new concept trigger...

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by billmi
To limit rate of fire.

[billmi]

Waddiz Sez:

But, with all respect, that certainly can't be the purpose of the rule.

The purpose of the rule is to make crystal clear that only semi-automatic action will be allowed; no full-auto and no extra shots over and above the number of trigger activations. And the obvious purpose behind that is safety. We don't want paintball guns out there that if touched on the trigger will brrrrrppp! Nor do we want them to continue to fire one or more shots when you pull the trigger like certain guns out there that have been "over-adjusted".

Really, it is. The industry conference at the IAO where the topic was debated in response to Smart Parts releasing turbo mode was where this all started. At the captain's meeting for the IAO that night, Tom Kaye addressed the teams and took an informal poll, stressing the concern with modes other than traditional semi-auto would lead to overshooting. The issue was about limiting rate of fire. While safety was constantly mentioned, it was in terms of accidents caused by a continuous stream of paintballs (mask knocked off and more paint on its way type of thing) not in terms of accidental firing.

Also of note, that same week a number of paintball corporate leaders signed a pledge not to make paintguns capable of firing over 13 shots per second, in addition to the one shot per pull limitation. No manufacturer who made a gun capable of over 13 bps restricted their product to slow it down, and many who didn't make them and signed make them now.

Conversely there has been no effort among the major leagues (yet) to limit the ROF. At least since the gravity-feed-only rule was removed.

I disagree with that statement, since both the semi-only limitation and gravity feed requirement (which was abandoned a few years back) were both meant to limit ROF in a way that would still allow for athletic advantage (i.e. people with a faster trigger finger can shoot faster) over a purely technical advantage (people with an enhanced trigger mode.)

My freshman math teacher used to say that according to logic a full grown man should be as tall as a tree. Given that a child grows at X inches per year, a man of 30 years should be 30X inches tall. That's what happens if you take logic out of context.

Just because two finger triggers weren't outlawed does not mean that rules have never been made with the goal of placing limits - even if somewhat flexible - on rate of fire.

Some examples of rules intended to slow the overall rate of fire:
Only Nelspot 007s or Splatmasters may be used (original NSG tourney rules.)
Nelspot cocking knobs may not be modified to over 1" in length (original NSG tourney rules.)
Only 12 gram CO2 cartridges may be used as a power source (original NSG tourney rules, Music City Open rules.)
12 gram CO2 cartridges must be loaded through an opening that requires at least 3 turns to open (SCPA rules - still in effect today.)
Paintguns must be gravity fed (formerly in IAO, NPPL, GWS and "Universal" tournament rules.)
Paintguns are limited to single acting triggers (in most current tournament rule sets.)
Paintguns are limited to semi-automatic operation (in most current tournament rule sets.)

Manufacturers and tinkerers like myself are in a race to get every BPS possible out of the guns within the limitaions of the one-shot/one-pull rule (and without, hoping to not get caught, like with cheater boards). Therefore we have seen two-finger triggers, Halo hoppers, eVLution hoppers with Z-boards, faster recharging and cycling times, magnetic and opto-switches, etc. etc.

Exactly. As with any sport - rules set a boundary, and the technology is developed to give the best possible performance within that boundary.

Limiting to semi-auto, single acting triggers does act to restrict ROF, but does it in a way that is less restrictive to technological development than setting a numeric BPS cap (which would also be impractical to enforce on paintguns that are not electronicly controlled.) At that industry conference, Kaye likened it to the restrictor plate put in the intake manifold on NASCAR racers. That requirement was put in place to slow the cars down for improved safety, but does it in a way that allows better tuned cars to have an edge, unlike an MPH based speed limit.

My trigger design does shoot faster than top-pivot triggers. But it is safe, it is not full-auto and it NEVER adds more shots than "conscious" activation.

Even if you could grab it an fan it, it would still be one shot per conscious activation just as much as the two-finger triggers during "walking" like one would do with, say, a DM4.

Very true. It also fires from two trigger positions (double acting) not just one, and as such I don't think you'll see it being allowed without a change of the rules.

Even if I don't prevent fanning of my trigger it still is totally safe and fits within the spirit and purpose of the existing trigger rules...ever bit as much as the current two-finger triggers and MUCH more than all those guns with cheater boards used in tourneys (even, especially, NXL) these days.

I have to disagree with fitting in with the spirit of the rules, since the rules clearly prohibit double acting triggers.

