stopblock idea

[SIGSays]

ule pic... i saw this in another thread

[afrankart]

That pic appears as if it were off of the AGD store site. Too bad it isn't there now.

[QUINCYMASSGUY]

on/off

Yeah, I'm 95% sure that picture Sigsays added is not what it really looks like. If you take a peek at the Warpig Diagram you'll notice the orings sealing the top of the on/off is indented into the brass part, so it would be different from the pic where the oring sits on top.

So sidenote I was just thinking of (I do not know the physics principles Tom is using for the trigger exactly, but if the ULE trigger on/off pin top was larger than it is now would that result in a lighter pull (12oz?) but the reason it is not being done is because it would be so light chuffs would be nonstop? If so could the gear idea that shortens the pull/increases the pull weight (2mm X 22.5 oz) be combined with a larger on/off top to bring it down to either 3mm X 12oz or 2mm X 18oz? Basically same weight pull as the ULE now but 33% pull distance reduction without chuff risks. If I am wrong, someone pleae explain what would actually change the force required to push the on/off so that it seals the airflow inside the Mag.

Come on guys, TheJester is once again coming up with some good points (always does, unfortunately he proves me wrong sometimes, lol) but would my idea of a rail with the 2nd gear attached, that gear pushing the sear, and a small gear around the trigger pin to pull the bigger gear work? A pretty thick pair of gears could be used to offset the stress of the trigger return that could result in wear.

IT... COULD... WORK! (Young Frankenstein quote)

[classicmagplayer]

[QUINCYMASSGUY]

smack

OK, I am officially kicking myself for missing that. Couldn't AGD produce a new sear then with a shorter lever then? They could keep it to trigger rod standards so Mags don't start messing up and that should result in a much reduced pull length. I might try that regardless But AGD coming up with some short sears would be nice and pretty easy to do. Any risks involved in this? Bolt not fully resetting, etc?

And if the pull is made heavier by a short lever, could the larger on/off head theory I previously posted offset that extra torque (?) required? If so, raising the sear rod's and producing a different on/off pin for the ULE that is wider (maybe use thinner oring if possible but I read the ones he got are as small as they come or something?) could make the trigger real close to an electric!

Good call classicmagplayer, my idea involved shortening the lever because it would have hooked up right below the hinge, but that alone should make the pull short and I totally overlooked it. DOH!

[classicmagplayer]

When you pull the trigger the pressure on both sides(above and below) of the on/off pin top are equal, so changing the size of the on off top doesn't affect the stiffness of the pull...well it might have a miniscule effect because of the surface area pressing on the o-ring, but almost none is what i'm guessing. What the on/off pin top size would change is the amount of kick back the trigger has, larger surface area of the on/off pin top, more kickback felt through the trigger.

What makes the trigger pull stiff is the actual rod part of the trigger rod. Where the bottom o-ring seals with the rod. Think of it this way, pressure is measure in force/area....soo if you decrease the cross sectional area of the trigger rod (the actual rod part, not the top) you decrease the force required to hold the ppin in place. The shape of the on off top has no affect on the pressure pushing the pin out....the pressure is pushing evenly on the whole pin, except the part sticking out the bottom oring. Smaller o-ring hole=smaller on/off pin(not top)= less force pushing the rod out. This is the whole idea behind the ule trigger(I think, didnt go to the tech class, so I didnt see it yet). Plus the smaller sealing o-ring would have less area touching the pin, so there is less friction.

hope this helps some

edit spelling

[QUINCYMASSGUY]

hmm

Hmm... ok, definitely not sure how that exactly decreases the force needed to pull the trigger but I'm sure it'll be explained when IAO is over and the mods are free again. If something can be done to drop the force required to pull the trigger a little more to offset the added force needed by raising the point where the sear rod makes contact with the trigger so it all balances out and results in a super-short, ultralight, effective, and reliable trigger. I know if with the current setup they could have dropped the weight even more, but I wonder if the chuffing issue was the concern for doing that? If so, the shorter pull of raising the sear rod could prevent chuffing big-time.

So the lingering question is: if the lever part of the sear is shortened to the point where the pin could be as high as even just below the safety, could this result in cycle problems with the new ULE? If not, does anyone know the physics equation needed to calculate exactly how much heavier the ULE pull would be and how much less distance the trigger pull would be?

[classicmagplayer]

Re: hmm

Originally posted by QUINCYMASSGUY


So the lingering question is: if the lever part of the sear is shortened to the point where the pin could be as high as even just below the safety, could this result in cycle problems with the new ULE? If not, does anyone know the physics equation needed to calculate exactly how much heavier the ULE pull would be and how much less distance the trigger pull would be?

I think you have it mistaken, raising the point where the trigger hits the trigger rod will make the pull lighter, but increase the length needed to pull. More than likely this would result in more short stroking of the trigger. On the other hand raising the point where the trigger rod is attached to the sear(with a clevis) would result in a shorter, stiffer trigger pull. I dont know if clevis is the right name for it in paintball, but that is what we call it for model airplanes.

