The Underhammer Rifle - a book for builders.

So many of us muzzleloaders are certainly DIYers and we tend to make a lot of our own shooting gear such as buckskins, knives, powder horns, hawks, tents, tepees, and many of us are casting our own bullets, too. We tend to really get involved with our sport to the point where it is more a lifestyle than a mere pastime. Sometimes this condition can carry over into the rest of our life, perhaps, to the chagrin of our family. Like the guy who showed up at work in his buckskins on casual Friday…

I guess it is a basic sense of self-sufficiency and independence that motivates us to want to do such things for ourselves exactly as we want them done. It's either that or the shrink may have been right about us having “control issues.” Either way, we are what we are, and for the most part we are doers – perhaps, better stated as "highly-motivated."

I like that. Certainly sounds better than having control issues.

For many, being self-sufficient also means that we would like to make our own guns - if possible. At least one, anyway. And I believe that is a good endeavor to pursue, as the novice gunmaker will be left with a sense of appreciation for the work of those who do this for a living. Perhaps they will even come to understand why good quality underhammer rifles command as much money as good quality sidelock guns.

While there are quite a number of good kits and individual parts available for those wishing to replicate some form of sidelock gun, slim pickings are available for those who wish to build themselves an underhammer rifle, pistol, or shotgun.

Although generally considered to be ridiculously simple, little is actually known of the mechanics of underhammers because few shooters have had the opportunity to take one apart and study the design, geometry, and function of even the simple and common types of underhammer mechanisms.

Thanks to the work of Jeff Baron, we now have a better sense of underhammer lock design. Jeff put together 30 pages of drawings and construction tips in his book, The Underhammer Rifle, techniques and illustrations for the construction of Underhammer Locks.

As a teaser, the sample page below depicts the quality and extent of detail in his drawings. You can click the pic for a closer view, then click the Back button to return to the text.

For a mere $8 this little book is jam-packed with detailed drawings for seven underhammer actions, including the designs of Cooper, Wood, Cook, Hilliard, Carleton and Chase. They span the range from super simple, such as the Wood, to rather involved, such as the Carleton.

The instructions and diagrams are such that most any good craftsman could build an underhammer action with basic shop tools and Jeff’s book. However, one should have an understanding of basic lockwork geometry in order to build an underhammer mechanism that provides the level of safety that its original designer had intended. Simply having a drawing and some basic dimensions does not guarantee that you will be creating a lock with safe and efficient sear angles, pivot points, and spring tensions.

Before charging off to the workshop with book in hand, it would be a good idea to study the design you wish to replicate. Analytically consider mechanical principles that govern the captivation of the hammer, the trigger/sear arc, sear depth, pivot pin tolerances, and other mechanical aspects, as you study the drawing. With a bit of careful observation, you may even see the improvements that each of the designs offer which you could then incorporate into your project.

If you are new to the gunmaking craft, once you’ve completed your action, it would be a good idea to have a qualified gunsmith or gunmaker inspect your work to be sure that you have a safe and sturdy mechanism before investing a lot of time and expense in building the rest of your rifle.

While this book is a great resource and inspiration for budding underhammer makers, I do have one major concern with it. All of the actions depicted do not incorporate a half-cock, or safety notch, as some call it. And while true, the author is depicting old designs, in my opinion that is no excuse for building what is considered by modern standards to be an unsafe firearm.

If one wishes to build for one’s own use that certainly is one's choice. But beware if and when you may tire of it and sell or trade such an item to another, as the liability you are assuming as its maker is horrendous indeed.

Luckily, there is a solution for providing an extra measure of safety and peace of mind while shooting those older-design underhammers. You can read all about it in the previous post below.

The Underhammer Rifle, techniques and illustrations for the construction of Underhammer Locks is listed by Dixie Gun Works as Item: BO1982 and may be purchased from their site at: www.dixiegunworks.com. You can also snoop around the Dixie site while you're there for some of the other parts you'll need to build and finish your new underhammer.

Go forth and build, enjoy, and please, be safe!

.

Underhammer safety. Low-tech to the rescue.

As unique, diverse, and innovative as underhammer firearms are, there is one feature that is common to most otherwise great designs that is a glaring flaw. It's a design defect by modern standards that would provide a field day for product liability attorneys and result in the rejection of the firearm design by product liability insurers. That is the lack of a half-cock or safety notch in the hammer.

It would seem that a solution to this very unsafe condition might be rather complicated, perhaps involving modification of the hammer, trigger, or both. Certainly alterations that would negatively impact the value of a shootable collectible.

