My error, I posted an underhammer in error

[Dennis Glazener]

Violated our own rules, sorry I should have noticed that the gun that I posted for ID'ing was an underhammer of some sort. I will forward the info provided by members to the new member.
Dennis

[Sawfiler]

Not questioning one way or the other. I have no particular interest in underhammers, there's far to much information for me to process about side locks. But could you explain why they are disallowed?

[J Henry]

 me to.

[snapper]

Dennis!!!!!

You should be ashamed of yourself!   

Fleener

[Sawfiler]

I apologize if my question came off as accusatory. It was very much from a place of curiosity. This forum is excellent as it is. Just wanted to better understand the rules.

[mr. no gold]

Sawfiler this is a subject that more than one of us has strayed into been and chastised for. I have a very fine NE under hammer target rifle that I posted and was reprimanded by the moderators for having done so. I was offended for a time and hence didn't post anything at all. Things have changed now and I am being more forthcoming about showing some of the collection.
It was explained at that time, with what I perceived as a "take it or leave it attitude," that when first the ALR formed the originators excluded certain categories of guns and the underhammer was one of those. A side hammer is okay; location, location, location applies here I guess. So, I left it!
That is my experience with that topic. I don't think that the fellow who jumped me for it is around much these days, but he wore his moderator title like sargent's stripes.

[Dennis Glazener]

Not questioning one way or the other. I have no particular interest in underhammers, there's far to much information for me to process about side locks. But could you explain why they are disallowed?

No I don't mind explaining at all. It has nothing to do with being against underhammers, it has to do with trying to keep our forum from continued expansion into areas other than longrifles and their close kin.

At the time we made the sidelock only rule we were being hit with many modern underhammer bench guns, some with scopes, some with wild paint jobs etc. So in mulling around about how to get back more toward our longrifle roots we decided to restrict our forums to side locks only. Another concern we had was IF a surge of Civil War weapons/shooters came in and started watering down the longrifle culture so we made rules to screen them out, again no problem with those guns but in the east these guns/shooting have a huge following and we would prefer to stay out of that area of ML.

Some would say plains rifles, European Fowler's, trade guns and rifles don't fit the long rifle  theme but they have close ties to the American long rifles plus they had been allowed on ALR that they pretty much had grandfather status.

Sure there are some that are or have been upset because underhammers are not allowed but I can assure you some would like to see inlines, cap and ball revolvers, Sharps and other BP guns here but we wish to stay closer to the long rifle.

Dennis

[Mike Brooks]

Violated our own rules, sorry I should have noticed that the gun that I posted for ID'ing was an underhammer of some sort. I will forward the info provided by members to the new member.
Dennis

30 lashes is what I usually get from the moderator for a crime like this.

[Joe S.]

Hmmmm,can you even send yourself the stand in the corner PM?

[snapper]

Everyone knows that habitual offenders get enhanced punishments.

Fleener

[Craig Wilcox]

Dunce cap for a week, Dennis!

[Tanselman]

Just out of curiosity [and to liven up a boring day], was the cane gun really an under-hammer? Usually an under-hammer always has the hammer underneath, usually tensioned by the curved guard serving as the mainspring, and is released by a normal trigger pull. With the cane gun, it appeared that the hammer and trigger bar don't have to be underneath, and very easily could have been fired with the hammer on top, and pressing down on the "trigger" bar release mechanism with the thumb...which differs significantly from the normal under-hammer. So if the butt and cane gun barrel are attached/assembled together into a long-arm, which side does the hammer and release bar sit...the top or bottom? It may look like a duck, but at this point I'm not sure it walks and quacks like a duck.

Shelby Gallien

[okawbow]

I enjoy seeing pictures of any pre 1870 muzzleloaders, regardless of what side the hammer is on. I’d much rather see a nice, quality, 1840 underhammer with a curly maple stock, than look at a modern, plastic stock “Hawken” type muzzleloader.

I was happy to see your “mistake”.

Chuck

[44-henry]

I understand the rationale behind the rules, but it is unfortunate. I feel there is definite interest in these among current members and when I first became a member many years ago they were open for discussion, in fact they were selling plans for one as a fundraiser. I have a couple antique underhammers of very fine workmanship and I think the topic of building one and getting feedback on this forum would be of some interest. Unfortunately there really isn't another quality forum of this type to discuss these in. I really do wonder why the big deal over a period firearm that fits into the date range of the forum.