SeaSaw Trigger

[Gotenks]

oh, I'm sorry for not checking up on the thread AGD

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 [email protected].

[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.

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.

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.

[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]

I wish I had seen this B4!

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]

Re: I wish I had seen this B4!

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.

[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.