What is an Underhammer

[Runner]

It isn't about underhammers. It is about having a set of easy to interpret guidelines that don't take a lot of twists and turns to maintain a sane level playing field at the shoots. No one there is going to argue with you about it. This is allowed. That is not. That is why that date was used in the first place so that the guidelines would be before all of the crazy changes start. If they push the madness back before that date, then the quidelines have to be changed also. If you go to a 1790's woods walk with a half stock flinter, don't be upset when you are not allowed to participate with that gun. Same story. There is a group that is trying to push for everything that was ever made anywhere in any quantity before 1840 to be allowed at the shoots. They are grasping at straws and anything they can to justify the underhammer. One of the people that used to post here ripped me up one side and down the other about allowing period inlines to compete. He is still making rude remarks about anyone using a factory gun as of yesterday, and he is on the TMA board. The changes in muzzleloading in the last several years have almost destroyed the muzzleloader season here. I am very protective of the only place I know of where there is still sanity in full measure.

 

[Runner]

 

[Slamfire]

Well it really doesn't matter to me, as I don't attend rondys anyway. However, I'm sorry to hear that the 1803 Rifles will have to be eliminated from elegibility, jest to get them durned percussion rifles out of here.
:youcrazy:

 

[Zonie]

I guess I learned something.
I always thought the 1840 date was set because that was about the time of the last real rendezvous.
The beaver felt hat had fallen out of fashion and the fur prices had fallen thru the floor. The price beaver pelts brought weren't worth carrying them back to St Louis. I thought that was the significance of 1840.
Little did I know the date was selected to prohibit percussion guns like underhammers sidehammers and boxlocks from finding their way into the fur tradeing rendezvous.
(By the way, I don't think the 1800 date will work. I've seen numerous pictures of Flintlock Boxlock pistols which were in use before then.)

Anyhow, live and learn. :hmm:

 

[flm_shooter]

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED FROM THIS:

You know the old "one thousand monkeys + one thousand typewriters = (eventually) the complete works of Shakespeare"?

Now I know "one thousand muzzleloaders + one thousand forum posts = (eventually) finding something to be fanatical about".
:shake:

 

[Metalshaper]

Zonie,

Guess when I get my Jenks rifle built, I won't be able to attend any rondy's with it?? even if it was patented in 1838.. Not to mention, it's a loose powder and ball, breech loader thing :nono: and Heaven forbid.. the gol'dern thing is a Mule ear percussion! :blah:

I wonder what they'd think if I showed up with 'my' version of a spigot breech, underhammer.. like the one Ray sent me pictures of.. :hmm:

Guess maybe I should take these things a lil' more serious?? but then again, where's the fun in that :rotf:
Seriously I appreciate any info, that can be dug up on the Underhammers.. just wish there was more docmentation on Muley's..

Respect Always
< with a lil' tongue in cheek humor >
Metalshaper

 

[Denhill]

Jeez guys, this is a bit rough! The way things are going you are all going to be wandering around in the "Stone Age" because someone disagrees with some form of technology and the "date" it was "invented". The first (prototype) underhammer could well have sat on it's builders bench from 1799 because it didn't work all that well or the inventor died or something. Can this be proved? No. Can this be disproved? No.
When someone gets the Poos with percussion guns (because they like flintlocks or something) and wants them banned from your gatherings what's going to happen? Ban flintlocks? Then wheellocks?
Let's face it, black powder is for a select group of people who are prepared to put up with some inconvinience to persue their sport, just like vintage car owners.
My coment is....put aside your diferences and band together, otherwise your gatherings are going to consist of the same four people who can agree on what colour Davey Crocket's hat was.
Just my thoughts and not directed to anyone in particular.
Dennis (down under). :hmm:
Oh, I forgot (seniors moment again)! The pictures and history was GREAT and I really enjoyed it.
Now, can anyone explain what a mule ear lock is? We don't have many mules down here (I do have a donkey though) but I still can't work out the similatity.

 

[John Taylor]

A mule ear lock is one having the hammer go to the side with the nipple sticking strait out of the side of the barrel. If you took an under hammer and laid it on it's side you would get the idea of how the hammer moves. the mule ear or side slapper looks sort of like a standard back action but the hammer pivot is to the side insted of on top. Several years ago I made one out of a T/C flinter because I couldn't put every shot on a paper plate at 35 yards. While I was loading up for another shot a big tom turkey walked out of the brush about 20 yards from me and I thought a head shot was out of the question and a body shot with a .50 at that range wouldn't leave much meat. Fired that shot at the paper plate and walked 40 yards to the shop and started building a new lock. At the same time I put a longer half round/octagon barrel on. At least I can hit the plate now.
Most of the originals had the trigger pivot high in the stock so they would work the sear. On mine I put a bell crank in the lock so I could use the T/C set trigger. Also the main spring has a hole through the middle for the lock retainer screw. I took out very little wood for the new lock and the old flint lock can be put back in and work as before.