As to the cheater boards, obviously they won't fit in - that's why they are called "cheater boards" - because they are not legal. The problem comes in developing the technology to catch them.

And in the previous post he said:

So let me ask you, Bill and Athomas (or anyone else), if the trigger I mentioned were built into a custom trigger frame in such a way that it was virtually impossible for someone to grab and activate by pushing all the way forward and then all the way back (fanning) then would the trigger be o.k. (according to YOUR intepretations)?

Not sure what you mean by that. If you are saying that it were set up in such a way that it were impossible to push the trigger from the front, back, side, or wherever, and move it into more than one position that fires the paintgun, then yes, that would be legal. The bottom line of it is whether the trigger causes the paintgun to fire from more than one position, or just one position.

In other words, if the back sides of the trigger were shrouded so that you couldn't grip it and if you could only fire it through finger tapping just like a standard top-pivot trigger with positions for two fingers, would it then fit YOUR definition of a tourney-legal trigger system?

Pivot it one way, and it fires, pivot it the other direction and it fires. That's double-acting, regardless of shrouds around the back and side, or where spring pressures cause it to rest when it is not being actuated.

If, the NPPL scrutineer will say it's not double acting and allow it, I'll gladly supply that Crispy Creme Donut next time I see you, but I just don't think it's going to happen.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[Wadidiz]

My dear Bill,

Is the purpose of one-pull/one-shot ROF? I said no, you said...

Originally posted by billmi
Really, it is.... The issue was about limiting rate of fire. While safety was constantly mentioned, it was in terms of accidents caused by a continuous stream of paintballs (mask knocked off and more paint on its way type of thing) not in terms of accidental firing.

Also of note, that same week a number of paintball corporate leaders signed a pledge not to make paintguns capable of firing over 13 shots per second, in addition to the one shot per pull limitation. No manufacturer who made a gun capable of over 13 bps restricted their product to slow it down, and many who didn't make them and signed make them now.

Obviously ROF WAS the issue but as you illustrate so finely in the last paragraph, it no longer is. If it were then we would go back to gravity-feed only, which would be the easiest and most fool-proof way to limit ROF to around 13 BPS. And my trigger notwithstanding, I think we might need to do that for reasons of safety that you pointed out earlier.

Originally posted by billmi
...It also fires from two trigger positions (double acting) not just one, and as such I don't think you'll see it being allowed without a change of the rules....I have to disagree with fitting in with the spirit of the rules, since the rules clearly prohibit double acting triggers...

The spirit of the rule is obviously to safeguard us from guns that fire more than I shot for every pull, and I believe that is for reasons of safety. Obviously, because "they" in their infinite wisdom allowed non-gravity-feed back in, opening the door very widely to ROFs above 13 BPS. (Didn't I see you out on the fields when some of those DM4s were blasting away at what must've been 20+ BPS?)

Originally posted by billmi
...Pivot it one way, and it fires, pivot it the other direction and it fires. That's double-acting, regardless of shrouds around the back and side, or where spring pressures cause it to rest when it is not being actuated.

Take any standard trigger system that has a position for two fingers, pull with your top finger and it fires. Pull with your bottom finger and it fires.

Take my trigger, with only the front part exposed and available to pull, and do EXACTLY the same thing with it and you will get exactly the same number of shots. Only it is smoother and somewhat faster. Also note that you would not be able to fire it in any other way than the same way you would a standard top-pivot trigger.

To call it double-acting is nonsense. It is just as safe, it is fair, and it is one-pull/one-shot according to the rules and any meaning behind the rules. It is simply a small advancement in smoothness and balance.

Remember that the rules were made for us, not we for the rules.

For you or any scrutineer to call it any less safe or legal than what's out there on DM4s, Timmies, E-Blades, etc. is TOTALLY ARBITRARY.

IMHO

[FooTemps]

Bill is right, the rules prohibit any double acting trigger and even though you say your trigger requires conscience activation of the trigger to fire, it is still double acting in the end. This is because there is more than one point where the marker can fire. It is also 2 shots per one regulation pull. Not your pull, but the standard pull that every tournament body bases their rules by. So if you have a double trigger, they'll fire it like a double top pivot trigger and rule it that way.

According to the rules, the trigger has to be pulled all the way back and then moved all the way forward to fire. That means your trigger design would first activate the bottom, then activate the top as they push the trigger all the way forward.

