Trigger guard options for HH/early Virginia-esque rifle

[tnlonghunter]

Soon, I should be collecting the parts set from Dunlap for a rifle. After studying many photos, I ordered the Isaac Haines set, because it was closest in profile and whatnot to the iron-mounted rifles that I've seen called "early Virginia" rifles. Now, to be clear, I'm aware that term covers an enormous amount of ground in terms of what was actually produced back in the 1770-1800 time frame. I've become quite enamored with the Woodbury school, and while that also covers a fair range of aesthetics, it's most appealing features are the iron/steel hardware and the ones that are somewhat more robust and similar to the Lancaster-ish style.

Back to the kit and the trigger guard issue. My biggest gripe with the IH and general Lancaster style is the guard. I prefer a guard where the rear hook curves forward toward the trigger, which allows you to grip nicely with the ring or pinky finger. However, the hook on the standard Lancaster style guard curves the other way, providing less of a surface.

So, I'm trying to find a suitable alternative trigger guard. This one is considered a "Virginia", though I'm not a huge fan of the narrow,, pointy ends - I like ones more robust.
https://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/952/1/TG-VA-I
This one purports to be more of a Carolina style, which looks more comfortable and is more appealing all around.
https://www.trackofthewolf.com/Categories/PartDetail.aspx/950/1/TG-SC-1-I
So here's my question (finally): if I want to keep a somewhat central Virginia and/or HH/Woodbury theme, would either of these be appropriate choices, especially the rest of the parts are more Germania (Siler lock, octagon themed butt and RR pipes, etc)? I know it's my gun and I can do whatever, but I'd like it not to look like it was just bunch of random parts.

 

[plmeek]

You've already answered you question and are simply looking for affirmation.

I'm sure that you appreciate that the HH/Woodbury school is a modern creation. It's purely a 20th century school.

Dunlap, and the other suppliers that offer a similar kit to the "Transition Isaac Haines Rifle", are simply trying to cash in on the popularity of the Woodbury school with its iron/steel mounts. An iron mounted 18th century is very rare.

The concept of a "Transition rifle" is also modern. The thinking from the earliest students/collectors/writers of the American longrifle is that it "evolved" from the German Jaeger. The Jaeger often had barrels around 30" long. The conventional wisdom was that gun makers in the colonies made rifles with progressively longer barrels until they settled on the 42+ barrel lengths common during or before the AWI. People have been looking for evidence of this evolution ever since in the form of a "transition" rifle with a barrel length of 36-38". So far, it's still a myth. A lot of contemporary gun makers have built rifles to fit this expectation, but they are, in themselves, fantasy rifles.

The trigger guards you linked to from Track or more suitable for a 19th century rifle. They aren't consistent with the architecture of Dunlap's "Transition Isaac Haines Rifle", but hey, what the heck. What's so bad with mixing a 19th century trigger guard with a 20th century rifle that has 18th century architecture. There is very little about the Dunlap kit that is HC, anyway. There's a good chance he copied John Bivins' modern designs for the butt plate and trigger guard rather than any surviving rifle made by Isaac Haines.

Just don't let yourself be fooled in thinking the rifle you are planning is a copy, or even representative of, an "early" rifle of any kind. It's simply your rifle in a style you like, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you are honest about it.