 

[Runner]

Not fanatical. I have a board member of the TMA busting my chops about allowing all that stuff at rendezvous before you allow the factory guns in. Not my idea to move the date back. It is a reality being forced by the TMA. A board member just posted that info is now on the Texas Land Grant site that was not there last night to support the underhammer argument. I am almost afraid to look. There is a group out there that is working to destroy the gatherings by getting underhammers, sideslappers, all box locks, certain inlines, and a host of other things admitted to the shoots. Their ideas of what is right are the only ones that count. I want no part of that. If that means moving back to fullstock flinters, that is a very small price.

 

[faw3]

I spent over a hour on this posting just to have it all go bye bye when I jumped back to see what someone said , so heres the fast and dirty truth..Smith was David Hillards brother in law, the Smiths Improved Patent Stud Lock was for a patent issued to Messrs,Bailey,Ripley and Smith for a" Repeating "firearm. Ohhh the wheels didnt fall off. Hillard worked for Nicanor Kendall who got his start makeing underhammers in the late 1820s from Asa Story. "in a unusal arrangement " Hillard along with William B Smith(him again) the "inside contractor" for Hillards firm in Windsor State Prison made several thousand underhammer rifles from 1835-42, ah the Texas contract!,(contact U of Texas at Austin for info on who used them ect they keep all that info), as Zonie I think put on they have Kendalls org records now as does the prision American Precision Museum has some and the rifleing mchs. Kendall got out in 42 , Hilliard and Smith bought the patent and moved to Cornish NH, all this time John Browning was useing the same lock for his Harmonic "underhammer" as was Hillard,all that patent does is change the lug inside. If your going to play mountainman youd be right about no underhammers except maybe the boot jobs, the uhs then are a northeastrn gun, used for hunting and target shooting, I roll up in a ball and" hide like a Dillow" when I think about the inline was around way before then, I dont get crazy about it I just stay away from them guys.So I dug all this up sitting here in a wheelchair on this thing I have no idea how to use and a phone , its just U.S. history nothing hidden, if someone taught you different now you know it right or you can go ck it for yourself. I still dont know what got this all started. I think I saw it was a Hawken thats flintlock?, ya I saw that yrs ago on a school trip to D.C. and the Hawken shop has it up on its site (or one of the other builders) you can tell it was a flintlock before they changed it, but nothing like the Hawken we all know and love. Enough my hair hurts too..this is plenty to get someone started if they really want to get into the underhammer story but it starts in Germany (they?think) a 100 yrs before,thats another story. :yakyak: :yakyak: :yakyak: :hatsoff: Fred

 

[lanedh]

Fred:

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! I've been searching off and on for the info about Smith and you provided a full measure. Also, knowing that Kendall went solo around 1842 helps me corroborate the build date I put to my my rifle, although I wonder if he serialized his from No. 1 when he opened under his own shingle and mine is #839--it's conceivable that with a crew of convicts making up piece parts and him assembling them in his shop, he could have cranked out a good volume in just a year or so. Most every one I've seen is a variation on a "standard" pattern.

As a technical writer, I cringe when I read your posts (punctuation and run-on sentences, ya know) but then when I read them to myself aloud they make sense--just teasing!!

Thanks again for doing all that leg-work (or is it wheel-work). I may be joining you soon--let's get together and do laps!! (Har-de-har)

Best, Dave

 

[Runner]

Thank you for posting the info I asked for!
The statement in the book was that they built thousands of guns, many of which were underhammers. It would appear that the 1840 date is not early enough to keep things simple.

 

[gmww]

Fred:

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! I've been searching off and on for the info about Smith and you provided a full measure. Also, knowing that Kendall went solo around 1842 helps me corroborate the build date I put to my my rifle, although I wonder if he serialized his from No. 1 when he opened under his own shingle and mine is #839--it's conceivable that with a crew of convicts making up piece parts and him assembling them in his shop, he could have cranked out a good volume in just a year or so. Most every one I've seen is a variation on a "standard" pattern.

As a technical writer, I cringe when I read your posts (punctuation and run-on sentences, ya know) but then when I read them to myself aloud they make sense--just teasing!!

