Underhammer?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Panzerschwein

member
Joined
Nov 19, 2011
Messages
8,122
Location
Desert
Anyone shoot underhammers? I am thinking about the Carleton underhammer from Pedersoli:

S357b.jpg


Looks really neat. When were underhammers invented? Is it a modern thing? Thanks!
 
I have an H+A Numrich underhammer that is my go to muzzleloader for deer, and picked up a Deer Creek action in the white i've never gotten around to working on. I think i paid 75$ for each. The other day on gunbroker i saw this one. All i can say is WOW! (currently up to $485, with 8 hours to go). If i could get a price like that, I think i'd sell my H+A and use the money to get a Colerain barrel for my unfinished action. Just have to find someone with a stock duplicator machine and get another stock made before i let it go....
 
Actually underhammers go back to the 18th century and there were a few rare flintlock examples in this period. The first percussion underhammers were probably invented by the Ruggles in the mid 1820s. The Ruggle brothers were one of the most prolific builders of these guns, but tragically both were killed years apart in accidents involving their own guns. By the 1840s underhammers were somewhat old news and soon (with a few exceptions) to be made obsolete by multishot arms that were being developed. There were however some interesting breechloading arms that continued to use this system however.
 
Never seen that before. Heck never even heard of it before. Today was a good trip to THR. I learned something. That is really a very interesting pistol. Thanks for posting that.
 
I bought an H&A Heritage model underhammer from Numrich Arms about 52 years ago. That .45 has been fired a lot and has taken bobcats, deer and squirrels. I've always kind liked them and will keep mine. I got rifle, mold and leather rifle case for $70, IIRC.
 
I own a Pedersoli Carleton, exactly the same model as in Cooldill's picture. I bought it for the MLAIC "Kuchenreuter" discipline.

Initially the pistol had problems. It would not always ignite a cap, particularly CCI caps absolutely refused to pop. And even if the cap ignited, powder charge often refused to. Found the reasons being that the striker spring (aka trigger guard) was too weak, caps did not seat properly and the nipple's fire channel was too narrow. The original striker spring was crudely shaped soft steel, an obvious manufacturing and QC flaw. Got a new spring that is almost too strong, now cocking requires considerable force. I also reshaped the nipple by reducing the diameter of the cone to make caps sit deeper, and drilled the fire hole to 0.5 mm. After these alterations the pistol now ignites reliably, provided that the angled fire channel from the nipple to the powder chamber is free from oil and excessive powder residue. Before a shooting session I blow the channel clear with compressed air and pop 1-2 caps.

On the positive side I really like how the pistol shoots. Ergonomics is quite good, much better than with my other caplock pistol (Pedersoli Le Page), bore line and line of sight are low. There's no set trigger but the trigger is crisp and light enough. The pistol is long and front heavy and I like that, its large rotational inertia makes it very "forgiving". One does not have to struggle to keep the gun still and it is easy to execute good shooting technique. The striker moves parallel to the bore line, causing no torque to disturb the aim. There's also very little muzzle climb, the gun recoils almost straight back, which means it is not sensitive to small gripping variations.

Cleaning the Carleton has some challenges. Firing mechanism is attached to the barrel and getting water inside the mechanism housing should obviously be avoided, unless one wants to disassemble it (a minor PITA) during every cleanup. So one can't just dunk the barrel in a water tub as I do with Le Page. I either scrub Carleton's barrel with Ballistol-water mix or use a DIY device built from a car windscreen washer pump to run warm soapy water into the nipple hole and out of the muzzle. The latter method cleans the fire channel too, which is important for reliability.

All in all, after the initial wrinkles have been ironed out, I'm now quite pleased with the gun. If the ball does not land within the 4" 9-ring @ 25 meters it's my fault, not the gun's.
 
I own a Pedersoli Carleton, exactly the same model as in Cooldill's picture. I bought it for the MLAIC "Kuchenreuter" discipline.

Initially the pistol had problems. It would not always ignite a cap, particularly CCI caps absolutely refused to pop. And even if the cap ignited, powder charge often refused to. Found the reasons being that the striker spring (aka trigger guard) was too weak, caps did not seat properly and the nipple's fire channel was too narrow. The original striker spring was crudely shaped soft steel, an obvious manufacturing and QC flaw. Got a new spring that is almost too strong, now cocking requires considerable force. I also reshaped the nipple by reducing the diameter of the cone to make caps sit deeper, and drilled the fire hole to 0.5 mm. After these alterations the pistol now ignites reliably, provided that the angled fire channel from the nipple to the powder chamber is free from oil and excessive powder residue. Before a shooting session I blow the channel clear with compressed air and pop 1-2 caps.

On the positive side I really like how the pistol shoots. Ergonomics is quite good, much better than with my other caplock pistol (Pedersoli Le Page), bore line and line of sight are low. There's no set trigger but the trigger is crisp and light enough. The pistol is long and front heavy and I like that, its large rotational inertia makes it very "forgiving". One does not have to struggle to keep the gun still and it is easy to execute good shooting technique. The striker moves parallel to the bore line, causing no torque to disturb the aim. There's also very little muzzle climb, the gun recoils almost straight back, which means it is not sensitive to small gripping variations.

Cleaning the Carleton has some challenges. Firing mechanism is attached to the barrel and getting water inside the mechanism housing should obviously be avoided, unless one wants to disassemble it (a minor PITA) during every cleanup. So one can't just dunk the barrel in a water tub as I do with Le Page. I either scrub Carleton's barrel with Ballistol-water mix or use a DIY device built from a car windscreen washer pump to run warm soapy water into the nipple hole and out of the muzzle. The latter method cleans the fire channel too, which is important for reliability.

All in all, after the initial wrinkles have been ironed out, I'm now quite pleased with the gun. If the ball does not land within the 4" 9-ring @ 25 meters it's my fault, not the gun's.

Thank you. I did not know they had such bad quality problems. It seems if someone is going to pay over $900 for what seems to me like a very simple firearms then it should at least work out of the box.
 
I'm in the process of building my own .36 pistol. I'm using an H & A frame, with a 10" Oregon barrel. Going to look like an oversized boot gun.
They are not hard to build. The H&A ( Numrich ), and a Billinghurst, receivers are both available.
Add your caliber barrel of choice, install some sights, and drill and tap for a nipple, and your in business.
I have less then two hundred in mine so far. I'm still working on the grip, then its ready for browning, and the test fire.
 
I had the Pedersoli Carleton pistol for a while, very accurate & comfortable to shoot. The main problem I had was that, unlike most underhammers where the nipple directs the flash directly into the powder chamber, the flash channel travels 90 degrees & unless it was really clean I'd get misfires. They also use revolver nipples, rather than standard pistol/rifle ones.
Now my only underhammer is my Norwegian Kammerlader (.69 caliber percussion breechloader).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top