SeaSaw Trigger

[FutureMagOwner]

i thought of this idea last night and thought of ways to make it work on both electros and mechanical guns(took a while to realize how you can do it in a mag not sure on other guns)
anyway this is the trigger and in my next post ill explain what each part of the trigger frame is(this is for electro too)

[FutureMagOwner]

Red- is the axis that the trigger rotates along
darkest blue- buttons that fires the gun
light blue- conections for the buttons
lime- the trigger itself

anyway basically the trigger works by rotating along the axis one way or the other.

it then when you push on the top or bottem pushes the button that fires the trigger. now i cant draw with paint to well so the trigger pull would be incredibly short because you only need to push the botton so it only rotates a little and is light as heck because it only rotates on the axis and doesnt need spring or magnets and the such to push the trigger back because you in essence pull it back yourself.

with this trigger you can pull alot faster because your using 2 fingers in cooperation in pulling 2 separate pulls instead of working with one.

and to get it to shoot that fast would be similar to drummin your fingers on a table to have it fire with each strik a fire

[thei3ug]

http://www.docsmachine.com/galleries/rockingtrigger.jpg

[FutureMagOwner]

man you gotta be kidding! arg anyway does it work like mine does?

[Coaster]

or... you could add another sear pin to the sear, going down to the lower part of the seesaw, and the regular searpin would be going to the upper part. The trigger would only be attached in the middle, like the one above.


Instead of having the connect in the middle..

[FreshmanBob]

or you could just have two seperate triggers?..

not tournie legal but what the heck

[314159]

take an autoresponse trigger, add some more metal for the other half of the sea saw ;)

[FutureMagOwner]

lol its just a diagram to show dif parts and thats what my idea was for the mag atleast(different on other guns though

[Gotenks]

they put seasaws on the DARKSTAR prototype, but its illegal in nppl, so it was never seen again. heh, the darkstar was never seen again. figures.

[MrMag]

or you could just walk an electro trigger, same thing basically ;)

[AGD]

Why was it illegal in NPPL and who made the darkstar?

AGD

[thei3ug]

probably because it acts as two triggers.

the seesaw first skirts around a few issues: one is the full Pull and Release rule. it could be construed as a pull and release equaling two balls.

second is that it is activating the trigger at two different points, effectively making it two triggers in one...

[Jack & Coke]

Cool idea...

I posted this back on 05-14-2002 at PBNation:p

Link => GZ Pivot trigger idea thread (http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=92290&highlight=trigger)

http://www.pbnation.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=701698

http://www.pbnation.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=701702

Funny thing is... I'm sure this idea has been floating around for a long time. Kinda like the wheel. Great minds think alike!:D

[Jack & Coke]

signature test

[Coaster]

damn... what kind of ROF was that person getting?

[Gotenks]

The darkstar was made by Section 8 paintball...

It wasn't discontinued because of the seasaw, but the whole scandal the company and its others are.

I'm glad they went down, more scum in the paintball industry diminished.

If you would like to discuss this further AGD, you can e-mail me at blkdragon@cox.net.

[halo13]

instead of having two micro switches could you only have one? That would get arround at least one of the NPPL regulations by only having one contact point.

[halo13]

Or maybe this would work. Hopefully I don't need to explain this because I really don't feel like it.

[magnj]

that last one would prob work. the only thing im thinking( by the nppl rules as posted here ) wouldnt that still technicly be 2 bals for one trigger pull. because the actual release could be speculated. is releasing the bottom half of the trigger realeasing the whole thing or do you have to release both cuz then it would count as two balls per trigger pull ( not legal )

[halo13]

well, since the trigger is on a pivot there is one way you could make it one pull for one ball. Just to make this easyer for me to explain, I'll assign numbers to trigger positions.

When the trigger is in its center position: #1
When the index finger part of the trigger is depressed #2
When the middle finger part of the trigger is depressed #3
(Just for referance: for a normal double trigger, I would use this number set 1, 2, 1)

1, 2, 1 - this would equal one pull and fire one ball
1, 3, 1 - this would also equal one pull and fire one ball

This is what a series of shots would look like if you walked the pivot trigger
1, 2, 1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1

This is what it would look like if you used only the bottom half of the trigger

1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1, 3, 1

Does this make any sense to anybody but me?

This setup should work with diagram number 3

[rhetor22]

how about a trigger that can be activated by pushing forward or pulling back? (trigger would be a ring)

the trigger would spring to center...

does that violate nppl?