Thanks again for doing all that leg-work (or is it wheel-work). I may be joining you soon--let's get together and do laps!! (Har-de-har)

Best, Dave

I'm at work now but when I get home I'll send you a photo of Aikens article from Muzzle Blast on Underhammers concerning the serial numbers. He also leaves his name and P.O. Box to be contacted about serial number before 100 and after 900. I didn't quite catch it all or maybe it didn't sink in but there was something about how they did the serial numbers back then.

 

[BS]

Not fanatical. I have a board member of the TMA busting my chops about allowing all that stuff at rendezvous before you allow the factory guns in. Not my idea to move the date back. It is a reality being forced by the TMA. A board member just posted that info is now on the Texas Land Grant site that was not there last night to support the underhammer argument. I am almost afraid to look. There is a group out there that is working to destroy the gatherings by getting underhammers, sideslappers, all box locks, certain inlines, and a host of other things admitted to the shoots. Their ideas of what is right are the only ones that count. I want no part of that. If that means moving back to fullstock flinters, that is a very small price.

The DESTROY is what I don't understand? If they were made in the period stated why not let them join? Especially with the drop off in participation, it seems that one would welcome them all!

Just cause they look different, they don't belong? That is foolish and stupid!

I feel the more the merrier!

 

[Metalshaper]

Now, can anyone explain what a mule ear lock is? We don't have many mules down here (I do have a donkey though) but I still can't work out the similatity. [/quote]>>>>

Hilly,

Here is Mine! Called "Miss Muley" cause when I first brought it out of the shop and took her to a shoot.. the one ol' Boy kept telling me " That sure is a pretty Miss, you have there!" < or maybe he meant my shooting ? :rotf: >

Hope it helps explain things!

Respect Always
Metalshaper

 

[gmww]

Fred:

Thank you, thank you, thank you!! I've been searching off and on for the info about Smith and you provided a full measure. Also, knowing that Kendall went solo around 1842 helps me corroborate the build date I put to my my rifle, although I wonder if he serialized his from No. 1 when he opened under his own shingle and mine is #839--it's conceivable that with a crew of convicts making up piece parts and him assembling them in his shop, he could have cranked out a good volume in just a year or so. Most every one I've seen is a variation on a "standard" pattern.

As a technical writer, I cringe when I read your posts (punctuation and run-on sentences, ya know) but then when I read them to myself aloud they make sense--just teasing!!

Thanks again for doing all that leg-work (or is it wheel-work). I may be joining you soon--let's get together and do laps!! (Har-de-har)

Best, Dave

Here are photos of a side bar that was in the Muzzle Blast I mentioned.

Not sure if the P.O.Box is still good. The article was written by Ken Aiken July 2001.

 

[gmww]

BS, I too am confused. I'm not a participant to any of those groups. I'm assuming since it is not about underhammers it must be about percussion vs. flint. Wouldn't it be easier to just have several different class matches. Flinter class, percussion class, open class? That way everyone can participate. Basically celebrating all guns available at the time. Maybe I'm just missing something here.

Is it about the period or is it about a particular gun that these folks get together? I had always thought it was period.

 

[BS]

BS, I too am confused. I'm not a participant to any of those groups. I'm assuming since it is not about underhammers it must be about percussion vs. flint. Wouldn't it be easier to just have several different class matches. Flinter class, percussion class, open class? That way everyone can participate. Basically celebrating all guns available at the time. Maybe I'm just missing something here.

Is it about the period or is it about a particular gun that these folks get together? I had always thought it was period.

I don't understand it either.......guess I will have to start including dates on my Receivers as I make them!

This is 1836, right? :bull:

Sorry, couldn't resist! :grin:

 

[Denhill]

Thanks Metalshaper, that is a really fine looking rifle you have there.Is the "mule ear" the bit standing up from the side plate? How does the system work, as in which way does the hammer travel, horizontally or vertically?
Dennis

 

[Metalshaper]

Hilly,

I thnk the name Mule Ear, came from the shape of the part that sticks up < more or less vertical >That allows you to cock the hammer?
The Muley or as some call them Side-slappers, work horizontaly. To move the hammer into the firing position, you swing the hammer sideways. Like the Underhammers, the percussion cone/nipple is threaded directly into the barrel. ignition is fast and very cosistant. unless something is really messed up, if the cap fires, the gun fires.

Thanks for the compliments on my Lil' Miss" and I hope I've helped answer your questions..

Respect Always
Metalshaper