For the target shooter this is not too much of a problem as his normal regimen is to simply cock the hammer, cap the nipple and immediately fire the shot.

However, if one is carrying such an underhammer arm in the field there are few options for safely carrying. One could carry the arm with the hammer cocked and the nipple left uncapped. At the sight of target or game, the nipple could then be capped and the shot taken. Not really practical as one should be focusing on the game, but instead is fishing for a relatively tiny cap – perhaps doing so with cold, stiff, and maybe even wet fingers – and then attempting to carefully and accurately seat it firmly on the nipple. Then find the game - again - and take the shot. Yes, you could use a capper to speed things up a bit, but still a considerable delay and distraction is involved.

Been there, done that; it’s slow and not really practical in most instances.

One could also cap the nipple and gently lower the hammer onto the cap and pray that the hammer is not inadvertently struck by dropping the gun or by bumping into some object along the trail, perhaps as the result of tripping and falling, thereby firing the gun. Have done that one, too. Convinced myself that it would be okay 'cause I'm a rather careful kind of guy. Thankfully there was no falling, nor any accidental discharge. But I was walking on eggshells the whole time the hammer was resting on the cap. I think Murphy had that weekend off and I was very lucky.

Hard on the nerves, unsafe; so not really practical, either.

It was a totally unrelated incident on the game trail that inspired the solution to the dilemma of carrying an underhammer in an unsafe mode. I’ll spare you the gory details, but suffice it to say that it was a broken twig that rendered my rifle inoperative that flipped on the light for me.

The solution is so cheap and easy that there is now no excuse for carrying your underhammer in an unsafe condition if it was not designed with a safety notch.

Simply purchase a half-inch diameter wooden dowel (or if you’re really cheap whittle a twig) and cut it into 5/8” to ¾” lengths. Then cut or whittle a shallow notch on one side of each piece as shown in the sketch.

After you’ve loaded and capped the gun, the idea is to use the dowel as a hammer block. That will allow you to cap the nipple and carry the gun with the hammer resting upon the dowel and not on the capped nipple. The hammer rests in the notch in the dowel while pushing it up against the bottom flat of the barrel, thus keeping the hammer off the cap.

When the big moment arrives, you simply cock the hammer and the dowel will usually fall free and away from the gun as you bring it to aim.

BTW, there is no need to pick up your used dowels as they are, after all, “green” and will naturally decompose into the environment. (Who says shooters aren’t green conscious?) Carry a few of them in your pocket and you're good for the day.

You may have to adjust the notch or even the diameter of the dowel to get the proper “fit” between the hammer and the bottom of the barrel on your particular style of underhammer to achieve that all important clearance between hammer and cap.

In case you haven’t figured it out, the notch just keeps the dowel snugly in place. In making yours, one thing to be aware of is the shallow nature of the notch. If it’s too deep and narrow, the hammer could become wedged in the notch and the dowel will not fall free of the hammer when it is drawn to cock. On the other hand, if the notch is too shallow, the dowel may be coaxed out of position by Murphy’s Law leaving you in a rather dangerous condition. Experiment a bit and you’ll figure it out.

So, there you have it - cheap and easy. Once again, Low-Tech reigns triumphant.

.

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to the blog...

Recently I received a wonderful book containing over 100 pages of well-researched, tested, and detailed information and illustrations regarding one of history's best kept secrets. While not specifically 'underhammer' in nature, I believe the information contained within it to be of such significance to all of us muzzleloaders that it's being featured here.

Truly this book provides a tremendous wealth of information that will be of value to anyone interested in firearms as the information represents the very genesis of our sport and was the springboard for the whole industrial revolution. On a scale of importance to the development of civilization, the information it provides is akin to the discovery of fire.

I wrote a review of the book with the intention of sharing the information with our readers. However, when I clicked the button on the blog composer to actually publish the review to the web, Google's computer system IMMEDIATELY recognized the subject matter and refused to publish the review. It posted an orange Error Message that stated that my post was refused for (inappropriate) content.

Thinking that this was just a minor snafu - a problem with incorrect punctuation marks, perhaps, which can sometimes confuse the html editor - I edited and resubmitted the text. Again, the Error message INSTANTLY appeared. For over two hours I edited and re-edited the script and title into every conceivable form so as not to offend the Google computer's sense of appropriateness and every time it flashed the same message as if to say, NO, WE WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO SHARE THAT KIND OF INFORMATION! It actually remembered the syntax and the subject matter and refused to accept ANY revision of the original material.