Basically your trigger would be like this:

(This is just the trigger, ignore the periods)
.________
. |||\
. ||| \
. |||
.________
. ||| /
. |||/
. |||

As you can see, it would activate twice in one regular pull, thus making it illegal.

I'm not trying to stop you from making the design but for sure it will be illegal in tournaments unless they change the rules. I'd still like to see your take on the design though. I know you want to make a mech one so, IMO, it will be interesting to see.

[billmi]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
Obviously ROF WAS the issue but as you illustrate so finely in the last paragraph, it no longer is.

I do not believe I illustrated that. What I have illustrated is that while rules were in place that restricted ROF, that those rules have been modified or changed in ways that still imposed ROF limitations with the technology of the day, but were not as restrictive as the rules before them.

For example - 12g CO2 cartridges used to be the required power source. Removing that rule, but putting in a rule limiting paintguns to semi-auto or pump firing modes only still acts to restrict ROF, but not as severely. The current restriction to single acting triggers and semi-auto firing acts as a restriction, and allows rates of fire above 13 bps. To my knowledge the only rule ever to deal with an actual rate of fire at a major tournament was a restriction placed at World Cup in 99 that said paintguns firing in Turbo mode could be set at a maximum of 9.8 balls per second (at that time semi-auto mode had not been defined clear enough to exclude Turbo to everyone's satisfaction.) That was not actually a part of the NPPL rules.

If it were then we would go back to gravity-feed only, which would be the easiest and most fool-proof way to limit ROF to around 13 BPS.

Why? What does 13 bps have to do with anything but an agreement between manufacturers that was never followed?

And my trigger notwithstanding, I think we might need to do that for reasons of safety that you pointed out earlier.

Will we? With over 95% of paintball injuries hapening in "renegade" paintball situations, I don't think the rate of fire on a tournament paintball field will make much of a dent into that.

The spirit of the rule is obviously to safeguard us from guns that fire more than I shot for every pull, and I believe that is for reasons of safety.

Again, the meeting and public debates that led to the current trigger/mode rules in the NPPL, PSP and international rule sets addressed ROF more than anything else.

Obviously, because "they" in their infinite wisdom allowed non-gravity-feed back in, opening the door very widely to ROFs above 13 BPS.

"They" being Cookston/Sparks, authors of the international rule set, and the NPPL Rules Committee allowed non-gravity feed in specifically because the Warp Feed was introduced, and they felt that limiting to true semi-auto single acting trigers would keep the ROFs reasonable and reasonably depentant on athletic skill while allowing for technological innovation to do things like move the hopper off the top of the gun and feed more reliably. The gist of what Frank Watson (on the rules committee at the time) said about it was "As long as we keep it to true semi-auto, it really doesn't matter how the paintball gets there, the limit will be how fast the player can shoot."

(Didn't I see you out on the fields when some of those DM4s were blasting away at what must've been 20+ BPS?)

I'm dubious of claims regarding sustained rates of over 20 bps with an NPPL legal trigger, especially considering the lack of equipment at tournaments to verify not only the rate of fire but the rate at which the trigger is being pulled. Regardless of that, I'm not sure what the ability of someone achieiving a rate that fast has to do with the letter of the rules not meeting a supposed spirit of the rules.

Take any standard trigger system that has a position for two fingers, pull with your top finger and it fires. Pull with your bottom finger and it fires.

Take that same trigger - don't worry about the number of fingers or how you pull or push on it, or how the springs reset it when it is released. Cycle it completely, through one extreme of movement to the other and back. It will fire once, it is a single acting trigger.

Take my trigger, with only the front part exposed and available to pull, and do EXACTLY the same thing with it and you will get exactly the same number of shots. Only it is smoother and somewhat faster. Also note that you would not be able to fire it in any other way than the same way you would a standard top-pivot trigger.

Take your trigger - don't worry about the number of fingers or how you pull or push on it, or how the springs reset it when it is released. Cycle it completely, through one extreme of movement to the other and back. It will fire twice. That makes it a double-acting trigger.

To call it double-acting is nonsense.

No, it's describing a trigger system that fires twice when cycled fully between the extremes of its range of motion.

It is just as safe,

Either it meets the rules or it doesn't. Whether or not the rules adequately describe what is needed to be safe is a separate issue.

it is fair,

Fairness is a rather subjective judgement, usually use to describe how the rules are applied. Not sure how a trigger could be more or less fair, aside from using a trigger that is not legal under the rules in order to gain an advantage (AKA cheating like with cheater boards.)

and it is one-pull/one-shot according to the rules and any meaning behind the rules.