It would be cool if AGD produced a sear/trigger rod that would be used with the ULE trigger to produce a trigger that was a little lighter than stock, but also shorter. Shortening the trigger pull might also help reduce chuffing caused by short stroking with the lvl X.

I just looked over what you posted again, and shortening the trigger rod wont shorten the trigger pull. What would shorten the pull is mounting the clevis closer to the sear pin, not closer to the trigger.

[banzaimf]

Originally posted by kosmo
I remember back in "the day" people would grind and bevel their sears to let it slip off the bolt smoother and sooner. If done just right, you could have one hell of a trigger. But polishing a little too much would cause your gun to go full auto all the time. And since the sear is made from a pansy metal, it would wear and go full auto after a while any way and you would have to replace the sear. Anywho, perhaps an aluminum or SS sear would be more viable? Best part is that its simple enough to do yourself, though it prolly voids the warranty.

BTW, if anyone is confused as to what Im talking about, heres a link: Ravi's Paintball Place

Just wanted to say, Done it, it works if done a little bit at a time, and I have been running the sear for about 7 years now with no problems. The carbide steel is pretty tough.

[QUINCYMASSGUY]

misinterpretation

classicmagplayer, I actually think we are in agreement but got our terminology mixed up. When I said shorten the lever I mean the part of the main piece of the sear that hangs down and connects the sear pin and that metal thingee the sear rod screws into to the rest of the sear (ok, my parts name knowledge sucks). So the trigger rod would be higher, closer to the point where the trigger rotates. I actually just looked at my Mag and realized it would possibly require some of the space below the safety to be hollowed out to allow the rod to go right below the trigger hinge. But some progress could be made. I have attached a pic, there are 4 lines included. The bottom is where the sear pin is roughly located now. The other three are potential places it could be located it the lever part I am referring to is shortened. Higher it is, the shorter the pull will be but it will inversely add pull weight. Cutting half the distance between where the sear rod connects and where the sear pivots should cut the pull needed in half but also double the pull weight. Maybe not half but somewhere near that. With the ULE trigger it could be a miniscule pull (1/2 the current pull) with a less than 2lb pull which is still 1/3 less than the current Mag pull. I know my fingers are strong enough to walk that. Take a look at the pic and give me your ideas. The orange is the stock pin location, the others are places the pin could be moved to. Yes, some trigger frame hollowing might be needed.

[QUINCYMASSGUY]

trigger diagram

Here's the pic

[classicmagplayer]

I like your idea, but i would keep the trigger rod in the same place it always hits at the trigger, and just change where it attaches to the sear. Look at the pic to get an idea of what i mean. If you do it how you posted you would be negating the shorter pull by moving the rod up the trigger also, which would increase the pull. Hope that made sence. I realize that this will create some problems with pushing the sear up, but it wouldnt take much of a change to the sear to make a large difference with the distance of the pull.

I like the idea of a shorter trigger pull. You wouldnt have to ride the trigger to fire fast like you would with a long soft pull.

I think I'll try this when i get the x valve and ule trigger. maybe post some pics too.

[QUINCYMASSGUY]

not sure

I am not sure you're right, but I may not be either. I have attached another pic demonstrating the movement. The bottom line is two colors: red being the pin set at rest, the orange being the distance it needs to travel to make the sear fire. The top is the same but higher to represent the higher pin location we are discussing. So the higher one will move a shorter distance but as the same amount of work or force will be needed to fire the paintball gun a higher level of force must be applied in that shorter distance to make it work. So the pin being higher up towards the body of the mag would mean shorter pull indicated by the reduced orange line but would require more force.

So to get back to the issue before this becomes a tech issue: is this feasible (possible) and if so would the AO community prefer a shorter, slightly heavier pull which could be almost anywhere between the current settings of normal pull and 15 oz weight to the top image I did, right near the trigger hinge, which would be insanely short but probably only slightly lighter than the current Mag pull weight? I think a happy medium would be my pick, roughly half the pull and 2lbs weight of pull, or 22oz pull and however short that makes it, but it is possible I believe.
I think most people love the lightness of electros but one other thing I always think is great about them is how short the pulls are.

[QUINCYMASSGUY]

pic

I always forget the pic.... grrr!

[classicmagplayer]

your missing the fact that if you move the rod up on the actual trigger you end up with a longer pull. Look at the very top line in you last pic...even if the trigger rod only has to move 1 mm, the rod is so close to the trigger pin...or rotation point, that the bottom of the trigger would have to move like half an inch just to move the rod 1 mm. if you had that same setup, except the trigger rod hitting the trigger in the stock location, you would end up with about a 2-3 mm pull at the bottom of the trigger.

Another thing to think about, this would actually increase the force that the trigger would kick back compared to the stock ule trigger.

I would like a trigger that is a little lighter than stock, but a shorter pull.