Underhammer traditional?

[madbrad]

Ghost brings up many good points this problem is not limited to this sport but most other online forums about guns. I cant look at the SASS wire any more, no one actually discusses anything, and many of the formus on Gunboards ect are controlled by a few people who attack anyone who puts in their opinion that is not inline with theirs.

 

Here they put ya on the "IGNORE" list. Some folks don't want an exchange of ideas they want siccaphants to boost their egos. Personally, I have no use for the IGNORE button or even calling people names and other insults and accusations. If grown men can't write each other and have differing opinions, then what's the use of having a forum where ideas can be discussed and debated. Documentation means nothing to some. Their own private little agenda is all that matters and there is no room for any other opinion so out comes the IGNORE button. :shake:

 

[gmww]

Greetings Madbrad, Javaman. Ghost makes some generalities and truisms about the ML sport and in particular people on this forum. Some of which attaches labels. Narcism, Oppositional Defiant Disorders, etc. etc.

Many of the people posting here could not make it in the real world of sanctioned events where your gun goes on a scale, stocks must pass through a template and trigger pulls are weighed.

It is not that they can't do it, they just will not have anyone telling them what to do. The technical term is Oppositional Defiant Disorder!

How many times have we seen the posts... "Ain't nobody telling me my gun ain't traditional!!"

Being the author of this thread questioning why someone would say the underhammer is not traditional I can only assume some of the above statement was directed here. I'm reluctant to attach labels as it inevitably alienates folks. This is unacceptable in my book to constructive conversation.

This thread is not about generalities, truisms, or characterizing what type of person one may or may not be. This is not about disorders or being narcistic. It is not about templates, trigger pulls or how often one goes to the range.

This thread questions why mis-information is being posted about underhammers that comes up from time to time. Can we please try and keep it focused on that?

Opinions are fine to put out. However, IMHO we should be responsible to have some basis of facts to support statements about history. Being one that is passionate about underhammers I find it disheartening when generalities about that passion is posted as the truth when historical facts shows otherwise.

There is not much information on underhammers and mis-information posted as fact shows up from time to time filling in the gaps. The same probably holds true for other guns I suspect. I would anticipate those passionate about those guns would also protest.

I don't consider myself an expert on the subject. However my up bringing and occupation requires that I get facts as accurate as all possible. I'm just another ML enthusiast who likes underhammers and wants the facts put forth. Is it too much to ask for all of us to be more responsible with facts?

 

[gmww]

Oh Redfeather, funny thing you mentioned Billinghurst. According to Herschel C. Logan the author of The pictorial History of the Underhammer, WM. Billinghurst built underhammers from 1830-1880.

 

[Swampman]

"Many of the people posting here could not make it in the real world of sanctioned events"

Who would want to?

I don't like underhammers, but I don't care if others do. They aren't very attractive, and that's why I don't like them. I guess some folks like that look.

 

[John Taylor]

They aren't very attractive, and that's why I don't like them. I guess some folks like that look. [/quote]

They are almost as good as eye candy, what's not to like :grin:

 

[WV_Hillbilly]

Ghost,

Good post. That's why the rules at our club are patched round ball, open sights.

A person can show up with any version of ML they want, as long as they follow the two rules above.

Those same two rules are true at the muzzleloader matches where I attend. Just about "anything" can meet those two qualifications. I've seen quite a variety.

Other than competitive shooting and meeting hunting regulations... where are the complaints about the underhammers' legitimacy coming from...?

I guess I didn't realize the problem was such an huge issue...?!?! I'd rather spend the time shooting than arguing. Now that the warmer weather is here, wouldn't y'all want to do that as well?

Regards, and shoot safely,
WV_Hillbilly

 

I guess I didn't realize the problem was such an huge issue...?!?!

Sometimes there isn't an issue, until someone starts a thread with... "You know what bothers me"? :grin:

 

[gmww]

Hello WV Hillbilly. I would call the underhammer mis-information more of Urban myth that keeps popping up from time to time. Therefore, I would call it an irritant more than a big deal.

 

John, those are really cool looking pistols. I wouldn't mind having a brace of those in my sash. Thanks for showing us those fine works of art. Simply elegant. What is the date on a set like that. Any history on those would be appreciated.
Thanks!

 

Sometimes there is an issue but it is missed because we didn't read the original postings. Maybe if you check the archives it will bring you up to speed. :grin: :grin:

 

[John Taylor]

A customer brought them by a few days ago along with a bunch more. I took pictures of them but some of the pics didn't come out all that great. Here's another set

and a couple more with some tube sights and sholder stocks , one with the ram rod between the sight and barrel

The owner said he got them from another guy that makes them. All made in the last 30 years. Some of the locks have a separate sear so there are 3 moving parts. If I ever get time I will make a few.

 

[MRW]

Ok now we are getting somewhere Is it possible for you to get a bit more detailed pic of those tube sights!!!!!! I'd love to make one up and put it on that scratch built buggy of mine also any close ups of how the skeleton stocks attach would be great as well those pics you posted are great only problem is "us" chop shop hackers are always wanting close ups of details.

 

Sometimes there is an issue but it is missed because we didn't read the original postings. Maybe if you check the archives it will bring you up to speed. :grin: :grin:

I think the point is, if it's not a current problem, why drag it back up? Can't we leave well enough alone? :shake:

 

Dale, here's the deal. GMWW has a valid point. That's the point! Imagine that someone says the style of authenticated rifle you prefer to shoot is not authentic. That would probably get your burr up. In fact, as much as you like to argue, I would bet on that fact. Now....until an issue is resolved it IS an issue. If you don't care about this thread and it is a non-issue with you...why do you continue to read it and post to it. What is your agenda?

Bottom line is.. Underhammers, side locks, mule ears, flintlocks, miquelets, snaphaunce, wheelloocks, are all traditional and authentic styles of firearms.
I hope this helps you some.

 

[marwat06]

I see the same issue come up among Traditional Archers also; everyone has there definition of "Traditional".

 

[gmww]

Hello mwindy. It's the off the cuff mis-leading statements about actual facts that come out from time to time that are annoying. As I've said before, it would be nice if we would be responsible and post accurate facts when it comes to such things especially history. It's just being responsible for what you put out there as facts.
:thumbsup:

 

Underhammers, The Rodney Dangerfield of Traditional muzzleloaders. Kinda like a LaSalle, at a vintage Ford show. :winking: Bill

 

[gmww]

:rotf:

As much as I love them, I've seen some really ugly ones out there. :rotf:

 

Imagine that someone says the style of authenticated rifle you prefer to shoot is not authentic. That would probably get your burr up.

Sure it would, but I don't see tnat happening here. All I see is everyone agreeing that underhammers are traditional. I don't see the dissension that everyine's complaining about, that's all.

If you don't care about this thread and it is a non-issue with you...why do you continue to read it and post to it?

I do care about under-hammers being considered traditional, I just don't see anyone disagreeing with that point of view. It's as if the intent of this thread is to prod someone into saying they aren't traditional, but no one is taking the bait.

Bottom line is.. Underhammers, side locks, mule ears, flintlocks, miquelets, snaphaunce, wheelloocks, are all traditional and authentic styles of firearms.
I hope this helps you some.

I require no help, thank you. I agree and I don't see anyone disagreeing. You guys are preaching to the choir.