That's why the PSP rules used the cycle of the trigger definition, not just the pull.
The problem comes into play in the NPPL rule set where double-acting triggers are not allowed.

Remember that the rules were made for us, not we for the rules.

Very true. I think you've laid out a sound argument that there aren't any ROF or safety issues that would be a problem stemming from a trigger as you described.
Those ideas could be presented to the rules committee for re-structuring the double-acting trigger rule in such a way that it allowed your trigger but prevented auto-response triggers.

For you or any scrutineer to call it any less safe

I do not believe I've made any statements about whether it was more or less safe, only whether it conformed to the current rules. Similarly, that's the scrutineer's job. Debating whether a rule is good, meets the needs of the players, or provides safety protection of the players is the job of the rule writers (the rules committee in the case of the NPPL.)

or legal than what's out there on DM4s, Timmies, E-Blades, etc. is TOTALLY ARBITRARY.
IMHO

If a trigger system fires the paintgun twice while the trigger is cycled through its full range of motion between its two extremes, it is double acting. The NPPL rules clearly state that double acting triggers are not allowed. How would making a decision based on that rule be arbitrary? By definition, basing the a decision on the rule means it is not arbitrary.

Remember the rule at issue is the one against double acting triggers, not the one limiting to one shot per trigger pull. If one were only considering the one shot per pull rule, then yes, it could seem arbitrary, but that would be like complaining that the Unibomber was arbitrarily convicted because people regularly send manifestos to the press without being punished. Sending a manifesto wasn't what he was charged with, and one shot per trigger pull, safety, etc., aren't the issues behind why I do not believe this trigger would be allowed, it's the prohibition on double acting triggers that is the sticking point.

If you feel the rules aren't safe/fair/realistic, lobby to change them. When my wife and I were concerned over air safety, after Weasel's air inflation injury we lobbied the members of the NPPL rules committee in a concerted effort, and literally in a weeks time, got a rule added for game suspensions handed to a player who threw their paintgun. Change is definitely possible.

See you on the field,
-Bill Mills

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by FooTemps
Bill is right, the rules prohibit any double acting trigger and even though you say your trigger requires conscience activation of the trigger to fire, it is still double acting in the end. This is because there is more than one point where the marker can fire.

IF I make the trigger impossible to grab from the back then it would have no more points that could be pulled, squeezed or tapped than any standard top-pivot trigger. So it is BY NO MEANS a "double-acting" trigger. The "double-action" triggers, such as the Auto Response gave one shot on the pull and then auto-fired on release on the way back to reset. My trigger doesn't do that.

Originally posted by FooTemps
It is also 2 shots per one regulation pull. Not your pull, but the standard pull that every tournament body bases their rules by. So if you have a double trigger, they'll fire it like a double top pivot trigger and rule it that way....According to the rules, the trigger has to be pulled all the way back and then moved all the way forward to fire. That means your trigger design would first activate the bottom, then activate the top as they push the trigger all the way forward.

Neither NPPL, Millennium nor PSP use or require the use of that kind of test firing. The standard way to fire at the chronograph or test for an illegal gun is to fire it from the reset/neutral position. Please read for yourself from Millennium's trigger/marker test explanation:
_____________________________
Judges testing method:
First, the judge will fully depress and hold the trigger. While keeping the trigger fully depressed, the judge will attempt to move the trigger side to side. The judge will then release the trigger. No more than one paintball may have been fired.

Second, the judge will as quickly as possible fully depress and then release the trigger. No more than one paintball may have been fired.

Third, the judge will apply sideway pressure to the trigger and then attempt to fully depress the trigger. No more than one paintball may have been fired.

Fourth, the judge will slowly, over a period not to exceed two seconds, fully depress the trigger in one continuous motion and then, over a period not to exceed two seconds, slowly release the trigger in one continuous motion. No more than one paintball may have been fired in any of the four instances.

Fifth, the judge will fire the marker at a rate of fire of approximately 6 shots per second, to test for Turbo mode. The marker may not appear to fire more than one shot per trigger pull.

If any of the five tests are failed, a player may request that the complete set of five tests is repeated an additional two times. The marker will be deemed legal if it passes every subsequent test and be otherwise deemed illegal. These tests will be performed with the marker held in a manner and position consistent with playing on the field. The testing must be confirmed by the ultimate judge of the tournament.
_______________________________

Also note PSP's trigger rules:
_______________________________
5.2 MARKERS

5.21. ...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.