Perhaps now you understand why this "review" is so ambiguous. That computer is damn smart and recognizes not only words, but THOUGHTS. At first I figured there was some geeky kid at Google who was reviewing my material and sat in judgment only to give it a thumbs down verdict. But, no, after further consideration I realized that the review was too lengthy for anyone to INSTANTLY recognize and respond to the post. Only a computer could read and think that fast.

Frustrated with the situation, and dog tired (it was 1:30 am), I decided to call it a day and try again in the morning, although I didn't quite know what I might try.

During my wake-up coffee I received an inspiration to try another approach. I scanned the cover of the book and converted it to a j-peg image which I then uploaded into the blog composer as a picture instead of readable text from the night before.

Bingo! It worked. Luckily the mind of Google apparently cannot read the text compiled within a j-peg graphic as it did not refuse to publish the photo of the book's cover - which pretty much tells the story.

Checkmate, HAL.

I sincerely believe that the authors of the book (sorry, the computer remembers their names, and I'm not taking any chances of having this post censored, too) have contributed tremendously to our understanding of a subject that has remained shrouded in mystery for nearly a thousand years. Apparently there are still those who would prefer that it remain that way as they obviously don't want you to have this book.

At $39.97 I believe it to be a bargain considering the wealth of information contained within. To place an order and learn of other interesting books offered by L&R Publishing Company, please visit www.blackpowdernet.com for more details. For those who would like to read my review, please contact me at: underhammers@safe-mail.net and I'll be happy to e-mail the full review to you.

The story you have just read is true. The names have been withheld to protect the innocent - but mostly to put one over on Google's computer.

Follow up: Thinking that perhaps because I tried publishing late that night (now four days ago) while Google may have been performing some kind of internal maintenance, and that perhaps their system was down and just couldn't respond to my input, I again tried to publish the most tame revision of the review and it was immediately refused - again. So, it seems pretty obvious now that they really don't want me to share this information with you.

Perhaps some validation to any conspiracy theorists among you.

.

Gurtek goes low-tech.

Many believe that it is an appreciation of a simple, efficient, yet low-tech approach to certain aspects of life that keeps us playing with muzzleloaders at a time when most everyone else seeks quicker, easier and cheaper ways of getting through life. For the most part we’re not looking for the high-tech, easy, time-saving manner of burning powder and sending lead down range. We are those who choose the road less traveled. We prefer the slower, low-tech, certainly old-tech, road where we may shoot less but we enjoy it more. When it comes to technology, for many of us the saying that “less is more” certainly applies. More times than not we prefer low-tech and that’s one reason why we admire underhammer guns – simple, efficient and low-tech.

Brent Gurtek is also such a man and we thank him for sharing some photos of his first underhammer project. In a phone interview with this full time gunmaker, he said his usual work consists of Kentucky rifles and similar side-locked firearms of the 1750-1850-period. However, he always harbored a love for underhammer sporting arms. Recently he decided to finally take the plunge into the pool of underhammer makers. He brought his experience with longrifles to the bench to create this unique underhammer which exudes the innovative design and flavor of an original piece of the early 19^th century.



Brent said that his rifle wears a 36-inch octagonal, straight-tapered (1" - 7/8") .50-caliber round-ball barrel by Ed Rayl. The tapered barrel lends a wonderful sense of balance to the finished rifle, both in handling characteristics as well as aesthetics, and unbeknownst to many, it also provides superior accuracy.

The case-hardened action is made by Charles Bowers and features the simple logic of the time-honored triggerguard/mainspring construction. The Bowers action uses Allen screws (unfortunately) to secure the barrel/receiver connection for ease of take-down and barrel swapping for those who are inclined to shoot two or more calibers (or bird shot) from the same platform.






Brent chose curly English walnut for the stock and its mountings are brass. He claims that his patchbox design is loosely based on others from eastern Pennsylvania and reflects his longrifle background. It certainly seems to “date” the piece as an early transitional type of percussion rifle just emerging from the Golden Age. Brent then tastefully antiqued the whole rifle to give it the flavor of a well-maintained original.

Brent’s manner of fixing the ramrod pipes to the barrel provides a rigid and durable arrangement. The “pipes” are made of brass sheet having a flange that is soldered to the barrel and decorated in appropriate manner. All in all a very nice treatment and one which displays the ingenuity of frontier gunmakers who had little in the way of machinery to provide the methods of construction employed by the factories and even some of the more established gunmakers in the more settled areas of the East.

Brent fabricated the ramrod thimbles from brass sheet which he
soldered to the barrel for a wonderful frontier gunmaker's look.

