Double hard point trigger?

[Kicker]

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...

[Silvershooter]

The trigger has to lift a weight of 500 grm without the pistol firing.

[Kicker]

Exactly. That would work with such a system... So I guess it's allowed?

[TenMetrePeter]

Another cheating system needing a new rule most likely.

[scerir]

Is it possible to measure the weight between the "500 grams point" and the "70 grams départ point"?

[David Levene]

Can anybody confirm this?

When testing a trigger you need to prove that it has been cocked. You do this by lifting the weight and then applying a bit more pressure on the weight to make sure it clicks.

That wouldn't work on the trigger you have described.

[David Levene]

You do this by lifting the weight and then applying a bit more pressure on the weight to make sure it clicks.

Sorry, just realised that you were talking about Air Pistol.

It obviously won't click, it must go phutt.

[william]

1. Obviously designed to game the rules.

2. I'd really like to see how the guy will construct it so that the first stage disappears before the second stage engages. And I'd REALLY like to see how he proposes to control the trigger between points A & B.

[j-team]

As far as I know, release triggers are not allowed (definitely banned in shotgun, and I think in rifle and pistol).

That proposal is very close to, if not a release trigger.

As someone else said, if it is allowed it would not be in the next version of the rule book I suspect.

[David M]

If it is weight on the vertical scale and total travel across the bottom,
then what is drawn is very close to a roll off trigger without the second
point rise.
A release trigger would show a reversal of travel after 500g.
As drawn that trigger would be very hard to control with such a rapid
drop of weight to the second point in a very short travel, you would
tend to over travel and pull thru.

[Kicker]

I've talked about it with other shooters since yesterday...
- If the travel between the 2 hard point is long enough, controlling the trigger shouldn't be a problem, especially if you're already a competition shooter.
- You don't need a double trigger or a Stecher that needs to be cocked separately to implement this. Actually, this can be done just by adding a few pieces and a spring to a regular trigger system.
- Yes, it's meant to bend the rules without infringing them, but I'm not sure it would be forbidden the next season, because the system would likely go unnoticed during the weighing tests. I'll even say there's a small to fair chance that it's already being done and nobody has noticed yet.
- I have no intent to do it and I don't recommend it. Your only opponent in Olympic shooting is yourself. Cheating against yourself is pointless...

[David Levene]

because the system would likely go unnoticed during the weighing tests. I'll even say there's a small to fair chance that it's already being done and nobody has noticed yet.

Sorry, but there's not a hope in Hades of that unless you've got REALLY inexperienced equipment control officers.

How would you intend demonstrating that the gun was cocked and that the gas system was turned on.

As I previously said, you lift the weight and then apply a bit more pressure on it.

[RandomShotz]

It seems to me that it would pass the test. The first weight hump would keep the trigger from activating, then a bit of additional pressure would cause it to clear the first weight curve and drop through the second. It might appear to have a really long second stage but the weight would definitely pull through.

[David Levene]

The first weight hump would keep the trigger from activating, then a bit of additional pressure would cause it to clear the first weight curve and drop through the second.

From my reading of the curve, after achieving 500g the pressure must drop down to virtually zero before building up again to the 70g release point.

It's that drop to virtually zero that would be foiled by normal trigger testing.

As drawn, it is acting very much like a set trigger.

[Chia]

You may run into trouble with Rule 8.4.1.6:

Movement or Oscillation Reduction Systems. Any device,
mechanism or system that actively reduces, slows or minimizes
pistol oscillations or movements before the shot is released is
prohibited.

By reducing the trigger pull requirement, you are creating a system that actively reduces the movements before the shot is released. It takes a hell of a lot less movement to pull a 70g trigger than a 500g one.

I don't think they need a new rule, they may have you under that one.

[David Levene]

You may run into trouble with Rule 8.4.1.6:

Movement or Oscillation Reduction Systems. Any device,
mechanism or system that actively reduces, slows or minimizes
pistol oscillations or movements before the shot is released is
prohibited.

By reducing the trigger pull requirement, you are creating a system that actively reduces the movements before the shot is released. It takes a hell of a lot less movement to pull a 70g trigger than a 500g one.

I don't think they need a new rule, they may have you under that one.

This is certainly not an active system; that refers to things like gyroscopes.

[Kicker]

Yes.

Also, tampering with the trigger weight does not reduce the movements in any way.
It only reduces the force you need to apply in order to trigger the shot.

[Chia]

Yes.

Also, tampering with the trigger weight does not reduce the movements in any way.
It only reduces the force you need to apply in order to trigger the shot.

I like how you think, by the way. Have you considered a career in tax law? :P

Anyways David, we are not talking about an active system. That's not what the rule says. It says that you cannot use a system that actively reduces the movements. From my understanding of this thread, Kicker's idea does exactly this. Unless the ISSF has a specific definition of a "system that actively reduces movement" (which I haven't seen, and if there is one, please correct me), I am taking the ISSF rule's words at their ordinary meaning. "Actively" is simply the adverb form of the word action. A system is a group of related parts that work together. Therefore, a system that reduces movement and oscillations of the pistol that you engage by pulling a trigger to a point would be a system that actively reduces movements and oscillations under this rule. And I think there's no question in this case that Kicker's idea reduces movement and oscillations. That's the whole point of it. Lower trigger weight results in less pressure having to be applied to the pistol in order to fire it. That's why trigger control is one of the cores of pistol training. You have to manipulate a trigger using muscles in your wrist and forearm to flex your trigger finger while holding your wrist completely "steady."

Let me put it to you this way. If there was a switch on the side of the gun that switches the trigger pull weight from 500g to 70g, it would definitely be illegal to flip that switch under this rule. You take an action (flipping the switch) that reduces the oscillations (by reducing the trigger pull weight from 500g to 70g). I do not believe that using the trigger to activate this system would result in a different conclusion.

[TenMetrePeter]

we are in danger of over analysing this "invention". It is unstable, unsafe and an intentional cheat.
The trigger weight test assumes by simple tradition that the trigger fires at the 500+ gram break point and if (again) clarification is needed for equipment control then lets write it.
It has to get to market first and I wouldnt invest in it.

[Chia]

we are in danger of over analysing this "invention". It is unstable, unsafe and an intentional cheat.
The trigger weight test assumes by simple tradition that the trigger fires at the 500+ gram break point and if (again) clarification is needed for equipment control then lets write it.
It has to get to market first and I wouldnt invest in it.

Now hold up a sec with the words here. I don't disagree that the goal is to gain an advantage, but I disagree with calling it an "intentional cheat." His goal is to design a system that gives a competitor an advantage. Kicker's goal is not to intentionally break rules, it is to sidestep them. Intentionally cheating would be something like an electronic trigger that can be operated by twitching your eye. It is clear under the rules that this is illegal.

This is not cheating any more than designing a grip to maximize the guns' stability is. The rules may require certain measurements and that the grip cannot cover the wrist, but that doesn't mean that a grip designer won't try like hell to make the most stable grip possible.

I'm saying that because we really do need this type of innovation in design, otherwise the sport will stagnate. I'd rather encourage than discourage innovation. There are reasons that air rifle competitors (no offense) look like something out of a sci-fi movie, and it's not to impress the cameras. It's because all of that stuff helps them. That stuff had to be invented by someone.