When was the Single Set Trigger first used?

I'm not sure if this is the right forum, but I'm having a flintlock custom built for me and I wanted it to be a rather early style, around 1750-1760.

He told me I could have a single set trigger, but I was wondering if that would be period-correct. I know they used double-set triggers then, even though probably the majority were just a single trigger with no "set".

Can anyone tell me when the single set trigger was invented and more importantly, used by someone on the frontier? Frontier being Pennsylvania, what is now W. Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, etc.?

Thanks

Doug

 

[J.D.]

I'm not sure when the single set trigger was invented, however, I do know that set triggers of any kind were rare on early rifles.

IMHO, I suspect that there will be more issues with historical correctness with this rifle, than the issue of set triggers.

There are few rifles, from any location, that MIGHT date to the 1750s or 1760's. There are NO rifles documented to have been made at that early date. The best anyone can do, with any certainty, is pre-Rev War, which is early 1770s.

I would question any maker that says he can make a historically correct rifle for the 1750s, unless he is making a copy of the Faber rifle, which is thought by some to have been made as early as the 1750s.

God bless

 

[JV Puleo]

I had single set triggers on a pair of Twigg & Bass Dueling Pistols made in 1796-97. Dueling pistols being very conservative in design, I would not assume they were a completely new idea at the time. But, they could have been used on best grade London guns for 50 years or more before they were seen on the frontier.

 

I'm not sure I know what you mean. I know there were rifles (not smoothbores) during the French & Indian War. The Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifle was around during that period...that's when it really got it's start, or just after.

I know it was not the "Golden Age" of Kentucky rifles, but they were not all smoothbores during the French & Indian War.

 

[paulvallandigham]

Until Rifled barrels became popular in use- true rifles-- there simply was no need for any kind of "set trigger", single or double. So, we know that rifles came on the scene in the second half of the 18th century( 1750-1800). You can assume that single set triggers appeared after that early date. If its a rifle, and a muzzleloader, its PC and HC to have a single set trigger on it. We have very little information on rifles used during the French and Indian war(1754-'63); we have almost as little information on the rifles used during the American revolution( 1775-'83). We know they were used on both sides but the majority of guns used where still the flintlock musket- the British Brown Bess and the French Charleyville. Everything else was from privately owned arms of the individual soldiers. Since the colonies were almost at constant war with various Indian Tribes, in different locations, firearms development continued on wherever gunmakers could make a living. I doubt we will ever know who invented the single set trigger, and if there is a claim, it may to be one system, but not the others. :thumbsup:

 

[SimonKenton]

I read that some higher quality medieval crossbows with very heavy prods meant for extreme range shooting had set triggers. Makes sense as you had a lot going against you. A crossbow has a looping trajectory and even one with over 500# pull (needing a winch to cock it) and shooting a heavy bolt needed all the help it could get.

Tradition holds that Richard the Lionheart was killed by a heavy bolt fired from over 400 yards that pierced his chain mail and his neck.

-Ray

 

[J.D.]

I'm not sure I know what you mean. I know there were rifles (not smoothbores) during the French & Indian War. The Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifle was around during that period...that's when it really got it's start, or just after.

I know it was not the "Golden Age" of Kentucky rifles, but they were not all smoothbores during the French & Indian War.

There are references to rifles in the American Colonies as early as the late 17th century, however, those early rifles were not signed or dated, nor are they known to have survived. The earliest signed and dated rifle known is the John Schriet rifle, dated 1761, other than that, what a rifle might have looked like and what kind of buttplate, how wide and deep; what the lock and sideplate might have looked like, what the triggerguard might have looked like, and how those components were put together, is anyone's guess.

Generally speaking, early rifles of that period were much more robust, with thick, massive stocks and heavy barrels, unlike the light, slim guns of the Golden Age.

Yes, there were a comparatively very few rifles in existence during the F&I period, but there are no known surviving examples of those rifles, so we don't know what they looked like.

Moreover, there were relatively few rifles in use during the F&I period. Some people seem to think that there were rifles behind every bush and tree, but even during the Rev War period, rifles were comparatively rare outside of western PA/VA/NC regions.

IMHO, anyone who claims to know what a rifle of the F&I period looked like is whistling into the wind. IMHO, anyone who claims to know what a pre- Rev War rifle looked like, is whistling into the wind, though there are a number of unsigned, undated rifles that COULD date to the early 1770s.

IMHO, comparing dating and research, to what modern builders claim to be early rifles is like comparing a Model T Ford to a 1970s vintage Chevelle SS. A vast majority of the rifles being made today, that are claimed to be "early", are nothing more than SS Chevelle's painted to look like Model T's.

I suggest doing a little research, on your own, to see what has survived and what dates are attributed to them. Then find a builder who is straight up, with you, about "early guns".

A good place to start is the American Historical Services page.
http://www.americanhistoricservices.com/html/antique_rifles.html

Another good site.
http://kindigrifles.com/

Then you might want to find copies of Rifles of Colonial America VOL 1 and 2. Your local library might have them, or should be able to get them, if you don't want to buy them.


I suspect that your builder is suggesting a single set trigger to give you the advantage of a set trigger, with the appearance of a simple trigger.

IMHO, based on research, set triggers, of any kind, are rare on American rifles of the Rev War and earlier periods...and single set triggers even more rare.

If the builder knows what he is doing, a simple trigger will give a light trigger pull with a real nice let off and little creep.
God bless

 

[J.D.]

Just remembered, unfortunately too late to post, due to the ridiculously short edit time.

Tallbear recently made a rifle based on an original thought to, possibly, date from the mid 1760's. Maybe he will chime in with a coupla photos of that very nice rifle.

Jim Parker has made that same rifle.
http://www.parkerfirearms.com/

IMHO, either one can do a great job.
God bless

 

[Stumpkiller]

As I recall one of the problems in early (pre-Rev War) days was that the Crown insisted the barrels and locks be imported from England and well and truly taxed. There were restrictions on what a colony could manufacture itself. That's likely why a lot of the rifles from the early days are unsigned - to keep the smith out of prison.

Then you get some stubborn Dutchmen in the Moravian settlements of PA who gradually stretch and streamline the Jäger rifle pattern into various interpretations.

The earliest known signed and dated American rifle was a "Joh Schreit" (Reading area) from 1761 according to one source I have. Wood patchbox lid, of course.

 

[J.D.]

The largely ignored Iron Act of 1750 was designed to encourage the production of pig iron rather than bar iron. The result was that gunmakers had all of the iron they wanted, and had it pretty cheaply.

I suspect that there are many reasons that gunmakers didn't sign their work. Some researchers speculate that the Moravians didn't want the personal glorification that would come from signing their work. Others speculate that during the Rev War, many gunmakers were under contract to the various Committees of Safety, with stiff fines for making rifles for individuals, so it it thought that those makers didn't sign their guns to avoid fines or other sanctions. Still others speculate that gunmakers, and the defining characteristics of their work, were known locally and possibly regionally, so signing their work was not necessary.

Like most things involving these old guns, it's all speculation.

Speaking of speculation, Eric Kettenburg made his version of a rifle that might have been made in the 1750's. This piece is based on a surviving relic that might possibly date to the early 1770s or even to the 1750s. To be honest, who knows?

That said, I suspect that Eric might have gotten pretty close.
http://web.mac.com/kettenburgs/Site/1750s_Rifle.html

God bless