Wait how legal is this:Rocking trigger?

[ß?µ£ §mµ®ƒ]

http://members.cox.net/pgipaintguns/page11.html

i know i read about this before, utilizing 2 levers, and pull for each
.... someone enlighten me please, thanks

[RRfireblade]

It's not.

[Fred]

its not, Doc Nickel made a rocking trigger a LONG time ago, so that patent isn't worth squat... two switches is an NPPL No-No...

but, given the way the rules are being modified to allow cheating, multiple switches is only around the corner.

---Fred

[temps]

From the picture it doesn't look like it would increase bps anymore then normal walking... You still have to alternate fingers to fire the gun.. unless its easier to walk but it doesn't look like it... Might help you walk the tigger better by forcing your other finger away while the other pushes..

[WenULiVeUdiE]

It looks almost like it may be harder to walk. Seems like you have to have your fingers farthur apart to walk it. And if you keep them close together, it gets hard to walk as well.

[magman007]

actually, its easy as all hell to walk! he had the proto at Huntington beach. HE claimed it was nppl legal. How this is possible, i dont quite know, but i assure you, it is fast as all get out, no bounce that i experienced either

[thecavemankevin]

i never knew anything like this existed, but i have thought about this idea myself before. I have also thought about haveing twin triggers (i know it would not be tourny legal though). You could have one trigger just where it currently is and another turned around backwords in front of the other trigger. that way when walking/fanning your finger hits the current trigger on the back stroke, and the new trigger on the front stroke with your finger nail.

[-=Squid=-]

Id like to try one. It looks like it would be harder to walk due to having to fully release before you can move it again. Its hard to explain what im trying to say, so if you dont get it I Will try to be a little more detailed.

[magman007]

trust me, its reeeealy easy to walk, and reeeeealy easyy to go fast

[WARPED1]

Heres an animated pic of something similar.

[Automaget]

It seems like it would be harder sence it would be less torq on the switch and your fingers are farther apart so i dont really see any diffrence in it and the pic above? i really dont think that is the same thing that is still only one pull not rocking. but all hail regular trigs

[coolcatpete]

I am postive that this was already out lawed.
Pete

[Lurker27]

Despite what some manufacturers say, they're ALL illegal.

No release of force is required.

There are 2 firing positions.

A full trigger cycle discharges 2 shots.

[RRfireblade]

trust me, its reeeealy easy to walk, and reeeeealy easyy to go fast

Agreed. I've built this one as well.The deal is you never have to fully release tension on either finger and finger timing is no longer an issue.If properly set up,it will be faster than walking a typical trigger and easier to do with speed.

[StickFigurSicide]

On a similar note...

http://members.cox.net/pgipaintguns/page6.htm

wasnt there a post a few days ago about a "revolutionary marker design" that never sold well, mainly because of slow cycling speeds? It utalized trap doors.....

Doesn't that gun bear a striking resembelance to it?

[thei3ug]

from those pics, it resembles the Epic, but it's not.

The Epic is smaller and uses a different valve design, and it mechanical. also it has the regulator in the gripframe.

http://www.icepaintball.com/

[TheTramp]

There was a thread a few months ago about a how a trigger like that could still constitute one-pull one-shot.

In the end it came down to they guy who was planning on making them saying it could and me (alone with a bunch of other people) saying it couldn't. I eventuly stoppd argueing with the guy because there was no point as his mind was made up.

You simply cannot have two switches because that effectevly turns your one trigger into two.

edit: I guess it must have been at least a year ago with Wadits (sp?). Boy does time fly.

[WARPED1]

There was a thread a few months ago about a how a trigger like that could still constitute one-pull one-shot.

In the end it came down to they guy who was planning on making them saying it could and me (alone with a bunch of other people) saying it couldn't. I eventuly stoppd argueing with the guy because there was no point as his mind was made up.

You simply cannot have two switches because that effectevly turns your one trigger into two.

Was it Jim Drew?

[Jack & Coke]

From 2 years ago...

http://www.pbnation.com/showthread.p...threadid=92290

and

https://www.automags.org/forums/showthread.php?t=44044



Doc's version:



Osiris @ NPPL Huntington 2004

[ß?µ£ §mµ®ƒ]

oh okay, thanks jack & coke

[Igotu]

Think it would be easier because the fulcrums in the middle.

[DK1]

Despite what some manufacturers say, they're ALL illegal.

A full trigger cycle discharges 2 shots.

