What is an Underhammer

[Zonie]

Most people respect the Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms. The author has, as we know, done extensive work concerning not only the collectability of firearms but their history.

Among the underhammers listed in his Guide:

"ETHAN ALLEN FIRST MODEL POCKET RIFLE" [actually a .31 caliber pistol] "Made c. mid-1830s thru c. 1842: total quantity a few thousand..." (6th Edition, p 43)

"...Allen embarked on his firearms career with the first production of his underhammer "Pocket Rifle," in late 1836." (6th Edition, p 42)

elsewhere:
Hale & Tuller Underhammer Pistol: "...Believed made in the Connecticut State Prison, Hartford County, Connecticut c.1837-1840...Original manuscript contracts dated 1837 and 1838 between William Tuller of Hartford and Amos Pilsbury, the warden of the Connecticut State Prison were recently discovered. These contracts provided for the setting up, manufacturing and contract for the labor of convicts to manufacture firearms within the walls of the Connecticut State Prison..." (6th Edition p362).

Underhammer rifles are also mentioned:

"Undoubtedly one of the most prolific makers was Nicanor Kindell of Windsor, Vermont. Judging by the specimens seen over the years, he turned out a notable number of underhammers in varying degrees of quality circa 1830s to 1840s..." (6th Edition p560).

One might note that I have restricted (as best as I could) the references to firearms which were made in the 1830s. I have no doubt that with further digging, one could discover documentation supporting not only these references but many more.

IMO, we must recognize that most people have to work, or do not have direct access to the records of prisons, gun companys no longer in existance or a wealth of documented text books on the subject of underhammer guns, nor do they have the time to devote to such an undertaking, therefore, I feel that demanding that the individuals providing posts on this fourm provide such documentation is unwarrented.

If a group of people choose to prohibit competition with a certain type of firearm, that is their right.
If a person chooses to disbelieve material supplied by others, that to is his/her right, however, their refusal to accept information provided does not discredit the information. It only puts it into an overall perspective by which to view it.

If an individual or orginazation wishes to discover and print additional documentation I'm sure it will be appreciated by all.

 

[walruskid1]

zonie, well spoken! :applause:

 

[gmww]

Zonie I appreciate the additional information you were able to provide about the underhammer. As you can see there is a thirst for information on this subject. The book you refer too is something I'll need to add to my library.

I find it interesting that another prison was also used with convicts to make guns. I was not aware of that sort of practice. Well with guns anyways.

Thanks,
GMWW :winking: :v

 

[Runner]

Thanks for the additional info Zonie.

I do doubt the source of the original info on everything he says, so I was looking for verification. If there is something wrong with that, then I am sorry. The info is very different from what I was taught years ago in some ways. It pushes the time frame back about 10 years, and I would like to see some of the evidence that it is based on. Again, if asking what some statement is based on is a problem, I did not know that. It happens here every day. I am not responsible for the info they post. All I did was ask a question about what they posted. Now, if you don't like questions, I don't know what to tell you.
I still keep seeing commentary with no supporting evidence cited. Is it too much to ask where to find the records on one of these claims?

 

[Zonie]

Runner: I have no real problem with someone asking for additional information on a post.
I also do not have a problem with someone questioning the information given, especially if the one questioning presents factual information to the contrary.

After reading the post which prompted the creation of this post (which you mentioned was made by you), and I quote:
"...After posting that list of builders, will you now post the number of guns produced by all of them before 1840? It is less than 100 built in the US before 1840. Still, the list makes an impressive display when spin is more important than fact." I read this new post with great interest.
(May I point out that in my opinion, terms like "...spin is more important than fact" implys the author intentionally distorted the truth to meet his objectives.)
I was also interested in seeing whether your unsubstantiated comment "...It is less than 100 built in the US before 1840..." was justified.

After reading the original post and noting that in several cases references were made to the names of builders with dates and the sources of the information, I felt the author had made a legitimate attempt to provide a basis for his thoughts and to respond to your point.

Additionally, having found what I feel is at least an interesting bit of information dealing with over 1000 pistols made by one single company in the years 1836-1842 this information should be added to this post.

