TargetTalk

Please don't read this post if you are Humour Impaired, having a Bad Day, or are otherwise Excessively Cranky.

Oops one more point- about failure rates for electronicanamicals vs. mechanicanicalismics.

Yes, again:

Mechanical trigger systems fail. I have seen them fail. With My Own Eyes.

Electronic trigger systems fail. I have seen them fail. With My Own Eyes.

Can anyone do any better that? Right now, I can't- and no-one else posting to this thread has either.

Danger!

Stop reading here if you have an amorous attachment to your mechanical trigger.

Two basic presumption of system reliability hold that, in general:

- More parts=less reliability
- Mechanical parts=wear=less reliability

It would SEEM (don't know for sure) that ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL (as I said, you can have a poorly designed system of either type) the eeelectronomononaminimacal systems would POTENTIALLY (if designed well; in order to take advantage of inherent reliability) be able to achieve higher reliability than mechanimanicanicrunchentickerical systems.

Any manufacturer's and/or empirical DATA available?

Steve Swartz

Hrumph! For over 25 years I've been involved with device design, process development, failure analysis and such, mostly with integrated circuits, but some active discreet and thin-films too. I chose a mechanical trigger over an electro/mechanical one when I bought my air gun. The electrical/mechanical systems do address some short comings of the pure mechanical design. If I was competing for a world championship gold medal, I might have picked the electro route. For such endeavors, who cares if the pistol ends up in a dust bin in a few years because there are no parts for it any more. Few of us need that bleeding edge technology. Most of us really need a pistol that will last.

Few seem to remember the Walther fiasco and the lesson it should have taught. I guess we'll have to wait for the Morini one before cost of ownership gets its due consideration. Granted that the Walther design was poor and the Morini one much more robust, but at some point many of the Morini pistols will be hanging an the wall because they broke and can't be fixed. Remember 8-track, Betamax, VHS? The problem gets even worse when going from discreet designs to single chip solutions. Many times you can adapt discreet parts to get a board working, but a mask set and floor time to do a custom module is impossible.

Schematic diagrams should be available for all electric triggers so that technicians can actually repair them when the factory gets tired of supporting them. The trigger mechanisms should mimic the Walther GSP, modular trigger unit design so that third, forth, and fifth generation trigger modules can be fitted to older pistols. I'm surprised that some marketing drone hasn't figured out that with proper design, they could sell an endless parade of trigger upgrades for gun models no longer supported... and then obsolete models every few years.

Any clever machinist can keep a mechanical trigger gun shooting. My Steyr will still be competing when the Morini electros are dead. Reliability is more than mean time to first failure and long term reliability is going to be a consideration until we finally have a disposable air pistol... shoot it until it gets dirty or breaks, then throw it away.

Larry

We have an AP outside the U.S. lets just say too far away to own any of the new model APs except for me thank you to APO. Everyone owns a 10 to 20 year old Hammerli or Walther, and believe it or not, they are still shooting with it. By the way they are CO2.

Hi Guest

I think you may be splitting hairs on the electronic vs mechanical triggers and score improvements. I doubt I will ever be good enough to see a statistical difference between a really good mechanical or electronic trigger on something as good as a Morini for instance.

AP is pretty small as a community and splitting it into elctronic and mechanical most likely would not result in more people shooting the sport.

What exactly are you angling for?

Anonymous wrote:> But why would you want to make perfecting trigger
> control any harder on yourself than it already is?

As mentioned before, it's human nature to seek 'easy'. Advances in technology have been motivated by the desire for convenience and ease.

Two 'improvements' in shooting sports have affected the future: optical sights and electronic triggers. Both good inventions which improve upon iron sights and mechanical triggers.

To take this discussion further, if electronic triggers in FP and AP are truly better in the ways mentioned, do they not create higher scores with less human effort? As shooting is supposed to be a human competition, are electronics not unfair advantages over mechanical technology? To be fair, with the claimed advantages shouldn't there be separate classes for mechanical and electronic devices?

Electronic triggers have a long way to go to reach their potential. Current designs basically employ a switch in place of a mechanical sear.

Think of the potential if designs were expanded to learn the pull response for each shooter. Using today's microprocessors and sensing technology, various feedback systems, like PID, we could create a whole new set of training and competition technologies.

Some other ideas:

Imagine the Rika trainer in the grip.

How about a trigger that refuses to fire if your "trigger pull rate" doesn't match your training standard. Or a solid state gyro that recognizes when delayed trigger release has resulted in excess muzzle movement.

Consider a free pistol trigger that recognizes when you stop increasing a light takeup ( thus acknowledging finger to trigger contact), and then fires when a desired additional trigger weight is sensed.

Additional safety mechanisms could also be incorporated when these technologies are developed. Morini already uses an IR break beam safety on their free pistol.

For the amateur this area is ripe for development. Make a simple mock pistol with trigger switch and solenoid to mimic firing pin fall. Then build the electronics to create a myriad of different possibilites.

This would be a an interesting sideline for those engaged in robotics experimentation.

To funtoz (alias Larry ...)
By the way "funtoz"? Abreviation for "having fun shooting a TOZ 35?"

Thank you for your releaving post, Larry.

I believe i will keep shooting my mechanical Steyrs and Morinis well after the present "electroes" are gone.
Just remember the Morini 102E.
Or that famous Walther electro free pistol.

Bob:

Of course, once the electronic fire control systems become truly digital (they are currently hybrid analog electromechanical systems), as you noted "the sky's the limit."

One of my thoughts has been to replace the whole moving flapperdoodle system with a piezo crystal- no actual trigger movement at all. Make the system as "electro" (and as little "mechanical") as possible.

No overtravel, perfect and unlimited trigger position and "feel" adjustment, etc.

