doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com set triggers in hunting rifles

From the earlier discussion begun by Idared with his question about 1903 Springfield set triggers it appears that there is a consensus against the use of set triggers in bench rest and for them in Schuetzen work. But their utility, or lack of it, for big game hunting has scarcely been addressed here. I would suggest that historically there are three traditions in the development of hunting rifles: the Continentals, the Brits, and us in the USA. The Europeans from wheelocks on used set triggers on their hunting rifles and still do, some even of their modern double rifles have single set triggers and many if not most Euro Mausers I have seen are DST. This may be because much of their hunting is from blinds where standing shots are the rule. The English were not much on rifles on their own island, saving some limited stag stalking in Scotland, and when they began serious big game hunting in India and Africa they did not use set triggers. Our own early Pennsylvania FL rifles were DST and this carried over into the brief percussion era but began to die out with breechloaders and faded away, despite their availability from such as Winchester, with lever action repeaters. American bolt guns never have had them. Yet much of our hunting calls for deliberate rather than quick shooting and it would seem that the ability to set a trigger for a light pull would offer advantages. One obstacle occurs to me, using an ST reasonably well requires practice, something the average American hunter won't do. But those of us who consider ourselves rifle cranks don't usually hunt with set triggers either.

"American bolt guns never have had them?" True enough if you look at Winchester or Remington, but I have a Newton with the setting trigger reversed and it is an addition I would ask for on a custom bolt rifle.

Mark, I agree with you and will add another speculation; the Continental use of set triggers is also associated with the eventual use of crossbows in target shooting rather than warfare, in the 17th & 18th centuries after the introduction of firearms. The English, OTOH, didn't use the crossbow at all but rather had always relied upon the longbow and so had no tradition of using triggers of any sort prior to the introduction of firearms. IMO that circumstance, combined with their concentration upon bird shooting with shotguns instead of big game (none in England) with rifles, made it unlikely that many UK shooters would prefer the set mechanism. The islanders did, at one time, use their longbows in much the same manner as the Europeans' crossbows, to shoot at the popinjay targets and such. This is the sport that later morphed into what we know as Schuetzen but it had fallen into disfavor in the islands by the time firearms came to dominate warfare. On the Continent, however, the sport continued to grow, and people were seeking ways to better their equipment and score higher on the targets. It's difficult for us to appreciate just how much effect this may have had, but it's a fact that the crossbow was a major influence on European sport, even to the point where at least one church, in Brussels I believe, is dedicated to their sporting use. And of course as firearms become more popular in Europe, they were adapted to the European style of target shooting which was gradually changing into shorter-range and more-structured competition. Think of all the Zimmerschuetzens brought back from the various wars, and how these set-triggered rifles didn't even exist in other parts of the world!

When we add to this the fact that Northern Europe had a long tradition of armsmaking, with many fine arms craftsmen making some very finely-finished arms, the efforts of most of the early British makers appear somewhat basic and undeveloped by comparison. Don't forget that during much of the Christian Era, Belgium and surrounding areas were the arms suppliers to the rest of Europe and even the islands. The presence of iron ore and water power helped to make Northern Europe into the cradle of gunmaking, and it's natural and logical that their shooters would be somewhat more advanced and sophisticated in the use of, and preference for, set triggers. Just a few thoughts.
Regards, Joe

I'm not much of a historian on this topic, but I am experienced enough in target and hunting with singleshots and muzzleloaders to say that I find set triggers always desirable. Always. I only have three guns that get hunting time which do not have sets. One is a long range underhammer muzzleloader that would have sets in a new york minute if I could figure out how.

The others are a Marlin 39a and a #3 Ballard. They are rabbit/squirrel rifles and the latter would be much more desirable with a set trigger.

JD and I differ on their use at the bench. I, and all the Schuetzen benchrest specialists that I know, always always use them if their guns have them. If they don't (as in a Martini International), then it's because they don't have the bucks to throw down for a Ballad or a Stevens with sets. We might be a bunch of bumpkins in these parts, but if there is concensus - is in favor of sets at the bench.

Brent

I too prefer them, having used DST's almost continuously for over 30 years in various Mannlicher-Schoenauer's, Mausers, etc. Setting the trigger has become so second nature to me I sometimes find myself trying to set my non-DST'ed rifles. I am aware of the general public's apathy/ignorance toward DSTs and never loan out a rifle so equipped, unless the recipient can demonstrate proficiency.

I have jump shot deer with a set trigger bolt action and still use that rifle for my walking around rough weather rifle. It is no big deal.

