SeaSaw Trigger

[Wadidiz]

Any reasons given for not allowing this?

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