“I make most of the bits & pieces for my guns, preferring to use ’catalog’ parts as little as possible." says Brent. "The sights and butt plate shown here are both of my own manufacture.” he adds. It is that fabrication of his own “bits and pieces” that lend that certain individuality to his work. He also stated that he’s been diligently working on an underhammer design of his own which we hope to see in the near future. Brent sums it all up by saying, “Underhammers are inadequately appreciated by modern muzzle loading shooters and THAT MUST CHANGE!!” To help remedy that situation he is presently involved with three other underhammer projects and plans to continue to build underhammer rifles, too.



Since the original posting, we received this pic of the nice doe that Brent harvested with the rifle displayed above. Way to go, Brent!

Just a reminder that clicking on the images will enlarge them. Clicking the "Back" arrow will return you to the text.

All photos copyrighted by Brent Gurtek

Wade Ingrham's Underhammers

For most underhammer aficionados it's satisfying enough to find the underhammer that pleases your sense of aesthetics, or accuracy, or history, or whatever it is that blasts your bullseye, and then buy the thing and go shoot it, or whatever.

Not that challenge is lacking in that endeavor. In fact, due to the rarity and limited selection of underhammers in the marketplace, the greatest challenge may be in the search for that perfect underhammer - sometimes only to find out, sadly enough, that it hasn't been made in over 100 years, or copies of it were never made, are no longer made, or never will be made.

Some of us never do find what we really want despite serious searching. Perhaps as a reward for our diligence, however, the Universe, for some unexplainable reason, singles us out and we are blessed (or cursed - certainly obsessed) with an epiphany - a genuine EUREKA! moment - in which the heavens open and choirs of angels sweetly sing.

After such conversion we then decide, contrary to all logic and good sense as offered by well-meaning friends, neighbors, and relatives, that not only can we make a better underhammer than humanity has ever seen, but, we’ll get into the business and share the blessing of our brainchild with the world! We are on a truly holy mission after all.

Those of you who have seen the vision know this is truth. For those who pray they, too, may see the holy vision, some simple advice - don't quit your day job.

Once upon a time back in the 1980s (that's "retro" for our younger readers) Wade Ingrham picked up a copy of Logan’s wonderful book, The Pictorial History of the Underhammer Gun. Like many others, he was certainly captivated and inspired by all the drawings of the various underhammer styles and actions depicted therein. Unlike most folks, however, he, too, saw the holy vision and decided he would make his own underhammers. The rest, as they say, is history.

After visiting with Wade a short time I realized this delightfully wise, humorous and grand old man of muzzleloading is certainly a kindred soul – crazy about designing and building underhammers - and I mean that as a most sincere compliment.




While he did incorporate as Ingrham Underhammer Rifle Company, Inc., Wade states that his real intention was simply to make rifles and pistols for himself and his sons. And true to his intention he made underhammer target and hunting rifles, target and boot pistols and some shotguns, too. Some plain, some fancy, but all good solid guns.



Wade's pistol action is simple and straight forward and features the original Ruggles grip design favored by many New England underhammer makers of old. His rifle action, however, is considerably different than the ordinary and uses a separate "link" as the sear in his design, as seen above left. His approach eliminates the need of critical machining of a sear notch in the hammer and matching surfaces and angles for a sear on the trigger. Rather ingenious actually.




With his basic pistol receiver he's able to produce either boot pistols or with the addition of ergonomically-sculpted grips and target sights he has a fine piece for paper punching.

Wade has successfully developed both rifle and pistol actions, and to his credit he even built a few underhammer flint pistols which he claims have as quick an ignition as a percussion pistol.

(I sure wish that I had one of his flinters in those early days of my conversion while preaching the underhammer gospel to the doubters at the range that it was flint ignition that had inspired the underhammer system in the first place. I'm sure they were convinced that I must have been smoking loco weed.)

For the most part Wade likes to keep things very simple and will sometimes use off-the-shelf items such as a TC trigger guard, buttplate and patchbox to complete some of his rifles, which keeps costs down and speeds the assembly process.

While Wade claims that he is no longer "in business,” so to speak, he still offers parts on a very limited basis to those who may choose to replicate his rifles and pistols. A visit to his website: www.lx.net/wadeingrham will provide many more photos of his work and details on which parts are currently available, as well as his contact information.

Receiver and barrel(s) are easily and securely joined with nothing more than an allen wrench.

We're thankful to Wade for having graciously provided photos of his work and while they're pretty self explanatory, if you have any questions you can certainly visit his website and e-mail him. I’m sure he’ll be happy to correspond with you.

Thank you, Wade, for your great contributions to the fascinating and ongoing history of underhammer arms. We're all appreciative of your efforts.