People read things and then repeat them as fact, implying that they somehow “know.” Look at all of the garbage about efficient cartridges, Damascus is dangerous, black powder is low pressure, scopes should be as low as possible, etc., etc. I am talking about all people, not just in gun scenarios. But if something is written once in a gun magazine or three times on an internet forum, the masses know it to be an absolute truth of the universe. There are some evolutionary reasons why this can be beneficial, but it also helps spread pure BS that becomes accepted as gospel.

Most shooters in the US have no experience with set triggers, so their only experience comes from reading about them. Actually, few of the writers (magazine and internet forums) have actually used set triggers in the field. They are simply parroting what they have read. Set triggers are no problem for anyone with even moderate use of their hands and a minimal level of intelligence. I have physical limitations in my hands and I can manipulate them just fine.

I think the bigger problem is that most shooters do not have enough experience shooting. Think of every single gun owner you know and then think about what small of a percentage of them actually shoot and dry fire. A lot of dry firing in one’s living room easily teaches how to manipulate DST’s, even under pressure situations. Saying it can’t be learned is about as ridiculous as saying a person will get flustered if he uses guns with safeties in different positions and of different actions. I can learn to use all action types, safety types, and trigger types under pressure situations, so any one can who wants to do it can also learn. I encourage anyone interested in DST’s to buy a cheap rifle and try them out. You can still find cheap German Guild guns with them and they will make great teaching tools. It will probably be cheaper to buy an old rifle than to have DST’s added to a rifle you already own. They really do work nicely in the field.

BTW-no big game in England? There are six species of wild deer on the island. Some are small bodied, but some are pretty darn big. I have shot a couple of their deer species and hope to get the other four in a few years. At least one, and usually multiple, deer species inhabit the entire island. As with whitetails in the US, I have seen deer inside of cities and in people’s back yards.

I love set triggers and have never had a problem with them myself. I have had new (to set trigger) shooters find them awkward and wanting to immediately cast them off as unusable and unneeded. After a bit of a lesson and some shooting I don't think I've ever found anyone that hasn't come away with at least a slight affection for them.
I've always gotten a kick out of shooters saying set triggers can't be easily or safely used. Put it in the same catagory as a double triger SxS,,many feel they aren't useable either.
One thing I did notice with a new shooter using a DST is that they tended to try and still squeeze the trigger no matter that it was only an ounce pull or so. Give it a nudge when you need to send the shot.
As far as the accuracy thing, I've already stated I find them more accurate for me than the regular trigger. But everyones different and I couldn't compete with a benchrest shooter anyway.
Besides,,a German sporter or a Mannlicher Schoenauer just don't look right without 'em.

A couple of quick additions:

IMO anyone who can't learn to use sets in about 15 minutes of dry-firing doesn't have any business handling a loaded gun of any type. Also IMO anyone who doesn't regularly dry-fire their rifles will not do as well in the field as they would have if they had practiced dry-firing.

My friend Zimjohn Taylor (Zimbabwe John, originally from Rhodesia), when he was in the UK Army in England, was tasked with killing at least one deer per month as a part of his permission to hunt locally. I believe he said that the largest deer below Hadrian's Wall were about the size of a large dog, 100 lbs or less. Red deer in Scotland are much larger of course but that ain't England and the Scottish culture is notably different with regard to rifles.

I'm not attempting to tell anyone to stop using sets, I love 'em and always have, I find them a welcome addition to any rifle. I AM saying, however, that IMO the shooter will give up some level of accuracy under some circumstances off the bench. I'm also saying that I'd be amazed if anyone else's properly-conducted testing revealed any major differences from my own findings.

I first mentioned these results and my opinions back almost 8 years ago, on the old Shooters forum, and was immediately chastised, rebuked and accused of all sorts of things. Some fairly experienced shooters strongly disagreed with me and the discussion got somewhat heated to say the least.

However, to make a long story short, the furor and disagreement and accusations immediately, instantly and magically died out completely when I offered to bet some fairly serious money.

I'm not saying that perhaps you, shooting your own rifle, might not get results that indicate the opposite of mine. I AM saying, however, that I offered to bet $1000 that an independent shooter, shooting anyone's rifle(s) would get close to the same results that I got.

So far no takers, not even a serious discussion of alternative testing or wager modification, so I kinda consider my point proven to at least my own satisfaction. Mighta been interesting if someone had gotten up enough gumption to bet, though.
Regards, Joe

Yeah, but Joe, I've seen a goodly portion of YOUR targets, and I can't agree with your conclusions based on your targets.

Brent

Well.....the offer still stands.....I'm still waiting.....
Regards, Joe