There has been a lot of talk recently about limiting BPS, dealing with cheater boards and moving back from the 20+ BPS range that we've reached. A lot of the justification for the movement "backward" includes: safety concerns, the promotion of more dynamic movement (for better viewing), and to reduce the "digital divide" between those sponsored (with limitless paint and top end guns) and those paying their own way.
One of the most prevalent suggestions I've see so far is the re-banning of "force-feed" hoppers like the HALO and Warp. I think this is a bad idea - as force-feed serves useful purposes other than to feed a hunger "e-marker." Force feed insures that no matter what angle you come out, over, or around a bunker there will also be a positive feed - until the HALO came out there was always a question about this. Furthermore, systems like the warp change the nature of the game by moving the loader off the top of the gun - there is no denying that someone who plays against a warp for the first time remembers the experience! So, my point is that force-feed systems provide more than speed to markers. Don't forget the fact that should they be banned that essentially the entire market would be given (on a silver platter) back to Brass Eagle. To me it just seems silly to give up the enhanced reliability of the force-fed hopper to limit BPS which could be done through other means.
My idea is, why not establish a MANDATORY trigger pull weight? It can be done quite easily and checked rapidly. Manufacturers could still make BPS claims (like sport motorcycle companies tout 1/4 mile times and top end speed), the markers could still be electronic (face it - it is cool to tweak dwell electronically vs. disassembling the marker to change springs) (furthermore shot counters and such are neat also), yet the BPS would definitely go down. This doesn't address the bounce issue - but it sure would be easier to spot someone with an illegal gun.
For those who question the idea I get it from competitive shooting events - especially speed shooting. There is certainly an advantage to light trigger pulls in speed events that are won by milliseconds - but there is even more of a safety concern. To that end, at all well run matches, triggers are weighed with a VERY simple system. The penalty for the trigger breaking to lightly is simple and effective - the gun cannot be used. The process is VERY effective and works.
Since mechanical triggers usually have to travel further - there could even be 2 standards with a slightly higher weight for the shorter travel on the "e-trigger." This could effectively bring mechanicals back - there would then be valid reasons for going with one or the other - yet the field would in the end remain fairly level. I might choose a RT Pro due to the lighter weight and reliability (due to batteries or weather) and you might choose the E-gun due to no chance of short stroking. In the end everyone might have one of each
What do you guys think? It seems a lot more fair then banning more reliable loaders, and a lot easier then trying to determine BPS - trigger weighing is EXTREMELY low tech - therefore a LOT cheaper to reliably implement.
-Calvin
One of the most prevalent suggestions I've see so far is the re-banning of "force-feed" hoppers like the HALO and Warp. I think this is a bad idea - as force-feed serves useful purposes other than to feed a hunger "e-marker." Force feed insures that no matter what angle you come out, over, or around a bunker there will also be a positive feed - until the HALO came out there was always a question about this. Furthermore, systems like the warp change the nature of the game by moving the loader off the top of the gun - there is no denying that someone who plays against a warp for the first time remembers the experience! So, my point is that force-feed systems provide more than speed to markers. Don't forget the fact that should they be banned that essentially the entire market would be given (on a silver platter) back to Brass Eagle. To me it just seems silly to give up the enhanced reliability of the force-fed hopper to limit BPS which could be done through other means.
My idea is, why not establish a MANDATORY trigger pull weight? It can be done quite easily and checked rapidly. Manufacturers could still make BPS claims (like sport motorcycle companies tout 1/4 mile times and top end speed), the markers could still be electronic (face it - it is cool to tweak dwell electronically vs. disassembling the marker to change springs) (furthermore shot counters and such are neat also), yet the BPS would definitely go down. This doesn't address the bounce issue - but it sure would be easier to spot someone with an illegal gun.
For those who question the idea I get it from competitive shooting events - especially speed shooting. There is certainly an advantage to light trigger pulls in speed events that are won by milliseconds - but there is even more of a safety concern. To that end, at all well run matches, triggers are weighed with a VERY simple system. The penalty for the trigger breaking to lightly is simple and effective - the gun cannot be used. The process is VERY effective and works.
Since mechanical triggers usually have to travel further - there could even be 2 standards with a slightly higher weight for the shorter travel on the "e-trigger." This could effectively bring mechanicals back - there would then be valid reasons for going with one or the other - yet the field would in the end remain fairly level. I might choose a RT Pro due to the lighter weight and reliability (due to batteries or weather) and you might choose the E-gun due to no chance of short stroking. In the end everyone might have one of each
What do you guys think? It seems a lot more fair then banning more reliable loaders, and a lot easier then trying to determine BPS - trigger weighing is EXTREMELY low tech - therefore a LOT cheaper to reliably implement.
-Calvin
.
Comment