Commonality of stock pinned trigger

[red owl]

I was recently at Fort Robinson, Nebraska.  On the first floor is a display case with the plains rifle owned by "Little Bat" Garnier.  He was using this rifle around 1870's.  He was a U.S. Army scout.
   In any event there is no side plate, only a brass washer and the pin holding the trigger is plainly in view.
   On the simple (is that the correct term?) type triggers. That is; everything but a set trigger, Track of the Wolf and other sources sell trigger plates with high posts to which a trigger could be pinned but I'm wondering why any gunsmith would use such a part?  You would have to cast the brass and then spend some time with a file to finish the part.  You would have to remove more wood than just the narrow slot for a stocked pinned trigger.
   So.....someone in the past told me these trigger plates with the high post (or tabs) is period correct but for those of you that have seen original firearms- do you have any idea on what method (for plain triggers) for used the most?

[rich pierce]

"original firearms" covers a lot of ground.  On colonial and Federal period flintlock fowling pieces and rifles with simple triggers I've only seen them pinned through the stock.

[Mike Brooks]

"original firearms" covers a lot of ground.  On colonial and Federal period flintlock fowling pieces and rifles with simple triggers I've only seen them pinned through the stock.

Ditto

[Pete G.]

The "original" guns that I build usually have a single trigger pinned in the stock.

I believe that a set trigger was often used to make a less that satisfactory lock function better. Then there is the factor of style. Some rifles require a set trigger just because they were they were all made that way (Southern rifles for instance). Seems that a lot of the fowlers used a pinned single trigger, at least that's what I can tell by pictures, never having handled but just a very few antiques.

[stuart cee dub]

Pinned triggers were quite common throughout the periods this website covers .That being said these simple lever triggers are anything but simple to get right .
I still struggle  to get the size and leverage just right to make a good letoff sometimes forging and filing two or three until I make one I like for a particular gun .

Frankly set triggers while more complicated in and of themselves are much easier to do in my experience .Not only does it help with a marginal lock as Pete suggests but the leverage ,creep and overtravel are all taken care of with the set mechanism .

[red owl]

Well, let me sort of restate my question. There are a few "gun" books available in bookstores "Steel Canvas", Etc.- these books contain hundreds of photos.  Some of the small Derringer pistols- you can see the trigger pin in the stock. The same with other firearms.  On the long rifles if there is only one trigger- it might be a set type but chances are it is a plain trigger.  Now, if I look at TOW catalog, or similar catalogs- there are a lot of trigger plates with high tabs or a front post to which the trigger is pinned. Then the whole gizmo gets inlet into the stock.
   I am trying to figure out whether this is the historically correct method or whether today's shooter shuns the concept of stock pinning- figuring a pin held in wood is not as good as a "metal to metal" method as occurs when a trigger plate has tabs or posts.
   I've made both types and personally, when the stock method is used, the pin is usually higher and the trigger pull less. I don't have a wax/sand cast trigger plate that needs to be cleaned up and finished and there is less wood removed by not having these tabs and posts.
   So.....the sort of obvious question arises as whether any gunsmith back in the day would bother with a trigger plate containing these tabs or post when it would be a lot easier to just pin the stock and the function better and less wood removed.
   So.....I guess the question or answer is...
  "I've examined 50 original American Long rifles that had plain triggers and all but one were pinned to the stock", or..."Half were pinned to the stock and half had trigger plates with tabs or a post".
    Hope I better explained my question.
   And.....today's modern rifle has a complicated trigger containing multiple parts, all metal parts in a metal housing.  It is what is in "our comfort range". So I'm wondering whether in building replicas we want a metal to metal system as a result.
   AND...don't mean to go on and on.... I was recently at Ft. Robinson, NE and saw "Little Bat" Garnier's plains rifle. Stock pinned trigger. The TOW Leman percussion kit uses a trigger plate with a front post but I'm wondering what was used on an original Leman- this high front post or stock pinning?
   Thanks for any help.

[louieparker]

red owl, I would estimate that I have taken apart a few hundred KY rifles.  My memory certainly isn't perfect, but I don't recall seeing a single trigger rifle that was anything other than just pined to the wood.. All most all had simple flat trigger plates. On rare occasion a southern rifle without a trigger plate.

