I have made in a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by DonSteele on Oct 15, 2004 14:44:16 GMT -5
Coned and crowned...two very different things.
My longrifle was coned when I got it. I can't say that it affected accuracy either way since I never shot it before it was coned. Having said that...I would not want another coned barrel, and will NOT cone any of the ones I currently own. 99% of my shooting is done at a range, or if in the field...under conditions where a rapid reload, w/out short starter isn't necessary. I carry a small short starter in my possibles bag when Deer hunting and have had to make a follow-up shot. Not a big deal...Perhaps I'm too old-fashioned about my barrels...but I"ve been raised to rerspect and protect the crown, and to appreciate it's affect on bullet flight, and I can't seem to get that outta my thinking.
If I was building a rifle to shoot EXCLUSIVELY in the field, and planned to use a relatively loose patch/ball combination...perhaps I"d want that one coned.
|
|