Since first posting of this article, Wade has indicated that his muzzleloading operation is for sale. For those of you who may have seen the holy vision and fancy Wade's rifles and pistols you might consider contacting Wade for the details on the purchase of the assets of his company.

Seriously, I would like to make a plea to those of you who can imagine yourself as gunmakers. We simply cannot let small operations like Wade's pass away silently into the night. This is a good opportunity for someone with vision and the resources to take Wade's idea to the next level and keep the individual gunmaking craft alive in this country.

His legacy could also be your legacy to the underhammer aficionados and collectors of the future. We all have an opportunity to contribute a line to history. The question is: Will history have anything worthwhile to say about you?

True it's not for everyone, but it may be the perfect fit for one of you.

Think about it.

(Clicking on the center of any of the photos will enlarge them. Clicking the "Back" arrow will return you to the text)

Missed it by that much.

Recently I received an e-mail chiding me about failing to describe the basic advantages of the underhammer concept to new converts to muzzleloading. I have to admit that in retrospect I did miss the bullseye from the beginning in assuming that we all know the basic stuff. I do apologize to the readers for this now apparent oversight.

I will now try to answer that nagging question in the minds of many muzzleloaders, “Why would anyone in their right mind want a rifle with the hammer on the bottom?!”

Most of us are well aware of the most obvious advantage of the underhammer system, that being its ambidextrous nature that allows our left-handed brethren equal opportunity to enjoy the many other advantages of this unique firearm genre. There are several other features, though, that many underhammer designs share, which, when combined with good engineering and top-quality craftsmanship, have become the most sought of the underhammers, hence, the most valuable to collectors and shooters alike.

Obviously, mounting the hammer below the receiver, where it swings upward to the barrel, offers several logical advantages over the side-mounted hammer. The shooter’s view of both the sights and the target is not interrupted by the distraction of a hammer protruding into the shooter’s field of view. Likewise, the percussion underhammer system keeps the flash and the shrapnel of the cap from the eye and provides a greater margin of protection to the face. It was, after all, the distracting flash of powder in the priming pan that inspired the first flint underhammer designs by Germanic gunmakers back in the 18th century (that's the 1700s for those who didn't pay attention in History class).

Clicking in the center of the photo above will enlarge it to provide a better idea of just how much flame and distraction is created by the flintlock. Remember, that when firing a flintlock rifle the flare seen here is much closer to the shooter's face than with a pistol held at arms length. By the way it is at this precise moment that you're supposed to be focusing on breathing, sight alignment, and trigger squeeze...

Yeah, right. They weren't nicknamed "flinchlocks" for nothing.

Clicking the "Back" arrow at the top left of the screen will return you to the text.

Despite its obviously logical advantages, many who have actually shot some underhammer rifles dislike them because most designs are notorious for spitting cap shrapnel into the shooter’s wrist, while some pistols pepper the fingers of the shooting hand. A simple solution is to utilize a musket nipple and caps. Musket caps, being constructed of thicker metal, do not fragment upon firing as #11 caps are designed to do. Musket caps are also much "hotter" than wimpy #11 caps and can make a considerable difference in the performance of the firearm.

True, not all underhammers can be corrected so simply. Other methods of overcoming the spitting require fitting flash shields or modifying hammer faces or worse. Luckily, however, some underhammers were designed with this situation in mind and don’t have the nasty habit of spitting cap fragments.

Mounting the hammer below the barrel further allows placement of the nipple directly into the barrel without need for a separate drum, bolster or snail. So arranged, the cap is closer to the powder charge and its flash isn't diminished in speed or intensity by having to negotiate corners, but instead, is projected directly into the powder charge resulting in more instantaneous ignition and improved accuracy.

One other great advantage of the bottom-mounted hammer is that if the firearm is dropped, it is far less likely to fall directly upon the hammer and accidentally fire the piece than if the hammer is protruding from the top of the piece, as is the case with side mounted hammers - whether in rifles or pistols.

And speaking of hammers and safety issues and all that liability stuff, one will find that some underhammer pistols and rifles of old, yes, and some new one's, too, are not equipped with a trigger guard nor a half-cock notch. If you come upon one of these designs, be sure to exercise extra caution in handling and shooting them.

The bottom-mounted hammer also limits the possibility of the hammer being inadvertently cocked and/or having the cap flicked from the nipple, or the flintlock's frizzen being snapped open with loss of priming powder, all by the snag of a branch while stalking through thick cover. All events that I have had unpleasant personal experiences with many years ago while carrying various side-hammer rifles.