Depends on what you call a full trigger cycle. If you define a trigger cycle as, start at rest, pull to stop, return to rest, then it doesn't discharge 2 shots, just one. The rest is in the middle. The trigger doesn't do autoresponse. Your fingers are still responsible for every shot. Now, having said that, I'm still pretty sure it falls foul of the letter of the rules... except for NXL rules probably.

DK1

[-=Squid=-]

Depends on what you call a full trigger cycle. If you define a trigger cycle as, start at rest, pull to stop, return to rest, then it doesn't discharge 2 shots, just one. The rest is in the middle. The trigger doesn't do autoresponse. Your fingers are still responsible for every shot. Now, having said that, I'm still pretty sure it falls foul of the letter of the rules... except for NXL rules probably.

DK1

And here comes Ian to make things more complicated...

[TheTramp]

Depends on what you call a full trigger cycle. If you define a trigger cycle as, start at rest, pull to stop, return to rest, then it doesn't discharge 2 shots, just one. The rest is in the middle. The trigger doesn't do autoresponse. Your fingers are still responsible for every shot. Now, having said that, I'm still pretty sure it falls foul of the letter of the rules... except for NXL rules probably.

DK1

I'm pretty sure that trigger cycle is defined as full rearward travel then full forward travel will result in only one shot.

ie. obviously pulling it fully back with fire the gun but letting it go fully forward (which would mean pressing the top of the trigger in this case) wont give you a second shot (which this one will).

I think the key word is "travel." Movement of the trigger through its full range of travel can only give you one shot. You can have as much over travel as you want (mechanical Spyder anyone? ) but only one shot can happen durring this movment/cycle.


Of course as I said, two micro switchs can easily be interprated as two triggers and that's obviously illegal.

[ß?µ£ §mµ®ƒ]

now imagine if you had a Rt/X valve bounce on both triggers, one pushes on bounce to push the otherone to shoot which pushes back to reset while setting the other one off , Non stop Rt/X action!!!!!!!!!

[DK1]

I'm pretty sure that trigger cycle is defined as full rearward travel then full forward travel will result in only one shot.

ie. obviously pulling it fully back with fire the gun but letting it go fully forward (which would mean pressing the top of the trigger in this case) wont give you a second shot (which this one will).

I think the key word is "travel." Movement of the trigger through its full range of travel can only give you one shot. You can have as much over travel as you want (mechanical Spyder anyone? ) but only one shot can happen durring this movment/cycle.


Of course as I said, two micro switchs can easily be interprated as two triggers and that's obviously illegal.

Sure, but that's what I'm getting at. I don't think this trigger violates the "spirit of the law." It won't autoreponse, wich I believe is the reasoning behind the wording of the rules. I mean, if you pull the trigger all the way back, and let go, you get one shot. Now, yes, the trigger can move in the other direction, but then you're pulling the trigger again.

I'm not saying the trigger *is* legal, because it's not. I'm saying it should be, and that the wording of the rule should be revised. This trigger is truly semi-auto.

DK1

[wobbles82]

PGI is a joke, im sorry. I cant recall something that they made that looked quality, or had a good thing going for it. As for this, Chuck hit the design completely in Tampa, if a chrono guy felt it the wrong way, youd be gone. Two microswitches=two triggers, thats how they interrperted it.

[RRfireblade]

Sure, but that's what I'm getting at. I don't think this trigger violates the "spirit of the law." It won't autoreponse, wich I believe is the reasoning behind the wording of the rules. I mean, if you pull the trigger all the way back, and let go, you get one shot. Now, yes, the trigger can move in the other direction, but then you're pulling the trigger again.

DK1

The rule refers to the full limit of travel of the trigger per a single shot.It was intended purposely to encompass these types of triggers,other types that have various 'directions' of pulls as well as 'responce' triggers.

What this means is you start with the trigger at rest, pull to the extreme of it's travel till it stops and then return through the full range of travel in the return direction. In the case of this trigger,it will fire 2 shots and this is not legal.

[Lurker27]

Grab the bottom of the trigger and fan, getting the autoresponce effect. toss product by wayside. next.

[DK1]

Grab the bottom of the trigger and fan, getting the autoresponce effect. toss product by wayside. next.

Hardly, do you realize how ineffective that would be in practice?

I still don't see any real problem posed by this trigger. Again, I realize it's against the rules, I just don't think it violates any of the principles the rules are there to protect.

DK1