5.22. Players may use a single, 68 caliber, pump or semi automatic paintball marker, which consists of a single barrel and a single trigger. Double action triggers are prohibited. A paintball marker capable of manner that a player may not readily change the marker back to such mode during a game and such that the modification is readily visible to the judges.
____________________________

NPPL and Millennium rules are virtually identical on these points. NXL makes it even clearer:
____________________________
5.3.1. The definition of a trigger is a device operated by the user of a marker that is typically a movable lever or button that comes in contact with the finger. The contacts of a switch will not be considered to be a trigger. A trigger cycle is the movement of the trigger through the discharge position and returning to a reset or recycle position. A trigger cycle usually 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 operate at any discharge rate, provided that it operates in a semi-automatic (i.e. one discharge per trigger cycle) or pump discharge mode only during play.
_____________________________

So even according to the WORDING of the current rules my trigger, even without the shroud or plate to cover the back parts, is not illegal. And it definitely fits within what I perceive to be the purpose of the rules and that is to forbid full-auto or any kind of self-firing, and that for the purposes of safety

[Wadidiz]

Bill,

You make some good points and no one knows PB history better than you.:)

Originally posted by billmi
I do not believe I illustrated that.

From two posts back: "...While safety was constantly mentioned, it was in terms of accidents caused by a continuous stream of paintballs (mask knocked off and more paint on its way type of thing) not in terms of accidental firing."

Accidental discharge alone is one very important reason to disallow full-auto or anything but one-pull/one-shot. Excessive shooting or too many shots to the head is another very serious problem, which what you wrote shows.

Originally posted by billmi
Why? What does 13 bps have to do with anything but an agreement between manufacturers that was never followed?

13 BPS is the approximate rate balls gravity-feed. If we start seeing players knocked unconscious due to multiple head hits then either ROF or improved safety eqipment may need to be addressed in tournament PB. There is also the issue of goggle lenses that receive multiple hits and don't get changed out.

Originally posted by billmi
Take that same trigger - don't worry about the number of fingers or how you pull or push on it, or how the springs reset it when it is released. Cycle it completely, through one extreme of movement to the other and back. It will fire once, it is a single acting trigger.

Take your trigger - don't worry about the number of fingers or how you pull or push on it, or how the springs reset it when it is released. Cycle it completely, through one extreme of movement to the other and back. It will fire twice. That makes it a double-acting trigger.

No, it's describing a trigger system that fires twice when cycled fully between the extremes of its range of motion.

Again, I can design the trigger frame in such a way as to make it impossible to grab the trigger and cycle it from extreme to extreme like you're describing. That's is what I was talking about. You can't get the trigger with the shroud, guard, plate or whatever you want to call it, blocking the back sides of the trigger to behave in any way differently than a typical, standard top-pivot trigger.

Originally posted by billmi
Either it meets the rules or it doesn't. Whether or not the rules adequately describe what is needed to be safe is a separate issue.

Good. We've come to the conclusion, I believe, that my trigger (Doc Nickel obviously designed it first, although I didn't know about it when I started my development almost two years ago) designed so that you can't fan it WOULD BE tournament-legal. And that perhaps the trigger rules weren't intended to be about safety but I believe that is by far the most important issue.

Concerning what the current rules actually do say, I've covered that in my last post answering FooTemps.

Thanks for the thorough discussion. Keep it coming.

Steve

[magnanamus]

That's a sweet trigger!!! As the owner of an autoresponse who's never been turned away from an arena, I don't care about all the anal regulations. If it's not burst or full auto it should be leagal.

[TheTramp]

Originally posted by Wadidiz
Bill,

Again, I can design the trigger frame in such a way as to make it impossible to grab the trigger and cycle it from extreme to extreme like you're describing. That's is what I was talking about. You can't get the trigger with the shroud, guard, plate or whatever you want to call it, blocking the back sides of the trigger to behave in any way differently than a typical, standard top-pivot trigger.

Steve

I think Bill's point is that by pulling the top of your trigger towards the rear of the gun you would be doing the same thing as "grabing" the trigger and pushing it to the forward extream. Pulling the bottom of your trigger will move it towards the other extream.

As you gun will fire when the trigger hits either of these extreams it has two firing positions (this is the key point).