Noting in your later post the following:
"...What records located where are you using to determine that thousands of Underhammer guns were made before 1840? One specific detailed report would be nice...."
I felt that I should point out that asking for more than the information originally provided, while a worthy goal, may be asking too much and if one were truly interested in increasing our historical knowledge perhaps they could contribute to the effort.

 

[Runner]

Zonie, so far I have seen lots of dialog and copies of dialog. I have not seen or have I been pointed to any real evidence of any kind. I suspect that much of what has been posted may be true, but it could also be a lot of written fiction. It would not be the first time this happened in the muzzleloading world. It would not be the first time that the same BS was repeated by several people over and over either. If the Underhammer had been built in the quantities listed so far and was in use in those numbers by 1840, then it makes the traditional cut off. That is not the reality in the muzzleloading world at this time, or what I was taught. There have been several references to a sale to the Texas territory. There have been no deliveries identified, units that used the supposed guns identified, tax records of the ownershiop or sale of the property given as payment supposedly, and no colony that I know of started in that fashion. There were makers names given. If I have a Hawken in my hand that is not signed, when was it built and by which Hawken? Lots of makers were several generations, and it is easy to say that the one signed such and such is from this time, but that doesn't work in the muzzleloading world. What records were used to identify those builders from before 1840 and to verify that they made underhammers before that time? There is commentary about convict labor making thousands of these guns during a period sttarting before 1840. Who were they delivered to, what unit used them, and what happened to them?
I asked for one example that has concrete evidence to support it from before 1840. If I get that, then I will be pushing for several summer gatherings to change their rules to pre-1800 rather than pre-1840. If all that has been posted is valid, then at least a fraction of one percent of the population was using these guns prior to 1840. If that is true, then they belong at a pre-1840's shoot. Again, that is not reality in the muzzleloading world.
This is not something as simple as when did this style of trigger guard first appear. We are discussing a change in information that makes the rules at every rendezvous wrong pretty much. That requires more than the copied pages of a book saying it happened. Sorry if you don't see that.

 

[BS]

Here is a list from one of Logan's books.
Early Underhammer Makers

US

C. B. ALLEN 1836-1841
ETHAN ALLEN 1832-1838
ALLEN & THURBER 1838-1842
WM. BILLINGHURST 1830-1880
C. BIRD & CO. 1790-1830
BLUNT & SYMS 1837-1865
WILLIAM CALDERWOOD 1807-1819
MICHEL CARLTON & CO. 1830
JOHN M. CASWELL 1815-1836
B. FOWLER JR. 1835-1850
GIBBS TIFFANY & CO. 1833-1837
NICANOR KENDALL 1835-1844
HENREY E. LEMAN 1834-
MEAD & ADRIANCE circa 1835
SAMUEL PIKE circa 1834
J. SIMPSON circa 1835
M, SMITH circa 1835
A. W. SPIES 1832-1860
ASA STORY 1835-1843

FORIGN

H.ANSCHUTZ & STONE 1793-1806
JOHN DAY circa 1832
DURS EGG 1785-1834
BARTHOLOMEW REDFERN 1790-1836


Some built for just a year , some for 50.

 

[Zonie]

Runner: I appreciate your concern and the reasons for it.

I personally am not asking to change any rules and am in agreement with you about the need to have documented evidence before even considering such a move.

It is too bad that more people throughout history were not a pack rat like I am. Perhaps then, some documents could be found.
I suspect that many of them had wives like mine who looks at some of my stuff and says "He doesn't need that! I'll just tidy up a little. He'll never miss it."

 

[Slamfire]

I asked for one example that has concrete evidence to support it from before 1840. If I get that, then I will be pushing for several summer gatherings to change their rules to pre-1800 rather than pre-1840. If all that has been posted is valid, then at least a fraction of one percent of the population was using these guns prior to 1840. If that is true, then they belong at a pre-1840's shoot.

So if they were used before 1840 you'll outlaw them by pushing back the start date to 1800, just to outlaw the use of one particular style of rifle?

 

[John Taylor]

If I get that, then I will be pushing for several summer gatherings to change their rules to pre-1800 rather than pre-1840.

