Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Muzzleloaders You Know

I like that rifle

yeah just dont get your finger stuck under there LOL

I'd like it a lot more if it wasn't so damn ugly. Got no one to blame but me for that stock. That will be replaced one day however.

The one downside to an underhammer is shooting with a large, loose cuff on your left hand (for a righty). There can be some significant stimulation of your left wrist.

This rifle has 4 sets of sights. Two of which are operation when hunting. There are standard barrel sights (patridge rear sight) for shots 125 yds and in) and then a Lyman tang sight has been adapted to the wrist and set for 200 yds.

It also is set up to take a 25X Lyman STS or a Goodwin style vernier-calibrated tang sight that mounts in a whole in the side of the action for shooting out to The Grand as needed.

The front sight is a Lyman 17A fitted with a bubble level by Lee Shaver and generally a crosswire insert hunting. For long range, the crosswires are replaced with any one of a bunch of different lollipop apertures as needed for the current light and target set up.

That's just kinda the nature of underhammers, isn't it? Being ugly I mean. Is Zephyr still out there?

The 17A is a good, solid, simple, interchangeable aperature front sight. I didn't know Lee was installing a spirit level on them. That makes it even better. You have enough windage on your tang? Mine doesn't so when I got the front sight I purchased an MVA with windage. I can't say I'm familiar with the Goodwin, unless by another name.

I never got in to the long range muzzloaders but always admired them. The Pedersoli/Gibbs is probably the only one I could afford!! Be nice to come across a closet find Rigby or Billinghurst or even better than Billinghurst a James Morgan....as if that's going to happen to me! 90% of my long range shooting has been with BPCR's in the guise of a Shiloh #1 Sporter in 40-2.5 or a Shiloh Long Range Expres in 45-2.1, no longer own the latter rifle. The 40 beat up on it pretty good.

Well, Hilliard and Billinghurst made some beauties and while mine really could not be made truly handsome, it could have been a lot better.

Lee makes his own entirely from scratch now. But he used to modify the Lyman and it is a good sight. Bombproof for sure.

When I use the Goodwin style tang, it has 2" of windage. Or 100 minutes left and right of center. The Lyman Rem 14 sight has no windage. So, it is set for zero wind and hold off is required. Not a big deal a hunting sight to 300 yds generally.

YOu can build an underhammer pretty easily and a few guys have rebarreled various Lyman and TC half-stocks. So, there are several ways to go, though these half=stocks have a geometry that is not optimal to heavy recoil.

Brent

they dont have to be fuggly eather . there are some very ,VERY nicly done ones out there .

here is one i built for a customer a few years ago

Muzzle Loader porn! Looks great!

Beautiful work Cap! I bet they shoot as good as they look!

Indeed, proof positive that my rifle is uglier than it has to be. That is a very nice underhammer. Looks like an H&A action or is it a Deer Creek version. Mine is a bit different. The barrel screws on an it is an action make by the Blue Grouse guy.

Brent

the action on that one is also a blue grouse action brent .
made that one ??? 3 or 4 years ago

yours is as i recall the BG dedicated action . the one above is their interchangeable action

in all honesty , i know very little about under hammers past how to make and build them .
for such a simple rifle , they are very accurate

I forgot that Blue Grouse made them for pinned barrel mounting. Looks great. My does not move barrels easily. It rebarrels like a regular muzzleloader or breech loader. I thought that was a good way to go for a rifle that takes heavy charges and heavy bullets.

I'll steal some of your ideas to restock mine one day.

Brent

That's hideous.

Well done cap...as usual!

+1. Now if they'd only have been smart enough to make a bolt-action underhammer.......LOL

thank you for the kind words




it shouldn�t make a whole lot of difference concerning heavy charges with a heavy bullet .
A proper breech is still a proper breech .
now that being said . i do think the design yours uses, would be more accurate at longer distances.
The interchangeable receiver IMO is subject to wear . At the very least enough movement in the receiver to effect long distance shooting .
I would also submit that what a stock looks like is less important then proper fit and purpose
.
It would appear from what you have been saying here ,that your rifle is doing its job just fine . I wouldn�t personally change anything .

Good thing underhammer guns aren't traditional. They'd be popular and I'd have to poke my eyes out.

swampman , the under hammer is a design that ,,, well , it has to grow on you .
no doubt they are not slim and graceful like a nice fowler or long rifle .

But neither are modern designs . Simply put , there is nothing graceful or artistic about the flow or lines of the rem700 ml either.
But some folks like them . Myself though . I have yet to see a modern design that I didn�t think was hideous . Regardless of the effort put into restocking it .
But like the under hammer , some folks find them pleasing to the eye

But regardless of the looks , the under hammer has proven itself and is still in production
Last I heard , the Rem 700 ml is not and from what you have said here , , it would appear that you don�t own one .;)


as to traditional or not .

As I said before . I don�t know much about the under hammer . But I can tell you that the roots of the under hammer are Germanic and were flintlock and date to the early 18th century .
i also have read where The republic of Texas had a large contract in the mid to late 1830 to supply under hammers to their military

http://underhammers.blogspot.com/2007/03/underhammer-history-briefly.html

Interesting. I never thought much about underhammers one way or the other. After seeing these I'm thinking I might have to try one. Perfect example of the KISS principle!

cap, I'd have to agree with you in that they tend grow on you. For a description of the first one I saw hideous would have been appropriate. That was close to 40 years ago and they've grown on me. I think it was after reading an article on the Zephyr, I believe, that I began to take a second look at them. It had a very slow twist barrel, shallow rifling, something like 1-120 up to 1-170, large bore and consumed huge doses of powder. Seifried did an article on Forsyth rifles in DGJ and I believe they followed the same concept. I may be compelled to try one.

Roberts wasn't very keen on the underhammer for a few personal reasons, but, to each his own.

Underhammer are the quintessential American muzzleloader. It was and is a working gun for the most part. I have seem people make locks for both underhammer and mule ear locks that are completely primitive and jury rigged. Things like a bolt and a strap hinge can suffice for a lock.
Brent