[subbeh]

Originally posted by rhetor22
how about a trigger that can be activated by pushing forward or pulling back? (trigger would be a ring)

the trigger would spring to center...

does that violate nppl?

Yes, because there is more than one point where the trigger will fire. Correct?

[halo13]

up. I would like to know if my solutions would actually work or not.

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by subbeh


Yes, because there is more than one point where the trigger will fire. Correct?

I'm probably not as well versed in the correct interpretation of the NPPL rules as most of you. But I don't see how a center returning multi-directional [CRMD from now on, because I'm lazy] trigger could be deemed illegal under 2002 NPPL rules. The only two clauses that I've found that deal with triggers are as follows:

5.2 MARKERS

5.21. The definition of a trigger is the moveable lever or button that comes in contact with the finger. The contacts of a switch are not a trigger. A trigger pull requires an exertion of force by the finger on the trigger and a release of force by the finger on the trigger during every firing cycle. Markers may fire at any rate of fire, and may shoot any number of paintballs, provided that it fires in semi auto or pump mode only, which means that no more than one paintball is discharged during each firing cycle.

Section 5.22 in the rule book specifically describes double action triggers, but that's irrelevent for this.

I see a few distinct sentences in section 5.21 that seem to imply that a CRMD trigger is perfectly within the rules.

The first two sentences (definition of trigger, clarification of the microswitch) determines that simply having multiple microswitches does not equate mulitiple triggers. The key point is the sentence "A trigger pull requires an exertion of force by the finger on the trigger and a release of force by the finger on the trigger during every firing cycle." For every paintball shot there has to be an exertion and release of force. Not a problem:

Phase 1. (trigger starting at center) Exertion toward back of gun, marker fires.

Phase 2. Release of force, trigger returns to center.

Phase 3. Exertion of force EITHER toward barrel or back of gun, marker fires.

Phase 4 Repeat steps 1-3 as fast as possible. :D

I stand by my belief that this is an NPPL legal trigger. I certainly hope so anyway, I'm almost done with the one I'm building!

[subbeh]

Originally posted by ShooterJM


I'm probably not as well versed in the correct interpretation of the NPPL rules as most of you. But I don't see how a center returning multi-directional [CRMD from now on, because I'm lazy] trigger could be deemed illegal under 2002 NPPL rules. The only two clauses that I've found that deal with triggers are as follows:

5.2 MARKERS

5.21. The definition of a trigger is the moveable lever or button that comes in contact with the finger. The contacts of a switch are not a trigger. A trigger pull requires an exertion of force by the finger on the trigger and a release of force by the finger on the trigger during every firing cycle. Markers may fire at any rate of fire, and may shoot any number of paintballs, provided that it fires in semi auto or pump mode only, which means that no more than one paintball is discharged during each firing cycle.

Section 5.22 in the rule book specifically describes double action triggers, but that's irrelevent for this.

I see a few distinct sentences in section 5.21 that seem to imply that a CRMD trigger is perfectly within the rules.

The first two sentences (definition of trigger, clarification of the microswitch) determines that simply having multiple microswitches does not equate mulitiple triggers. The key point is the sentence "A trigger pull requires an exertion of force by the finger on the trigger and a release of force by the finger on the trigger during every firing cycle." For every paintball shot there has to be an exertion and release of force. Not a problem:

Phase 1. (trigger starting at center) Exertion toward back of gun, marker fires.

Phase 2. Release of force, trigger returns to center.

Phase 3. Exertion of force EITHER toward barrel or back of gun, marker fires.

Phase 4 Repeat steps 1-3 as fast as possible. :D

I stand by my belief that this is an NPPL legal trigger. I certainly hope so anyway, I'm almost done with the one I'm building!

You've got me convinced. :D

[magnj]

kinda like the stick trigger mentiond in another thread. THats a good idea

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by magnj
kinda like the stick trigger mentiond in another thread. THats a good idea

Yeah, Nicad has a sweet looking one that is crazy! Mine's nowhere near that cool, but seems to work ok. Need to iron some things out though.

[Wadidiz]

Like some others here, I thought I had invented something. I have even had discussions with a patent bureau. I came up with the same idea this summer and I have put a prototype on an Angel LCD (excuse my cussing). The results have been good: instantly up to 14-15 shots per second when I tap with both fingers like playing a piano, and 17-18 sps when I grab the trigger and paddle. The trigger is also light and comfortable and can be made with many adjustment possibilities.

It could be used with various switching technologies: micro-switches, magnets or optical sensors, among others.

