So, you want to build an underhammer...

As an underhammer designer and builder, I am disappointed at how little creativity is being expressed among the present builders of underhammer rifles. While it is generally true that there is nothing new under the sun - that all has been tried before - there exists nonetheless, vast areas of artistic expression that have not yet been explored within the realm of the humble underhammer rifle.

I believe that this stems from a certain disdain and prejudice that some shooters have toward underhammer rifles in general. Some view the inherent simplicity of the action as somehow lacking in the sophistication that more complex mechanisms display. There seems to be some idea of nobleness in the evolution of those complex lock mechanisms designed to do nothing more than ignite gunpowder. Many marvel at the intricacies of traditional sidelock designs and look to them as representing the highest form of the gunmaking art.

Because the underhammer was relatively simple and cheap to make, it was reasoned that it somehow didn’t deserve the attention to embellishment that more refined firearms displayed. After all, you can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear, so why would you waste your time trying? Right?

As a firearms designer I have to disagree. I don't believe that there is "nobleness" in any mechanism based upon its complexity. Anyone can complicate the hell out of any design. In my opinion the greatest challenge is to refine something to its simplest form – to its fewest number of parts while still accomplishing the task at hand. Fewer moving parts is far more impressive to the reasoning mind than a complex design. That’s where the underhammer designs - most of them anyway - really shine. Simple, rugged, and generally quite conducive to accuracy when coupled with a good barrel. To my way of thinking , it is the underhammer that may have a claim of nobleness due to the value of its utter simplicity.

So, with such desirable features in its favor, I have to wonder why many underhammer makers insist on competing in the “Who Can Make The Ugliest Underhammer Rifle?” contest. Doesn’t the underhammer deserve greater consideration? I’ve seen the work of some otherwise talented riflesmiths who will lavish hour upon hour on a Golden Age rifle or a Hawken or Vincent copy, but will really drop the ball by making a less than beautiful underhammer rifle. I say it is time to take a fresh look at the underhammer concept and create beautiful rifles.

I once had a discussion with a muzzleloading gentleman who marveled that I would dare charge over $1500 for an underhammer rifle. He insisted that there just isn’t anything there for which to charge that much money. He said that he built and sold underhammers for no more than $350 - $400 (at that time). I told him that the difference is that he built Volkswagens while I built Bentleys. He just didn’t see the lowly underhammer as being worth the effort and expenditure for quality materials. To this day he is still trying to build a cheaper underhammer!

This is not intended as a put down of anyone’s work -that's not the purpose of this discussion. I am simply throwing down the glove in challenging other makers to give the underhammer thoughtful consideration and elevate it to its rightful place among other great firearm designs.

To borrow a line from the movie, Field of Dreams, "If you build it (a truly beautiful high quality underhammer rifle) they will come (to buy it!)." That’s been my experience. I’ve included some photos of one of my higher end pieces with the hope that it will inspire others to reach a little further than the ordinary. Click on the images for a closer look.



This rifle incorporates hammer, trigger, and triggerguard from my earlier Zephyr design, but fitted to a bronze receiver (tough stuff!). The deep-relief Germanic style engraving was perfectly executed by Dale Woody (www.gunfancy.com) according to the customer's order. The stock and forearm are perfectly matched for grain and color and were crafted from 100+year old exhibition-grade Turkish walnut. The rough, un-carved wood blank alone had a retail price of $3000. So you can see that some people are willing to spend serious money to create one-of-a-kind underhammer rifles.

By the way, one of the reasons that this particular piece of wood was so pricey is because the other side of the buttstock is virtually a mirror image of this side. Rare when that happens. I like to think that whoever cut the blank knew exactly what he was doing.

Come on in – the water’s fine!

Since first posting, there have been several inquiries regarding the beautiful brass scope that I fitted to that rifle. The scope is one of six made to special order by Randy Oates of RKO Instruments. Randy normally makes his ultra-high quality scopes from tempered steel tubes and claims that he will not make any more brass-tubed scopes.

Contact me if you're in the market for such a scope and I'll track down his latest phone number for you.

Underhammer History - briefly

While few modern shooters are aware of the underhammer system, those few who are familiar with it seem to know little or nothing about its origins. Contrary to popular belief, it did not begin with Hopkins & Allen. In fact, the original Hopkins & Allen company never made underhammer arms. But I’m getting ahead of the story…

As strange as it may seem, the underhammer principle has 18th century Germanic roots and was developed to improve flintlock ignition! At first thought that may seem rather ridiculous as anyone who has ever studied or fired a flintlock knows that the priming powder would simply fall out of a pan and frizzen mounted on the bottom of a rifle. And it is just that fact that resulted in instantaneous ignition in the new mechanism. When you think about it, it makes perfect sense…

At the moment that a bottom-mounted frizzen is opened by the upward swinging flint cock, the priming powder falls freely and becomes dispersed into a sort of little cloud in the immediate proximity of the meeting of flint and frizzen – and it is just at that exact moment that it is showered with sparks from the flint. The resulting upward flash is just fractions of an inch from the flashhole and ignition is virtually instantaneous – at least in comparison to the traditional method. Unfortunately, anything that deviated from the norm at that time in history was usually considered with suspicion as being inspired by the devil and best left alone. However, once percussion caps made the scene all that seemed to change.

