To pin or screw a triggerguard

[aragorn]

I've read that it was more common for the rear tang of the triggerguard on longrifles to be attached with a wood screw rather than pinned before about 1780. Is this so? If I'm building a Pennsylvania rifle of circa 1770, is one way going to be more 'authentic' than the other?

My other consideration is practical: is a pinned or a screwed rear tang going to be more secure, or is there not much to choose between the techniques?

 

[rich pierce]

This seems to be variable. I have seen screws used on Bucks County guns from the 1790s and pins used on Lancaster guns from the 1770's and pins used on Reading guns that MAY be from the 1760's or early 1770s. I think screws look early and good on guards with more complicated rear finials, acanthus leaves, etc. Often there is a "boss" or raised place on guards with more complicated finials and a screw fits within the design nicely.

Neither is more secure than the other. The guard will break before the fastener breaks or comes loose. I guess wood screw threads in the wood could strip if someone removed the guard too many times. Most originals were never stripped down unless they were being restocked. Folkls want to tear their guns down a lot now, and this will bugger pinholes, screw slots, etc.

 

[aragorn]

Thanks - I haven't had a chance to look at many original rifles first-hand, so it's very interesting to hear from someone who has. It strikes me that whereas other 'later' features (eg toe plates) might have been added to an early rifle to improve it, the trigger guard would probably remain as originally fastened unless the whole guard had to be replaced.

 

[54JNoll]

From looking at pictures of original rifles I would say it was more a personal choice of gunsmiths. Some pinned amlost exclusively while others used a screw more often for the rear extension of the guard. Others seamed to vary their approach.

I like a pinned look but I will use a screw if patterning a rifle after a specific gunsmith who typically did so.