Most underhammer designs feature a trigger that is in direct engagement with its hammer, thus eliminating the need for extra parts such as the sear, tumbler, fly, and bridle, as well as their attendant small screws and spring. A correctly designed hammer and trigger directly engaged, as in better underhammer designs, also eliminates the need of a set trigger mechanism to achieve a crisp pull of the trigger, although there are a few examples of older underhammer target rifles that were so equipped.

So, there you have it. While different makers have incorporated other, perhaps less obvious features, these are the primary advantages of the underhammer guns that we have come to admire so much.

Did I forget anything?

Randy, I hope I’m out from behind the bullseye, now.

.

Hilliard Target Rifle

A noted maker of fine underhammer pistols and rifles was David H. Hilliard of Cornish, New Hampshire. The Hilliard design bears a striking resemblance and similarity to the work of Nicanor Kendall, which bears similarity to the work of Asa Story. Because these men were contemporaries living almost within spitting distance of each other, one has to wonder who was copying whom!

It is not uncommon to find similarities in muzzleloading firearms coming out of a particular geographical area as it was the practice of an apprentice, once on his own, to replicate the designs and methods of the master from whom he learned the craft. And that is exactly why we find the similarities in the Story, Kendall, and Hilliard designs.

So far as historians have been able to uncover, Asa Story began making underhammer arms at the outset of the percussion era. Apprenticed to him was another noted New England gunmaker, Nicanor Kendall. Kendall hung out his own shingle in 1835 making arms very similar to those he had made while under the tutelage of Story. Kendall continued making his famous underhammers in Windsor, Vermont until 1842 when he sold the business to Hilliard who produced fine quality work until his death in 1877. Hilliard's son continued the business for some time thereafter.

Kendall later jumped back into the game with a partner who later gained fame of his own, Richard S. Lawrence. In 1844 S.E. Robbins joined the firm and the new name became Robbins, Kendall & Lawrence. They, too, produced underhammers of the Kendall design further adding to the confusion.

.

Hilliard made some minor changes to the lockwork and the hammer of the Kendall and to the design of the stocks on his pistols, but other than for minor changes, one really must look to the makers name on the barrel to tell one from the other.

As a side note, interestingly, all three of these makers used Remington barrels on their wares at one time or another as is marked on this specimen. Remington was originally a barrel maker who, as we all know, went on to create his own firearms empire.

Our thanks to Steve Philippy for sharing with us these great photos of his recently acquired Hilliard target rifle. While this specimen is missing the trigger guard, it does sport double set triggers and a sear engagement screw in the sear notch of the hammer. These features, combined with it's three-sight system, definitely brand it as a high-grade rifle.

Steve said he found a triggerguard which has since been installed. According to Steve, there are no provisions for attaching a forearm which is not uncommon among early underhammer rifles. In fact, most early underhammer pistols and even some rifles didn’t wear ramrods either!

According to measurement, the bore diameter indicates the barrel is .54 caliber, which seems to indicate that it may have been a dual-purpose rifle intended for filling the larder as well as for showing off one's shooting prowess at the range. We may never know for sure.

Thanks, again, Steve, for your contribution.

More Thoughts on Forsyth

A long, long time ago, at a backwoods rendezvous, I discovered the following truth printed on the back of a well-worn t-shirt being sported by a gal who looked equally well-worn. The message read:

“It takes balls of lead to be a muzzleloader.”

Sometimes the Universe provides enlightenment in the most peculiar ways!

In an earlier posting about Forsyth rifling I expounded on my reasons for using it for the hunting rifles that I build. I commented about the effectiveness of big round balls in decisively dispatching game and my preference for them over the “new” sub-caliber bullets cocooned in plastic sabots. I do understand all the hype that this new fad is all about achieving higher velocities (translate as killing energy) at greater distance than is generally believed feasible with old-fashioned round balls. In my opinion, the validity of those claims is open to debate.

After reading my comments on Forsyth’s rifling concepts, one of our readers replied that round balls just don’t perform as well as higher velocity pointed muzzleloader bullets at ranges beyond 60 or 70 yards. I’m willing to bet that like so many others, he derived that conclusion from reading ballistic data for round balls.

While I have to admit that downrange velocity and foot-pound numbers don’t seem very impressive when it comes to big round balls, there is an element of the power equation that is sorely lacking from simple ballistics charts – one that is consistently overlooked by the crowd. A concept that, once understood, will forever change the way you think about big round ball projectiles. That missing element is momentum.

If we are to consider and believe in paper ballistics alone and ignore actual performance in the field, we would be lead to believe that the .243 Winchester outperforms the old soldier, .45-70 Government, in its ability to put down big game.