"Traditional" sidelocks are rather complex mechanisms and require considerable skill in design and building. In fact, most locks were trade items imported from Europe as few American gunsmiths had the skill or machinery to manufacture gun locks. This set the stage for the development of the percussion underhammer system.

Some muzzleloaders look down their noses at underhammers because they believe that they just aren't "traditional." But the fact is that they were borne and bred here in America, while the sidelock was a European development that came over on the boat. It is the underhammer that is the true, original, American percussion system, and from that perspective I believe it is accurate to say that it most certainly is "traditional."

In the early 1820s Reverend Forsyth's percussion cap made its debut on this side of the pond and underhammer development  in the newly formed united States of America began with the issuing of the very first firearms patent for a production gun to Fordyce Ruggles on November 24, 1826. Due to a fire some patent files were destroyed. However there is good evidence and it is believed and accepted that the patent was for his underhammer pistol design which became the basis of so many copy cat designs of the following two decades. Unfortunately it was the copycats who gained greater fame than did Ruggles. But it all began with Fordyce Ruggles - the father of the American underhammer. Fordyce and his brother, Adin, set up shop in Hardwick, Massachusetts in December of 1825 and the rest, as they say, is history.

With few moving parts, Ruggle's simple underhammer mechanism could be made by the frontier gunsmith or local blacksmith and with the addition of a piece of barrel, a serviceable firearm could be made rather quickly and inexpensively.

During that westward expansion there was a plethora of underhammer makers producing both singleshot and even a few repeating underhammer pistols throughout the settled East.

While underhammer pistols seem to have dominated the trade, there were a number of makers of rifles as well. Some displaying great care and skill in workmanship as seen in the example of one of Billinghurst's fine rifles, below. Many of these higher grade arms were very accurate target rifles and some were even used as sniper rifles in the War Between the States.


While many underhammers were simple, both in function and adornment, some designs were mechanically quite unique while others were downright gaudy. The one below displays both characteristics and is from an unknown maker. An interesting feature of this rifle is that the other side also bears decoration that is an exact mirror image of this side - including the patchbox lid!


Meanwhile, European gunsmiths were likewise discovering the virtues of the simple, rugged, and reliable underhammer action and also contributed much to its development.

Interestingly, virtually anyone who was anyone in the arms industry prior to 1860 seemed to have either an open or closet fascination with the simplicity and innate ruggedness of the underhammer mechanism. In fact, Jonathon Browning’s first commercial firearm was an underhammer!

Contrary to what many assume, not all underhammers were simple mechanisms. In fact, some designs, such as the Demeritt, were so complex and/or frail that one has to wonder, "What was he thinking?!"

Now I know that some of you are still waiting to hear about Hopkins & Allen and how they figure into all of this. During the 1950s and ‘60s interest in muzzleloading arms really picked up. Enter George Numrich of Numrich Arms. George had an idea that there would be a market for a simple, inexpensive muzzleloading rifle – and indeed there was. After studying some of the designs of the early underhammer makers, he decided to offer a version which combined features of some of the better aspects of those early designs along with a few twists of his own.

Having acquired the remaining assets of the old Hopkins & Allen manufacturing business - including the name - he graced his new offering with the old name and has confused shooters ever since.

For many years Numrich Arms was the only (visible) maker offering an underhammer rifle – and, yes, a pistol, too – and because so little was known of underhammers outside of collectors circles it was generally assumed that Hopkins & Allen, or Numrich Arms, invented them.

Despite the unintentional confusion generated by his application of the old H&A moniker to his own underhammer design, George made a tremendous contribution to the muzzleloading revival by providing a reasonably-priced, reasonably accurate, muzzleloading rifle which served to introduce tens of thousands of shooters to our sport.

His clever lockwork design was also one of the very few that incorporated a half-cock notch for safely carrying the piece afield. By and large, most underhammer designs of the past did not incorporate a safety notch in the hammer. Boy, would today's attorneys have a field day with that one, or what?

So now you have the story – or at least another page of it. The rest, as they say, is history. No pun intended.

For more underhammer history and trivia that is sure to make you the life of any party, you may wish to track down Herschel C. Logan's great book, THE PICTORIAL HISTORY OF THE UNDERHAMMER GUN. It has been out of print for decades, but a good book locator may be able to track down a copy.