[rich pierce]

In the 1970s a lot of parts were made, articles written and how to books published that were not as focused on historical accuracy as some are today. We at ALR are probably at the conservative end of the spectrum of adherence to period construction of the long rifle. I am trying to remember how the trigger is pinned in later military guns. Perhaps through metal tabs. Some things designed in the black powder revival heyday seem to have been hybrids between more modern designs and traditional designs. I make my own simple triggers. It is fun and pretty simple.

[PPatch]

Red Owl from what I'm seeing in this thread you can't go wrong by pinning in the stock as opposed to a trigger plate with an upward extension requiring a larger opening with more wood removed..

dp

[red owl]

Well thanks to all. I appreciate the real world examination of originals.  I must admit- I didn't even know about the method until a few years ago and when I heard about it I thought it was a crude way to install a trigger and done only on cheap firearms.
   Well,,,,,,I had a cheap black plastic stocked $70 CVA mountain stalker I never did much with so I thought as a learning experience I would use the barrel and lock and restock it and make all the hardware. The finished gun looks okay except for the stubby 26" barrel. Still, I learned a lot.  One thing I did was make my own trigger and use the stock pinning method.  The CVA gun had the trigger pinned right on top of the trigger plate and the pull was heavy.  I sort of went overboard and pinned the trigger fairly high (in the lock mortise area) but what an improvement in trigger pull.  I carefully made the slot in the plate so free forward movement isn't much.  All in all- I became a believer in the method and after that experience I started wondering why any other method would be used.  In fact as much as I like set triggers they can get out of adjustment now and then and the plain trigger is fool proof.  In any event- that's when I started questioning all these kits that have trigger plates with the high tabs or posts.  To me, I want as close to the original as possible- isn't that the whole point?
   Thanks again for the real life experience.  As I said, I've started taking a closer look at originals and it just seemed that with a single, plain trigger- a lot looked like they were stock pinned- the deal is, the lock hides the pin, you need an image on the other side.

[Notchy Bob]

I am aware of the fact that this thread is six years old, but I found it while searching for something else. It is an interesting topic, and the comments provide some context for my own experience...

I had Jackie Brown build a flintlock fowling piece for me a number of years ago.  I like the gun and Jackie did a good job with it overall, but I took it to the range the first time, and the trigger bound up after about four or five shots.  You couldn't pull it, or get it to trip the sear.  I removed the triggerguard, which was inletted and screwed in place, without pins, and removed the trigger assembly.  This was an "early style" pigtail trigger mounted on a plate, but pinned through the "upward extension" or post on the trigger plate, as described above.  Everything looked good, so I reassembled the gun and it worked fine, for four or five shots, when the trigger bound up again.  I determined that there was not enough clearance between the decorative "web" on the back of the trigger and triggerguard bow, so I filed some off.  It worked great for a few shots, and bound up again.

This time, I looked a little harder.  It is noteworthy that Jackie used a wood screw to secure the tang, and not a through bolt.  Also, the trigger plate was simply placed in the inlet, and held only by pressure from the trigger guard.  I'll admit to being a little dull-witted at times, but I finally determined that the slot for the trigger and the inlet for the trigger plate were a bit sloppy.  With the recoil of shooting, the trigger assembly was moving back just a little with every shot, until it would reach a point at which it bound up.  Fortunately, Jackie had drilled a pilot hole for the tang screw all the way through, and it lined up with a "boss" on the front end of the trigger plate when the trigger assembly was in the right position.  I simple drilled through the pilot hole and into this boss, tapped the hole in the metal, and installed a machine bolt as a tang screw.  The trigger assembly didn't shift any more.

None of that would have happened if the trigger had been mounted on a pin through the stock in the first place.  Not only is that more traditional than the "trigger group" you see so often these days, but it removes less wood, and the trigger's position relative to the sear is not going to change.

I recall that many years ago, Turner Kirkland promoted the use of this type of trigger assembly on his New Dixie Squirrel Rifle, as preferable to "a weak pin through the stock" (his words).  I guess a lot of people took his word for it, or maybe the use of a "trigger group" is easier to manage in an assembly line situation, as for factory made guns.  In my opinion, the pin through the stock is the better way to go, for traditional muzzle-loaders.

Notchy Bob

[rich pierce]

Simple triggers pinned through the stock are extremely common. Simple triggers pinned through a boss on the trigger plate are nearly unknown on American flintlock guns.

