new concept trigger...

[Wat]

I think there is confusion between trigger pull and trigger cycle.

I'm going to proceed with the two assumptions:
1 Two triggers is not allowed
2 Two shots per trigger cycle is not allowed

Also, i'm assuming we're just talking about a basic trigger like docs such that it fires if the upper or lower portion is moved back a sufficient distance.

Because of 1, i have to look at the center pivot see-saw trigger as one trigger. Which means that the trigger as a whole can fire while its in two different positions. Thus a full cycle must result in two shots being fired, violating 2.

We can distinguish and upper pull from a lower pull, but because of 1, we can not distinguish two seperate trigger cycles.

[MarkM]

Originally posted by 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

Yeah I'm getting by

Wording, I agree could well be the key but then how does that saying go about putting a bunch of monkeys in a room for long enough...etc My ball is bigger than your ball etc etc, as long as that situation exists then no unification of the rules will happen.
The testing equipment needs to be made available to test what is around now not for something that is down the road someways. You are perfectly aware of the ****storm that could happen with paintball in europe due to the semi only regs and the classification of a paintball marker seperate to firearms...this is awkward enough without some super trigger coming along and the fool in the blue uniform doing a random stop and finding what he percives to be a weapon, then you go through the test court case and a kneejerk reaction will take place...how many times have germany thought that paintball was gonna get banned...1 max masters got moved and don't recall that being to do with any war in Iraq...Scotland banned it and confiscated markers from sites...ok that for the mean time has been resolved but..well I think you can see what I am saying. Sorry this isn't strictly in the terms of "this" forum but what has been proposed isn't a straight forward, lets re-word "the" rules.

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by MarkM
...this is awkward enough without some super trigger coming along and the fool in the blue uniform doing a random stop and finding what he percives to be a weapon, then you go through the test court case and a kneejerk reaction will take place...

Inspector picks up a Timmy, turns it on and pulls the trigger. Pow! It discharges every time he pulls the trigger regardless of where he pulls the trigger. Then he somehow learns that he can use two fingers and "walk" the trigger. He becomes intrigued and after some tinkering realizes that he can shot the bleeder faster than an Uzi.

Inpector then picks up my gun with my (Doc's) trigger. Ditto above. Except it is easier to shoot fast and it does shoot somewhat faster (perhaps limited by whatever hopper is on it).

The way I see it the inspector ain't gonna have more of a problem with the second gun more than the first. They both are faster than many real machine pistols.

If there's a problem then it is in ROF, not trigger design, because both function practically the same way. Just one is smoother and faster than the other, but not by some gigantic margin.

If we really need to limit ROF then bring it on! But do so clearly; not pussy-foot around the issue. And if it's gonna be limited then the simplest, most fool-proof way is by AGAIN banning force-feed.

Then my trigger design will simply be easier than others to get up to and maintain 13.5 BPS.

Until the rules are re-worded my trigger is legal.

[cledford]

Originally posted by Wadidiz


The way I see it the inspector ain't gonna have more of a problem with the second gun more than the first. They both are faster than many real machine pistols.
Until the rules are re-worded my trigger is legal.

You're forgetting that the last few posters live in the UK and EU. Over there they're sacrificed common sense for a "feel-good" yet empty sense of security. Common sense no longer prevails - now a paintgun that shoots too fast can be deemed an "automatic weapon" causing the entire sport to banned from a nation.

Personally, I say screw 'em - they're the ones who allow socialism to rule the day and stupid laws to govern their action - but since this is a *global* economy now with paintball *main-stream* (read a multi-million dollar a year industry) we're ham-strung by their stupid rules to a certain extent. Not that we don't have our own issue with the civil tort system in the US that just as well *bans* some of this stuff as well. But at least in the US we're not breaking the law if we decide to do something that the insurance industry disaproves of.

-Calvin

[Freakshine]

Hello

I am interested in how you are arguing this "new" trigger design. I would like to encourage you to pursue this technology and change current regulation make it that this is clearly legal for major tourny play.

I think you have two choices in the matter:

1. Go and patent your idea (Might be tough since you aren't the first - but others have succeded.) Then change the rule wording to have everyone aware that your technology is legal. Then market it to whomever you wish and live happily everafter.