Do I know you? seems to me I ran into someone with the same type of ideas around 35 years ago when I showed up at a shoot with a large bore pistol. The next meeting this fellow pushed to get a rule that said no pistols over 45 caliber allowed and no rifles over 58 caliber. Lost half the club members that night, including me.
Now I'm not much up on the dates of UH's but I do know there were percussions at rendezvous. I have a copy of a book first printed in 1851 where the auther talks about being at a rendezvous in 1836 with a cap lock.

 

[Runner]

No, I don't know you, and I never proposed and silly caliber limitations either.
The quidelines change to 1800 would disqualify every gun I own. I would have to buy or build a gun to shoot myself. It would be worth it tho.
The 1840 date for the gatherings was settled on for several reasons. One, it is the end of the fur trade rendezvous, which were traditional gatherings. Two, it is the last decade that things can be defined in with any certainty. The Caplock and cutting the stock down being the biggest changes in 100 years or more. A few years later things begin to change so fast that there is no keeping it straight, even if that is all you do is study that time period. The Underhammer is part of that rapid change that the date was chosen to exclude.
Yes, I would push back the date to 1800, excluding all caplocks, halfstocks, and 99 percent of all factory guns to keep the underhammers out of the gatherings. That would include all of my present guns too. If they want to have underhammer gatherings, let them. They have the NMLRA along with the inliners already. If the person that explained the TMA stance was correct, then they have the TMA also.
Is kind of like talking to non-hunters about hunting. If you don't know why, it is very hard to communicate why using words, much less written words.

 

[faw3]

All this has been fun to read, one guy saying "as long as I keep my eyes closed I cant see." I havent seen anything that backs up thousands of underhammers "werent" sold from 1830 to 1840, if people like Stuzenberger say around 300 UHs got built and sent to Texas thats enough for me , and we are going to have to throw out the Flaydermase 8th ed ,it claims more than just 1000s made from 1830 to 40,then we got a mag "Men at Arm" the mag that big buck auctions get to tell them if they got the, real stuf or not,You know the "NRA"s American Arms Collectors Journal,Feb 2005 going to all these places takeing pics ect,Hilliard even had a patented Yankee Cook Stove ,with the first elevted oven, oh the title "Discover the Vermont Gunmaker who Armed Places As Far away as Texas and the West" we best throw hat all out to. And material on all this John Alexander at the"American Precision Museum" in Vermont,start and end your record search with them.Cause I do belive the sun came up and didnt have my eyes closed. Really dont care what anyone belives, doesnt bother me a bit, if you want to live way back when hope your haveing fun, and Zonie I wish I had your way with words , but I dont. :bow: so I'll :snore: on this, all this :yakyak: has worn me out. Fred :hatsoff:

 

[John Taylor]

You got a hate for under hammers?

 

[Zonie]

"...I asked for one example that has concrete evidence to support it from before 1840. If I get that, then I will be pushing for several summer gatherings to change their rules to pre-1800 rather than pre-1840. "
____________________________________

I guess I missread this post. So much for speed reading.

Had I read this more carefully, I would have seen that the post was not trying to get at the real truth, for the enhancement of our hobby. It was saying, if the truth is told, we should throw out one half century of historical re-enacting dates along with all of the accouterments from that period which thousands of people have worked to acquire.
I fail to comprehend what possible rationale would motivate someone to take this course of action.

In my own opinion, if a person feels this strongly about the underhammer, and by the quote above, I must include all Caplock firearms of every description, perhaps they would be more at ease in a pre-Caplock era.
This would make more sense than trying to revise the rules to eliminate the vast majority of years currently being re-enacted by thousands of people who appreciate the period of discovery that built our great nation.

 

[jimbo15563]

Regarding the presentation of Zephyr Rifles to President Andrew Jackson:

~Kind Words from "Old Hickory"~

Zephyr Rifles have recently been presented to our esteemed President, Andrew Jackson, and it is reported to us that he is well pleased with the results of our endeavors. And it is his personal contention that the Zephyr is perfectly suited for its intended role in the settlement of the wild places of which the Territories of the West consist. Further, it is his intention to Recommend the Zephyr for Service to future Expeditionaries.