[Mike Brooks]

I am aware of the fact that this thread is six years old, but I found it while searching for something else. It is an interesting topic, and the comments provide some context for my own experience...

I had Jackie Brown build a flintlock fowling piece for me a number of years ago.  I like the gun and Jackie did a good job with it overall, but I took it to the range the first time, and the trigger bound up after about four or five shots.  You couldn't pull it, or get it to trip the sear.  I removed the triggerguard, which was inletted and screwed in place, without pins, and removed the trigger assembly.  This was an "early style" pigtail trigger mounted on a plate, but pinned through the "upward extension" or post on the trigger plate, as described above.  Everything looked good, so I reassembled the gun and it worked fine, for four or five shots, when the trigger bound up again.  I determined that there was not enough clearance between the decorative "web" on the back of the trigger and triggerguard bow, so I filed some off.  It worked great for a few shots, and bound up again.

This time, I looked a little harder.  It is noteworthy that Jackie used a wood screw to secure the tang, and not a through bolt.  Also, the trigger plate was simply placed in the inlet, and held only by pressure from the trigger guard.  I'll admit to being a little dull-witted at times, but I finally determined that the slot for the trigger and the inlet for the trigger plate were a bit sloppy.  With the recoil of shooting, the trigger assembly was moving back just a little with every shot, until it would reach a point at which it bound up.  Fortunately, Jackie had drilled a pilot hole for the tang screw all the way through, and it lined up with a "boss" on the front end of the trigger plate when the trigger assembly was in the right position.  I simple drilled through the pilot hole and into this boss, tapped the hole in the metal, and installed a machine bolt as a tang screw.  The trigger assembly didn't shift any more.

None of that would have happened if the trigger had been mounted on a pin through the stock in the first place.  Not only is that more traditional than the "trigger group" you see so often these days, but it removes less wood, and the trigger's position relative to the sear is not going to change.

I recall that many years ago, Turner Kirkland promoted the use of this type of trigger assembly on his New Dixie Squirrel Rifle, as preferable to "a weak pin through the stock" (his words).  I guess a lot of people took his word for it, or maybe the use of a "trigger group" is easier to manage in an assembly line situation, as for factory made guns.  In my opinion, the pin through the stock is the better way to go, for traditional muzzle-loaders.

Notchy Bob

You get what you pay for.

[Notchy Bob]

You get what you pay for.

Very true. 

There were a couple of other little bugs that needed to be exterminated with that particular gun, which I was able to do myself.  The L&R lock also needed a tune-up, but I had that done by Brad Emig.

I'm pretty happy with it now, though.

Notchy Bob

[Frozen Run]

For a simple trigger, pinning is the way to go as it allows you to optimize the pivot location of the trigger in relation to the sear. In regards to there durability, in 400 years you might have a little play, but it's an easy fix for whoever owns it then.

[RMann]

Thanks for pulling up an old thread, and adding to it - educating us rookies on other options than we get from catalogues and our own assumptions.   I really enjoy learning from you all, and putting it into practice.  In pinning a simple trigger through the stock, do you suggest the same size pin one might use for barrel lugs or ramrod thimbles? Thanks again, R Mann

[Mike Brooks]

Thanks for pulling up an old thread, and adding to it - educating us rookies on other options than we get from catalogues and our own assumptions.   I really enjoy learning from you all, and putting it into practice.  In pinning a simple trigger through the stock, do you suggest the same size pin one might use for barrel lugs or ramrod thimbles? Thanks again, R Mann

I use 1/16" pin.

[flinchrocket]

I am not certain ,but it may be possible that some of the fancier English guns with a single trigger used the post on the trigger plate to pin the trigger. This would eliminate a pin sitting in the middle of the fancy scrolled sideplate that you spent 4 days filing out. Just my thoughts, perhaps someone knows of a English or New England piece that confirms that idea.

[Mike Brooks]

I am not certain ,but it may be possible that some of the fancier English guns with a single trigger used the post on the trigger plate to pin the trigger. This would eliminate a pin sitting in the middle of the fancy scrolled sideplate that you spent 4 days filing out. Just my thoughts, perhaps someone knows of a English or New England piece that confirms that idea.

I have seen that on 18th century English fowling guns.