Mount a 3-axis pad (different pad sizes, shapes, textures, etc.) for the fixed piezo. Run the trickle charge through. Map several customizable force patterns into onboard RAM (heck, you can get a gigabyte onto an SD card now) that you can adjust with software on your PC. Allow the user to map a response curve to their individual liking and click on shot release point anywhere along the curve. Add whatever fault detection routines you want (force being applied too fast, too slow, too long to break shot); add feedback system through vibration signals sent to trigger pad and/or grip . . . the user can program a "training modes" such as random shot release along force curve etc. (might even want to use that one for matches!).

Also change the mechanical side of the system. A variety of "massless" electroactuators could be incorporated into the charge release system.

Better yet, can we use a magnetic medium soft enough for match grade use so we can use a magnetic rail gun concept instead of compressed air?

Remember Francesco- "You Heard It Here First!"

Steve Swartz

Steve Swartz wrote: One of my thoughts has been to replace the whole moving flapperdoodle system with a piezo crystal- no actual trigger movement at all.

Also change the mechanical side of the system. A variety of "massless" electroactuators could be incorporated into the charge release system.

Better yet, can we use a magnetic medium soft enough for match grade use so we can use a magnetic rail gun concept instead of compressed air?

I suspect that lead and powder will eventually be eliminated from the sport, too, replaced by laser beam and sensors. Wow, just like a real video game.

I have a Morini CM 162 EI.

I am not a world class shooter, but I keep records to shot where I am. I cannot find any real advantage to the electronic trigger. I have not found any disadvantage. The non adjustable grips are perhaps a good thing, as I try to improve. I cannot fault and then change the rip angle. Gotta look somewhere else for any hold problems, because the grip is fixed.

I bought the electronic trigger version of the Morini for the reason that I wanted to try a Morini, and felt that if I did not like it, the electronic version would be easier to sell thann a mechanical version. That was the sole consideration in the choice between mechanical and electrical. I shoot just as well or sometimes better with my LP-1 CO-2 and my Pardini K-60. I like the Morini, but I don't think the electronic trigger is that big a deal. It is a good trigger, but, no more. Ain't no magic dust, or cosmic connection involved.

I humbly offer that the Anschutz LP@ is probably one of the best air pistols around, combining most features that make a good pistol. Had ot sell mine because I could'nt fault anything about it. This left me without excuses for my poor performance. Another is a LP-1 CO2 that I bought used from Pilkington. Had it a few yerars, and once I made the adjustments I wanted, then corrected the adjustments ot what worked best, I havent adjusted anything on that pistol in about 3 years, and I do shoot it.

I am done now.

Respectfully,
Bubba

Steve Swartz said:

One of my thoughts has been to replace the whole moving flapperdoodle system with a piezo crystal- no actual trigger movement at all. Make the system as "electro" (and as little "mechanical") as possible.

No overtravel, perfect and unlimited trigger position and "feel" adjustment, etc.

Mount a 3-axis pad (different pad sizes, shapes, textures, etc.) for the fixed piezo.



You guys are so thinking inside the box here. Why have a trigger at all? Why not connect an electronic triggering device to an optical sensor which can be activated by the winking of your (non-dominant) eye? Why not connect the optical device to electrodes permanently implanted in your brain so you can fire simply by thinking?

Seriously, Bubba had it right. A trigger is a trigger. If trigger control is the most important and most difficult aspect of pistol shooting, then significantly changing the difficulties of moving one finger smoothly without moving any other muscles in the same hand, would significantly change pistol shooting. Is that the goal here?

Fred

Fred wrote:Steve Swartz said:
You guys are so thinking inside the box here. Why have a trigger at all? Why not connect an electronic triggering device to an optical sensor which can be activated by the winking of your (non-dominant) eye? Why not connect the optical device to electrodes permanently implanted in your brain so you can fire simply by thinking?

Seriously, Bubba had it right. A trigger is a trigger. If trigger control is the most important and most difficult aspect of pistol shooting, then significantly changing the difficulties of moving one finger smoothly without moving any other muscles in the same hand, would significantly change pistol shooting. Is that the goal here?

Fred

I'm sure the system you describes would be very good but I would contest it is no longer pistol shooting. The whole art and skill of the sport is to master the trigger, and all the other aspects of the gun / shot sequence. An electronic trigger may help but it will never make a poor shooter a great shooter.

Rob.

Rob:

Be careful where you "SNIP" stuff- I DIDN'T SAY THAT, FRED DID!!!!!

You are giving hte impression that I said we should hook the fire control system up to the winking eye, thinking of happy thoughts, etc.

Those were Fred's ideas- and I don't believe he supports them either.

Steve

I think any changes to improve trigger control are welcomed, but any of them must respect rules. ISSF says:

8.4.2.4 Electronic Triggers are allowed providing:
8.4.2.4.1 all their components are firmly attached to and contained within the
frame or grip of the pistol;
8.4.2.4.2 the trigger is operated by the hand that holds the pistol;
8.4.2.4.3 all components are included when the pistol is submitted for
inspection by the Equipment Control Section;
8.4.2.4.4 the pistol with all components installed complies with the rules
governing dimensions and weight for that event.

See you guys.

Steve Swartz wrote:Rob:

Be careful where you "SNIP" stuff- I DIDN'T SAY THAT, FRED DID!!!!!

You are giving hte impression that I said we should hook the fire control system up to the winking eye, thinking of happy thoughts, etc.

Those were Fred's ideas- and I don't believe he supports them either.

Steve

Steve,
Wow don't SHOUT - I never said you did say it - hence it said Fred at the end. My snipping wasn't the most precise but no need to get your knickers in a twist.

Rob.