I agree with you that pulling the top then the bottom SHOULD be two distinct pulls but under the rules it isn't. It's a single trigger that's firing the gun in two different positions durring one complete cycle.

[Wadidiz]

Here are the NXL rules regarding triggers. Show me BY THESE RULES how a center-pivot trigger should not be allowed:

_________________________________

5.3.1. The definition of a trigger is a device operated by the user of a marker that is typically a movable lever or button that comes in contact with the finger. The contacts of a switch will not be considered to be a trigger. A trigger cycle is the movement of the trigger through the discharge position and returning to a reset or recycle position [my emphasis]. A trigger cycle usually 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 operate at any discharge rate [my emphasis], provided that it operates in a semi-automatic (i.e. one discharge per trigger cycle) or pump discharge mode only during play.
_______________________________

[nicad]

Wadidiz- is your trigger idea for mechanical or electrical?
this is a trigger i made couple of years ago. its a multi-directional "movement detection" trigger.

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51730&highlight=%2Bfiddlestick

trigger rules are the main reason this project was abandoned a while back. the thing worked dam good.. but it was "illegal".
oh well..

out!

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by nicad
Wadidiz- is your trigger idea for mechanical or electrical?
this is a trigger i made couple of years ago. its a multi-directional "movement detection" trigger.

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51730&highlight=%2Bfiddlestick

trigger rules are the main reason this project was abandoned a while back. the thing worked dam good.. but it was "illegal".
oh well..

out!

The trigger prototype I have on my gun and the next ones I'm working on are mechanical (as much so as a standard trigger) and go on electro-markers. I am exploring using the concept on a mechanical gun, the RT Pro.

I am curious about where you got the information that your trigger concept is not tournament legal?

I don't see why it should be illegal if it self-resets after each trigger activation and discharge. To me, anyone who says a design is not tourney legal is obligated to use the language and text of the rulebooks.

[MarkM]

Steve I never had you down as such a trouble maker
As you have pointed out yourself in relation to the NPPL the Millenium rules are a lot stricter and in some ways restrictive (not allowing the pushing of buttons on the marker whilst playing..Speed/A4 sensi on or off) but unless there is for want of a better word a dual postion for your double trigger idea it isn't going to happen...by dual I mean top trigger point has a pull and release and then an over travel region and the same for the bottom trigger....and then once that LEGAL version (by 1 pull 1 ball) is allowed you will get people tinkering to remove that over travel and you are back to square one. You would be better served to put two triggers in place and one will override the other and for a mechanical this will be a no hoper, for an electro you can have a software setting that will ignore a double hit on the top trigger....yeah should work but boy will it look fugly and to be honest impractical.
The roller trigger idea was worked on and after Tom made prototypes and released it it sold so well that a dealer had to take the stock...so that will be a rarity to be seen now.
Technology does progress but as the current situation is we don't have the gizmo's to catch the "legal" boards that have been fiddled with, without coming up with an entire new type of trigger to play with. You know that some stuff can be checked but there is a limit to it. Currently it relys on the ref knowing what he or she is doing and even then stuff slips by...take a look on PBNation at the "kids" boasting about how the ref was a d... etc 'cos my timmy (or other fiddled marker) was actually doing this.
It is human nature to push the edge but it is approaching runaway mode (to use the pun ) with the checking tools we have at our disposal right now.

[Wadidiz]

Hey Mark,

How'z trickz?

No trouble making M8. Just trying to be reasonable. I've already made my arguments. No more than one shot per trigger cycle. The trigger cycle has been defined as exertion of pressure resulting in one discharge followed by reset. My trigger fits within those parameters.

Again, using the wording of the major league rules tell how the trigger design should not be allowed.

If they change the wording of the rules to dissallow center-pivot triggers then I have other tricks up my sleeve.

If we want to limit ROF then we have to define that limit.

Steve

[cledford]

Originally posted by billmi


Bill's reasoning was sound.

Doc's setup fired when the top half was pulled back, and when the bottom half was pulled back.

Don't be distracted by the top half of the trigger, and just look at the tip on the bottom. Pull it to the back, and it fires, when it moves forward on the release (when the top half is pulled back) it fires again. That's 2 shots per pull and release of the trigger, also known as an Auto Response trigger (these were made for the 'mag and VM in the mid 90s and quickly banned by all tournaments and most fields, and presently most insurance programs.)