Like has been said here, I don't see how or why NPPL or Millennium would ban this. It is one pull for every shot and is not an enhanced trigger (turbo), has no undue bounce and is just as safe as any other semi-auto. If it were deemed unallowable they would have to add new rules and the rules would be capricious and arbitrary. It is not two triggers any more than the double triggers out there now. Just lighter and more effective.

I am currently working to get a highly visible pro team equipped with one or more of these things and am planning to introduce it as an after-market trigger frame.

The gun it would probably work best with, besides an Angel, would be a lvl 10 E-mag with an ACE. I expect it would work great with a Timmy, Impulse Vision and many other electro-markers.

Cheers,

Steve Morris

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
Like some others here, I thought I had invented something. I have even had discussions with a patent bureau. I came up with the same idea this summer and I have put a prototype on an Angel LCD (excess my cussing). The results have been good: instantly up to 14-15 shots per second when I tap with both fingers like playing a piano, and 17-18 sps when I grab the trigger and paddle. The trigger is also light and comfortable and can be made with many adjustment possibilities.

I am currently working to get a highly visible pro team equipped with one or more of these things and am planning to introduce it as an after-market trigger frame.


Yeah, I normally only run 6-8 bps with a classic mag trigger, but I can hold a steady 13-16 bps without fanning on the one I built. (NOTE: this is not with paint, this is purely trigger pulls per second as counted by an electronic timed counter.) Just insane rates of fire. :D

[Doc Nickel]

Further data.

I built that "rocking" trigger pictured for a customer in 1998. It uses only one microswitch and no additional rods, springs or stops.

As soon as I posted a photo of it, I was flooded with requests to have it done, but every request also asked if it was NPPL legal. I said I didn't know, but since it used but one switch, and required a deliberate pull in any direction to fire one ball, I suspected it was, in fact, legal.

Within a couple of weeks, I got a polite E-mail from Bill Cookston, who had apparently recieved more than one request about it, and he told me in no uncertain terms that they would not allow it by NPPL rules.

Keep in mind this was about the time of the original "turbo mode" controversy with SP's deliberately sneaky use of "switch noise" to enhance the Shocker's ROF.

I tried arguing it, since it's impossible to get any sort of a "double" shot without a deliberate change in the direction of pull. If you're holding the top down all the way, and then yank the bottom all the way, the trigger merely resets and fires once. If you pull the top from "neutral", it fires once. If you pull the bottom from neutral, it fires only once.

I'm not sure he fully understood that, or if he just didn't want it for general purposes, but he said directly it wouldn't be allowed. And I in turn told each person who asked, the same thing, and so as it stands, there's just the one rocker I built.

Which I didn't mind too awful much, as it took quite a bit of work to make, and in trying to simplify it, I eventually developed the RIP Kits which were far more of a "drop in", so it all worked out.

Now, I also don't know if the NPPL has softened it's stance on the system in the past four years. It's possible, but I haven't asked.

It was a lot of fun to play with, though... odd feel to it 'til you got used to it.

I'd like to know more about this "Darkstar" thing, though... I've never heard a word of it, and this is the first I've ever seen their version of the "rocking" trigger... (Mine was simpler.)

Doc.

[Wadidiz]

Thanks for your input. I had actually heard that you had already published this idea when I first started showing my "rocker". Popped my illusion that I had "invented" something first.

I can't see any part of NPPL and Millennium's rules that could be used to forbid the trigger system. I don't see anything about how many micro-switches or trigger levers are allowable. It is clear that semi-auto only is allowed and there can never be more than one shot for every individual pull (exertion of a force and then release for every firing cycle).

All consideration of rules and interpretations thereof should be done in the very clear light of the reasons and purposes of the rules in the first place. In this case I believe the purpose of the semi-auto rule is simply for good and legitimate safety reasons. Same reason for requiring a trigger guard and full-coverage paintball masks. We don't want 10-20 balls flying out of the end of a barrel when accidental discharges take place. Are there any other reasons for tournaments being semi only?

This trigger system is as safe as any other semi-auto trigger system.

I believe Millennium may go separate ways if NPPL won't look at this and at least make the necessary rules changes and explain the reasons for additional rules. I believe that one or more major manufacturer will want to have satisfactory clarification soon.

We already have 18+ ball per second on the NPPL and Millennium fields now. What's wrong with making it easier and smoother to get up to those speeds with a safe, semi-auto--yet different--trigger design?

Let's have a talk with Mr Cookston again. The sport is getting too big for any one person to make an arbitrary decision. Maybe there are some good reasons. Let's get them out in the light.