2. Stay small and under the radar. No one will proabally ever care enough to look at your marker close enough. People will remember this trigger like they remember 12 grams and 10 round tubes.

Lets asume that you were successful in changing wording so there is no doubt of the designs legality. Something else will happen. Someone will steal your idea and put in a "Timmy" with a "cheater board" and now shoot 40 rounds a second. Will that maintain the fairness of the rules?

You'll be happy that your trigger was offically legalized but now you're still the slow kid on the block.

The whole spirit of the rules is to keep things fair. The players themselves attempt to push that envelope as far as possible trying to gain that advantage. They will always try to sneak something else in. I see this in the same realm as the new boards, hidden switches, turbo modes, "debounce", ramping and all the other things cool kids do.

Go for it, have fun. I believe that your are blinded by the fact that you "know" you have found an untapped technology that should be allowed in tournament play. Maybe it should someday but you are looking at it from a skewed perspective.

This is not intended to hurt your feelings just to possibly help give some perspective.

-Freakshine

[Wadidiz]

Thanks Freakshine,

It is true that I am a little close to this project. But I'm aware of it.

I have already used my trigger at one major tournament without a problem and don't anticipate any problems. You can expect to see the latest version of the trigger on a special version of a popular gun.

If some rules get changed that don't allow it, so be it. I heard a rumor that some moves are on the way to limit ROF. If it will help guarantee safety, then I'm for it.

As far as British laws against full-auto, nobody needs to worry. My gun is only marginally faster than what I saw at Campaign Cup this past summer. And my trigger isn't going to make a Timmy with cheater board shoot any faster since that is an electronic trick. Besides, the existing hoppers limit ROF to around 24 BPS.

[MarkM]

Re: Hello

Originally posted by Freakshine

2. Stay small and under the radar. No one will proabally ever care enough to look at your marker close enough. People will remember this trigger like they remember 12 grams and 10 round tubes.

The whole spirit of the rules is to keep things fair. The players themselves attempt to push that envelope as far as possible trying to gain that advantage. They will always try to sneak something else in. I see this in the same realm as the new boards, hidden switches, turbo modes, "debounce", ramping and all the other things cool kids do.

-Freakshine

MMM Freakshine you don't know who Wadidiz is so your idea is a little flawed however well intended, honest

[Doc Nickel]

My two rather late cents.

I made that Rocking trigger back in '98, and it uses a single microswitch and a spring-loaded "centering" detent. If you pull and release the top half, you get one shot and it returns to center. If you pull the bottom half and release it, it fires one shot and returns to center.

If you hold one all the way back, and then use the other to pull it to the extreme opposite position (IE, from bottom all the way back to top all the way back) you again get only one shot.

The problem is, due to the old AutoResponse trigger, which fired on the pull and the release, the rules assume both a pull and a release is a full cycle. And in that interpretation, if you take my rocker and pull one end, then use the other half to pull it back through center to the other full-pull position, that is, by their definition, a full cycle of the trigger, and does indeed result in two shots.

Now, why two shots in that method is any different than a player using the "walking" technique- the finger motions are basically the exact same- getting two shots (one for each finger motion) or why one's legal and the other isn't, is a worthy topic of discussion. However, that reasoning is purely bureaucratic, and not something that will be easily solved here and now with logic and reason.

Doc.

[Wadidiz]

Originally posted by Doc Nickel
...that reasoning is purely bureaucratic, and not something that will be easily solved here and now with logic and reason.

Glad to see you here.

Someone has said the spirit of bureaucracy is the total lack of imagination. Seems to fit here.

It amazes me how many people only look at the letter of the law and not at the purposes thereof. It also amazes me how many people say "It's two triggers!" or "It has two switches so it can't be legal!". No looking outside the frame. Or even bothering to look carefully at the rules.

Anyway, I think the problem I (or we) may continue to have is rule committees or rulemakers taking the easy way of not thinking.

BTW I am pursuing this idea that you obviously had first. Just want to say that I thought I had it first until I found out by word-of-mouth that you had come up with it years before.

Drop me a line if you have any thoughts.