However, the facts of the matter are quite the opposite as we all know. But we tend, nevertheless, to continue to use simple two-element paper ballistics equations as we seemingly lack for a basis of comparison of performance between various loads, be they cartridge or loose powder and ball. Regardless of which, the point is that we continue to draw the wrong conclusions about their effectiveness on game when comparing by mere velocity and energy numbers.

This puzzling situation is nothing unique to us moderns and has, in fact, been carefully contemplated many long decades ago by the famous African hunter, John Taylor. Taylor early realized that paper ballistics derived from simple Newtonian calculations did not account for the ability of big bullets lumbering along at moderate velocities to put down really tough game with a single shot when compared to smaller-bored higher-velocity bullets.

He postulated that the missing element of the power equation was bullet diameter. Including the bullet diameter in the equation provides a three dimensional view of the power dynamic while providing insight to the big round ball's seemingly magical ability to take down big game like it had been struck by the hammer of Thor.

In order to more fairly compare bullets and their effectiveness on game (disregarding other variables, such as bullet design i.e. jackets, ogive, metal temper, etc.), Taylor devised an equation that included the all-important bullet diameter which changes the performance values tremendously and provides a much more accurate basis of comparison by including the frontal area, that is, the striking area of the projectile. This is the actual surface area by which that all-important momentum is transferred into the target. Appropriately, it is termed the "Taylor Knock Out" formula.

When we apply the TKO to our humble, unsophisticated round ball traveling at higher (than average) velocity, we soon realize that we are not as handicapped as the purveyors and disciples of sabots and pointy bullets would have us believe! (By the way, the word, "sabot" is pronounced, sah-boe' - French for "shoe".)

The application of Taylor’s formula to ballistic data results in a simple numerical value that allows easy comparison that any non-rocket scientist can understand and appreciate. The formula is very simple to calculate where the muzzle Velocity (expressed in feet-per-second) is multiplied by the Diameter of the bullet (in thousandths of an inch) times the Weight of the bullet (in grains) and the product thereof is divided by 7000 (the number of grains in 1 pound). The resulting number expresses a Knock Out value which then becomes the new basis of comparison.The higher the Taylor value, the greater the knockdown power.

As an example, let’s take our old standby, the .30-06, launching a 180-grain bullet at 2700 feet-per-second. By multiplying the Velocity, 2700 fps, by Diameter, .308, we get 831.6 which is multiplied by the Weight in grains, that being 180. The product of 149,688 is then divided by 7000 which provides a Taylor Knock Out value of 21.384 or simply 21.4. Using this formula, the .300 Winchester with the same 180-grain bullet churns up a Taylor value of 24.3. The .45-70 plodding along with its factory-loaded 405-grain bullet renders a Taylor value of 34.4. Not what you had expected, Ill bet.

Yes, but you argue, those values are based on muzzle velocity and the downrange numbers will be much lower as that 405-grain flat-nosed slug runs out of steam - and even more so for a big round ball - right? While true to an extent, the loss is not as bad as you might think. One can easily calculate the downrange Taylor value of any projectile simply by running the equation and plugging in the velocity at a specific distance from the muzzle.

In this example, the limitation on the .45-70 or, in our case, big round ball projectiles, is not lack of knockdown power, it’s the low velocity and the resulting rainbow trajectory of the bullet which is so bowed that accurate placement within the vital zone on game becomes rather iffy beyond 80 yards that is the limiting factor. Unless, of course, you have years of field experience in accurate range estimation - or a range finder. (As stated in the earlier post, we achieve flat trajectories with higher velocity than usual - which can safely be achieved with Forsyth rifling in a good solid rifle.)

Now spurred by our reader’s comment, I had reason to conduct the research and have the following table of data that will provide some interesting numbers on my .62 caliber Faeton’s 320-grain round ball departing the muzzle at 1700 feet-per-second and it’s downrange values as well.

WARNING: Kids, do not try this at home. Do not attempt to load any other .62 caliber muzzleloader to achieve this velocity unless it is deemed to be safe by its manufacturer. I know it to be safe in Faeton rifles that I build utilizing Forsyth rifling. I refuse all liability for the experiments and misdeeds of others. If in doubt, buy a Faeton. (I know that’s a pretty blatant plug, but it is my blog, after all…)

It was that conformant wisdom (translate as "time-honored erroneous assumption") that the muzzle-loaded round ball runs out of poop after 60 yards that really irritated me and became the challenge to drive a stake into the heart of this myth and settle the issue once and for all. I proceeded to calculate the Taylor values for renowned center-fire rifle loads and compared them to the downrange Taylor value of the .62 Faeton. That’s when things really got interesting, as the chart reveals.