Respectfully,

Steve

[ShooterJM]

Does anyone know the exact rating that goggles are verfied at? Perhaps a sustained 20+ bps at 300fps would be too close to the edge of safety. Any thoughts?

[Wadidiz]

Excellent question. The design that I have tested has got up to 18 sps but could possibly get up to 20. But in any case I can't imagine any scenario where a player would shoot one string for a full second at a mask. Am I wrong?
But your point is well taken. It could possibly put several balls at the same point on a mask.

This needs some research. If there is a real danger here then the existing markers need to get capped at whatever the safe limits are. I know players now who occasionally get up to 18 sps.

Someone supply info please.

Steve

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
Excellent question. The design that I have tested has got up to 18 sps but could possibly get up to 20. But in any case I can't imagine any scenario where a player would shoot one string for a full second at a mask. Am I wrong?
But your point is well taken. It could possibly put several balls at the same point on a mask.

This needs some research. If there is a real danger here then the existing markers need to get capped at whatever the safe limits are. I know players now who occasionally get up to 18 sps.

Someone supply info please.

Steve

I'd say off the break would be the most likely situtation. Back players posting on lanes for a few seconds. That's a moving target however. The highest chance for injury to occur would be during bunkering moves and alley running. Those situtations seem to involve players running at each other. Much easier to lay a string at a guys mask when he's running at you. Not to mention the ever shortening range.

[Wadidiz]

Again, you're right. Therefore we need some scientific information on what approved paintball goggles will tolerate.

It is true, smart teams are going to put several guns on the most likely lanes on break and they are going to go for their highest possible ROF. The effective ROF of two or more guns could theoretically be very high. But, as you say, moving targets at a distance will minimize this.

A couple of guns a lot closer that are guarding an obviously important key position could put a lot of balls on a mask. Bunkering situations could potentially bring a much higher risk.

Another thing is, we've seen markers go from legal to very hot just from the chrono to the start stations (see GZ at last years Campaign Cup, on video).

Still we come back to the same point: a design like we're discussing on this post doesn't change much, paintball guns are already shooting 17-18 bps,except the design does make it quicker and easier to get up to the high ROFs.

If 17-20 bps is too fast for our goggle systems to ensure safety then a rules change must come. All markers must be capped at the highest reasonably safe rate of fire. So it goes back to what I wrote in the first lines.

I hope there is a wide degree of margin in the approved goggles. We need to know. I have never heard of goggles failing during a game. Have you or anyone else reading this?

[ShooterJM]

Actually I've seen someone pop up into a stream of about 6 bps and saw the goggles crack after the 4th or 5th hit. I'm willing to bet the gun was hot however.

I just sent an email to JT to see if they can provide me with some more detailed info or specs.

[Wadidiz]

This bothers me very much because I'm a serious safety freak. Eyesight is far more important than any advantage or fun that ROF has to offer. I find myself way up front very often and I get gogged from time to time. If what you described happened then that proves it can happen. As I mentioned, there are always going to be hot guns during any given tournament no matter how strictly controlled.

Great that you are pursuing information. Please post it when you get it.

Steve

[ShooterJM]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
This bothers me very much because I'm a serious safety freak. Eyesight is far more important than any advantage or fun that ROF has to offer. I find myself way up front very often and I get gogged from time to time. If what you described happened then that proves it can happen. As I mentioned, there are always going to be hot guns during any given tournament no matter how strictly controlled.

Great that you are pursuing information. Please post it when you get it.

Steve

Well. Fortunately it was me it happened to instead one of the newbs I brought to play. Saw the crack forming and hit the deck. Went to hunt the guy down after the game and he was gone. I've never seen it happen since, so I'm of the belief it was an extremely hot shot and my lenses were compromised somehow.

If JT doesn't respond I'll drop a note to Raven and some other companies as well.

[ShooterJM]

JT's response to multiple hits:

"JT recommends that a lens be replaced after a single direct hit to the lens from a paintball. Residual stresses (which cannot be seen by the naked eye) can be induced from such an impact, making the lens less robust for a second impact."

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by ShooterJM
JT's response to multiple hits:

"JT recommends that a lens be replaced after a single direct hit to the lens from a paintball. Residual stresses (which cannot be seen by the naked eye) can be induced from such an impact, making the lens less robust for a second impact."

Oh yeah. I had forgotten about this warning. This is a warning that we can safely (unsafely) say is universally ignored. I think they are right, but could a part of this be covering their backs concerning liability?

I started a discussion about paintball safety guidelines on P8ntballer.com's forum. You might want to have a look at it.

http://www.p8ntballer-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10571

Thanks for your post,

Steve