Please note that Zephyr is a modern underhammer producer. This disclaimer is also found in their "catalogue"

Instead of answering questions, our simple spec sheet seemed to only raise questions, and so the catalog started to grow. We decided, also, that it might be fun to present the catalog in the verbose style of those bygone days. We're sure that most of you will get a chuckle from our effort and recognize the artistic license taken along the way.

They are beautiful rifles and I'm sure that President Jackson would have been pleased with them, but it didn't actually happen.

Jimbo

 

[Runner]

Yes, such a rules change would eliminate all of the caplocks, all halfstocks, and all of my personal guns. Some want things changed so that underhammers, sideslappers, boxlocks, and inlines made in the same way the period experiments were all admitted. They keep trying to push the dates of all this stuff back so they have an argument. The date was chosen to stop that. If there is evidence that underhammers really qualify, then that date has to be moved back. If not you get all of them showing up at the gate arguing they should be admitted. It can and has happened. I have nothing against underhammers, but they don't belong at a rendezvous. If they are period, then yes, I need to move back to an earlier period.

Wow! That sounds like exactly what I said the first time!

How is it that digging for facts changes to something different when the intended use of those facts is something you don't agree with?

 

[lanedh]

All this jib-jab is making my HAIR HURT!!

I have a Kendall underhammer ser. no. 839 which is pretty accurately dated to 1842-1844. It has the Windsor, Vermont address on the top barrel flat and "Smith's Improved Stud Lock" stamped on the standing breech tang. Apparently a great many Kendall guns have this Smith's legend, but I have never been able to find out anything about Smith or the particulars of his lock design. It functions exactly the same as the H&A except it uses and internal leaf mainspring instead of the trigger guard. If anybod can shed light on the Smith lock or its inventor I'd surely like to read it.

Apparently Kendall also contracted with the management at Vermont State Penitentiary in Windsor for inmates to fabricate piece parts for guns, but no complete guns were allowed to be assembled in the prison. Hilliard did likewise after he left Kendall's employ and started his own shop in Cornish, NH. When you put Kendall and Hillard underhammer buggy rifles together it's sometimes hard to tell which was made by whom.

Bluejacket

 

[Runner]

Apparently the wheels are starting to fall off the pre-1840 story. I suspected that this was the case. Still waiting on someone to chime in with the Texas info or at least a lead to where it can actually be researched or viewed. I fully expect it to turn out the same way.

 

[Runner]

Apparently the wheels are starting to fall off the pre-1840 story. I suspected that this was the case. Still waiting on someone to chime in with the Texas info or at least a lead to where it can actually be researched or viewed. I fully expect it to turn out the same way.

 

[BS]

No, I don't know you, and I never proposed and silly caliber limitations either.
The quidelines change to 1800 would disqualify every gun I own. I would have to buy or build a gun to shoot myself. It would be worth it tho.
The 1840 date for the gatherings was settled on for several reasons. One, it is the end of the fur trade rendezvous, which were traditional gatherings. Two, it is the last decade that things can be defined in with any certainty. The Caplock and cutting the stock down being the biggest changes in 100 years or more. A few years later things begin to change so fast that there is no keeping it straight, even if that is all you do is study that time period. The Underhammer is part of that rapid change that the date was chosen to exclude.
Yes, I would push back the date to 1800, excluding all caplocks, halfstocks, and 99 percent of all factory guns to keep the underhammers out of the gatherings. That would include all of my present guns too. If they want to have underhammer gatherings, let them. They have the NMLRA along with the inliners already. If the person that explained the TMA stance was correct, then they have the TMA also.
Is kind of like talking to non-hunters about hunting. If you don't know why, it is very hard to communicate why using words, much less written words.

What is the big deal about "UNDERHAMMERS"? Why is it so important 'when the first one' was built? It is not like folks would be bringing bench guns to a Woods Walk. Why the hatetred toward a under or side hammers?

WHY? WHY? WHY?

I just don't understand the 'your' problem with the 'date line'........It looks like some might have been made in the late 1700s, but so what?