Clicking on the chart will enlarge it for easier viewing. Then click the "back" arrow at the top left of your screen to return to the text.

Before making comparisons, however, it must be understood that the Taylor value for the cartridges listed is their knockdown power AT THE MUZZLE. In other words, the Faeton’s knockdown power at 150 yards is about equal to the knockdown power generated by the .340 Weatherby at the muzzle.

Another advantage of the higher velocity obtainable with the Forsyth system is a very flat trajectory. Looking closer at the chart indicates the ball actually rises above the line of sight very little on its trip to the 100 yard mark and then dips a mere 2.7 inches at 120 yards providing virtually a point blank range of 125 yards. No range estimation or hold-over needed - just aim and shoot.

To my way of thinking that’s pretty amazing for a big-bore round ball rifle!

“Yes, but what about accuracy beyond 60 or 70 yards?” he asks. The Faetons that I craft will usually shoot into 3 inches at a hundred yards without much fuss. However, if you get seriously anal they can be made to shoot much tighter. But I question whether super-tight groups are really all that important in putting meat in the freezer.

When I was a much younger man I knew an “old” guy (he was all of 50!) that went deer hunting every year. He wasn’t a gun enthusiast, but he was a hunter. When first introduced to this man, and learning that he enjoyed hunting, I asked what kind of rifle he used. He said it was an “old 30-30 rifle” that was his dad’s and knowing that I was interested in firearms, he asked if I wished to see it. Of course, I wanted to see it! It’s a gun, right?

As it turned out, his “old 30-30 rifle” was actually a .38-55 Winchester Model 1894 with a full octagon barrel and crescent butt plate. I explained that it wasn’t actually a .30-30, but rather a .38-55. He seemed disinterested in the technicalities, but went on to say that the shells were specially ordered for him by the guy down at the hardware store.

The point of all this is that this technically unsophisticated man put meat in the freezer every fall with that rifle – without fail. In further conversation I learned that he did not go to the range and burn up a box of shells sighting in before the season. In fact, he had the same box of shells that he had ordered 6 years earlier!

He said that before he went out for the season he would take a shot at a coffee can that he placed about 50 yards away to make sure the rifle could still “hit,” as he put it. Then he would go do the deed. This man was not a particularly good shot, either. But he was a good hunter.

The moral of the story? Yes, there was a point to that trip down memory lane… I believe we are getting sidetracked by all the hype about the "advantages" of shooting plastic-wrapped pointy bullets and this holy grail quest for muzzleloading rifles that will shoot sub-minute of angle groups. Personally, I don’t see any advantages to plastic-wrapped bullets, but instead, a lot more fuss to load and shoot accurately in the field.

If we are good hunters, a rifle capable of shooting sub-minute of angle groups isn’t going to put meat in the freezer any easier or with more efficiency than a rifle that shoots less than sub-minute of angle. Nor will that tack driver rifle make a good hunter out of an inexperienced hunter. As one old friend once told me in regard to all aspects of shooting, and certainly about putting meat in the freezer, “It’s the loose nut behind the trigger that makes the most difference.”

And just for the record, contrary to nasty and vicious rumors, I hold no disdain for new-fangled, non "traditional" muzzleloading guns. In fact, I have a few designs for such of my own and they look great wearing a scope and can burn synthetic powder and shoot pointy bullets into tight little groups, too. In my opinion, they do have their place - right along side cartridge guns with scopes to be used in center-fire hunting seasons - not in a primitive firearm season.

I don't wish to deprive anyone the joy of our sport. I just don’t want to see our newer muzzleloading brethren being duped into thinking that the old tried and true, easily loaded, sufficiently accurate, (big) round ball can't bring home the bacon in our marvelously modern world. And, that it doesn’t take surgically-accurate rifles to put meat in the freezer – just better hunters.

So, what does all this have to do with Forsyth rifling? It is Forsyth rifling which allows us to safely achieve those high velocities that elevate the lowly, unsophisticated round ball into the realm of performance of some of the most successful cartridges of all time.

One just cannot imagine how effective a big round ball, traveling at high velocity, is at anchoring game on the spot with a single well-placed shot. You have to experience it to believe it. Once you do, you'll be hooked. I have over ten years of feedback from Zephyr and Faeton owners who wholeheartedly agree.

For those open-minded folks who would like to read James Forsyth's wonderful book, The Sporting Rifle and Its Projectiles, the second edition is now in the public domain. If you're not able to locate it, feel free to e-mail me and I'll be happy to send it to you in e-book form.

As I said before, Forsyth had it all figured out 150 years ago!