TargetTalk

Kicker wrote:Hello everybody :)

I'm doing Air Pistol 10m ISSF competition, I was reading the rules, and specifically, the ones about trigger weight.
Now, it says that the trigger must weigh 500g, but it doesn't specify that the shot must go off exactly when the trigger reaches that weight.
So that kind of trigger seems to be legal:


Can anybody confirm this?

Thanks in advance...

I think it is not legal, because the specific "rule" needs interpretation, and IMO the interpretation is that the shot must break (immediately) when the weight is above 500 grams. But let us imagine, for a moment, that it is legal. A question then arises. Is it a two-stage trigger? And - in that case - how is it possible to drop the 500 grams weight to almost zero grams? s.

scerir wrote:I think it is not legal, because the specific "rule" needs interpretation, and IMO the interpretation is that the shot must break (immediately) when the weight is above 500 grams. But let us imagine, for a moment, that it is legal. A question then arises. Is it a two-stage trigger? And - in that case - how is it possible to drop the 500 grams weight to almost zero grams? s.

I'll leave that to people more talented with science than me to figure out. I can do rules, but physics? Forget it. I'm awful.

The mechanism could be fairly simple. As the trigger is pulled through the first part of its movement, it a lobe on the trigger engages a cam which provides the required resistance but is not connected to the sear or any other part of the firing mechanism. After the trigger passes the cam, it goes through a short distance where it is only resisted by enough spring pressure to provide a reasonable feel until the trigger engages the sear or sear bar which is set for the final resistance before dropping the hammer. Working out the curve on the cam for a smooth transition and a mechanism for the trigger reset may be a little tricky, but I can't see any insurmountable obstacles.

The resistance of the cam would be enough to suspend the test weight. When the judge jiggles the gun or presses on the weight, the trigger would be pulled downward past the initial resistance and the weight would then fall with more than enough momentum to trip the sear.

A trigger modified in this way would necessarily have a significant amount of travel between the peak resistance and tripping the sear. if it's too short, the shooter would be in danger of just pulling through, gaining no advantage and having a trigger with a strange, creepy feel. So if it could be designed and built, the rules could be 'fixed' by simply requiring that the maximum trigger resistance be immediately before the pistol fires.

IMHO, of course.

I think that the 500gram trigger pull weight rule already covers it, as this trigger doesn't have a 500gram pull weight, it has a 70gr one. The 500 gram part of this design is not the pull that releases the shot but a pre shot preparation of the trigger.

The only thing is that current testing procedure wouldn't pick it up.

David Levene wrote:

TenMetrePeter wrote: now you are introducing a procedure not written in the ISSF rules or guidelines. Post a link if I am wrong.

Can you think of another procedure that would prove that the trigger has been cocked and that the gas will discharge?

In reading this thread, do you get the sense that anyone advocating this idea has ever gone through equipment control as a competitor?

Hmm..this is interesting. From a physics, training, mechanical design and legal (current) standpoint.

I recall when I last shot my IZZY in a match where they checked weights, the EC official had me cock my SSP via the air cocking lever, he then took the pistol to where he had the weight devices, and in front of me and others, maneuvered the trigger to where the weighing device right angle piece was above the trigger and he lifted the weight off of the table. Simple

The official then gave the pistol, still with the weight on the trigger a slight downward motion (maybe 1-2 inches) and return lift. This motion with the aid of gravity increased the weight on the trigger and caused the discharge. Again simple and effective

I am not sure if the downward motion and lift is/was the prescribed/approved action. All that is required is/was that the pistol actually not discharge air when the weight is lifted. to pass the weight test.

8.4.2
Measuring Trigger Pull Weight
.........When testing air or gas actuated pistols, the propellant charge must be activated

The rules does not say how to discharge or the methodology.

EC officials should know how to ensure that PCPs air systems are engaged and how to read that a PCP cylinder is charged.

An EC official is well within their job purpose to let the weight back down, and actually discharge the pistol with their hand/finger rather than the non standardized practice of the drop and lift motion, giggle/wiggle around, etc.

This would ensure that the cylinder is actually charged and the air system is engaged.

Evasion of the current rules, finding loopholes, all for exploit to gain advantage is a time "honored" tradition in sports, politics, business, the law, etc. Rightly or wrongly.

We see it with the use of new/custom equipment all the time. It is not the dog wagging the tail but the tail wagging the dog. And yes that is sad.

If someone can design a dual hard point trigger, as described in the OP, get a manufacturer to test for safety and install and bring it to market..then ISSF will likely make it legal. It is just an improvement to the trigger and they cant stand in the way of progress at ISSF, can they?

After all, electronic triggers were snorted at, at one point, and their "legality" was questioned too.

SamEEE wrote:Edit 2: I liked Ronny Nilsson idea of having a linearly actuated trigger as opposed to a hinging/pivoting one though, he could be onto something there.

Yes. As far as I remember the Feinwerkbau 65 (and also the FWB 80) had a linearly actuated (mechanical) trigger. s.

scerir wrote:

SamEEE wrote:Edit 2: I liked Ronny Nilsson idea of having a linearly actuated trigger as opposed to a hinging/pivoting one though, he could be onto something there.

Yes. As far as I remember the Feinwerkbau 65 (and also the FWB 80) had a linearly actuated (mechanical) trigger. s.

FWB 80 yes but not 65. I'm sure that the 65 trigger pivots.

Xman wrote: If someone can design a dual hard point trigger, as described in the OP, get a manufacturer to test for safety and install and bring it to market..then ISSF will likely make it legal.

If the weight required to let off the trigger, at any time during the competition, is less than 500g then it is already illegal.

I cannot believe that some people are trying to find a way of testing a trigger to allow people to cheat.

john bickar wrote:

David Levene wrote:

TenMetrePeter wrote: now you are introducing a procedure not written in the ISSF rules or guidelines. Post a link if I am wrong.

Can you think of another procedure that would prove that the trigger has been cocked and that the gas will discharge?

In reading this thread, do you get the sense that anyone advocating this idea has ever gone through equipment control as a competitor?

+1

Reading this thread I get the feeling that people are thinking two different modes of operation.

Some seem to believe that there is some interlocking mechanism where the trigger must be "pumped" once to set lower trigger weight.

On the other hand some seem to interpret the diagram as drawn, without any such interlocking mechanisms, where trigger resistance changes non linearly as a function of distance.

The first option would not pass equipment control. The second option would, or at least I fail to think any reason it would fail.

J R wrote:Reading this thread I get the feeling that people are thinking two different modes of operation.

Some seem to believe that there is some interlocking mechanism where the trigger must be "pumped" once to set lower trigger weight.

On the other hand some seem to interpret the diagram as drawn, without any such interlocking mechanisms, where trigger resistance changes non linearly as a function of distance.

The first option would not pass equipment control. The second option would, or at least I fail to think any reason it would fail.

Anyone who can properly read a force/distance graph surely recognizes it as the second option and yes it would pass the test as practised.

TenMetrePeter wrote:Anyone who can properly read a force/distance graph surely recognizes it as the second option and yes it would pass the test as practised.

Yes, it would pass the test, but it would be almost impossible to control because of that drop in trigger weight.
You can test it like so:
Take a match air pistol, unscrew the trigger stop, cock the pistol and then try to control the trigger after it fires... That's the drop in weight you are all talking about...

It would do more harm than good, because trigger control is paramount to good shooting...

edit. Try that with a mechanical trigger, not an electronic one...

I believe electronic trigger systems offer much more possibilities for these type of solutions.

For example the type of trigger discussed in this thread could be implemented by trigger position sensor and by using servo mechanism to adjust trigger resistance.
This type of system could detect the equipment control situation with static load and the actual shooting situation in which the shooter usually stops trigger actuation for some time, during this time the system could gradually decrease the trigger resistance.

Another type of system could only use the trigger position sensor. It could for example automatically reject shots in which the trigger is pulled too fast.
Taking it further the system could be used during training with detachable gyroscope and acceleration sensor unit which would be used to "train" the trigger via machine learning techniques to detect the optimal trigger usage pattern for the given user. It could then for example dynamically adjust the trigger point and reject shots more accurately.

I believe these methods go against the spirit of shooting competitions and should never be used in competition situations.
But could these type of system detected in equipment control if they were used? I think not.

I do not believe that current rules and practices take account any type of electronics and software inspection of the gun. The electronics could easily contain gyroscope and acceleration sensor along with appropriate software which would easily pass equipment inspection.
Perhaps in future we will see standardized electronics which can only run software cryptographically signed by ISSF.

J R wrote:I believe these methods go against the spirit of shooting competitions and should never be used in competition situations.
But could these type of system detected in equipment control if they were used? I think not.

If someone wants to take the chance of being found out then there are plenty of ways of cheating.

Many years ago I was shown a standard pistol that could easily lift the 1000g weight when the barrel was vertical.

When the barrel was horizontal however, levers/stops moved out of the way and it only took about 300-400g to release the trigger.

This gun was never used in competition, just built to show what could be done.

john bickar wrote:

David Levene wrote:

TenMetrePeter wrote: now you are introducing a procedure not written in the ISSF rules or guidelines. Post a link if I am wrong.

Can you think of another procedure that would prove that the trigger has been cocked and that the gas will discharge?

In reading this thread, do you get the sense that anyone advocating this idea has ever gone through equipment control as a competitor?

As you quote David and myself in your question the answer is yes in my case and I'm confident David is far more experienced than most in equipment control.
Pretty sure neither of us remotely advocate this design!

Just to make things clear: I have no intention of making such a trigger, and I don't recommend it.
And even if somebody did, they would have to hide it, otherwise the rules would probably be updated to ban it for the next year, and they would have rigged their trigger for nothing.
I'm merely pointing out that the current rules, as they are written, contain a pretty nasty loophole, and if someone is smart enough to make that system and hide it (it's definitely possible), who knows if somebody hasn't already made one and is currently using it?