TargetTalk

As an anonymous poster and a poster using an alias have recently made some comments to the effect that "there is no advantage to an electronic trigger," perhaps a brief recap of the issues hashed out on this topic over the last 5 years or so might be in order:

1) It is easy to manufacture a crappy mechanical trigger
2) It is easy to manufacture a crappy electronic trigger
3) It is hard to manufacture a good mechanical trigger, but we have lots (and lots!) of practice doing so
4) It is hard to manufacture a good electronic trigger, but we have lots of practice doing so
5) All systems fail eventually. While many argue that electronic triggers are more failure prone, there is no actual evidence to support this belief (but it is a strongly held article of faith)
6) Both electronic and mechanical fire control systems fail- with differing failure modes. Actual system reliability is higher with electronic triggers (fail less often), but the failure modes are generally more severe (gun will not fire at all)

Therefore, unless we can address specific hazard rates and failure modes of equipment in use in the field, it boils down to the trigger performance, not reliability per se. Until we see some actual evidence on reliability, we must put it aside as an issue (but not as an article of faith).

7) With mechanical triggers commonly in use in match equipment today, at the moment of sear release the force applied to the trigger immediately goes to zero, then after a finite amount of time/travel goes to infinity (well, o.k. a very large number)

8) With electronic triggers commonly in use in match equipment today, the force curve applied to the trigger over time/travel is constant

Yes, with substantial effort you can train yourself to overcome *most* of the side effects associated with characteristic 7), it is a behavior of mechanical triggers that hasn't (but probably could) be eliminated completely.

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

Steve Swartz

Steve Swartz wrote:
5) All systems fail eventually. While many argue that electronic triggers are more failure prone, there is no actual evidence to support this belief (but it is a strongly held article of faith)

Steve Swartz

Steve:

I agree with your comments except for item 5 as a general statement. The Walther electronic trigger disaster seems pretty well documented.

I should note however that the Morini design is very robust from what I have seen.

Charles

> 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?

Steve, I was wondering if it was simple economics...not large enough economies of scale...that Steyr has not created or licensed existing (Morini/or other) electronic trigger technology. Or is it that Steyr reckons they would lose their grip adjustment flexibility? I figured by now that Bubba and his buddy Seaton Thomas would have been butchering somebodies LP10 to make it happen. Seaton (an aerospace engineer by profession) and his dad created the "Thomas .45" around 1970...so I know he could do it if inclined.

As to the validity of point 5); see points 1) and 2). Yes, Walther proved it is indeed easy to make a crappy electronic trigger. That in no way invalidates point 5).

Second- in order for there to be a need for separate classes due to the constant force advantage, note that we don't require a separate class for Daisy pistols just because *some* competitors choose to shoot them (create a "Non Target Pistol" class?!?). Consider that 1) it is possible for any competitor to buy the constant force advantage; 2) nobody is petitioning for abolishing the constant force advantage; and 3) if the issue were to be raised, it would be simple to point out that the constant force advantage is not limited to electronics only- mechanical triggers could also be designed with the constant force advantage (just not so easily or reliably).

Perhaps we should have a separate class for electronic triggers- call it the Serious Competitor Class (running, ducking, and signing off!).

Steve

Anonymous wrote:> Two 'improvements' in shooting sports have affected the future: optical sights and electronic triggers.

Didn't you say before that it wasn't an improvement?

> > Two 'improvements' in shooting sports

> Didn't you say before that it wasn't an improvement?

Substitute the word 'changes' if you prefer it better.

I have conditional disagreement with item 7. The Toz continues to have a positive force applied to the trigger after the sear release. based on the design but with out measuring it I would guess the force actually increases after sear release. Most of my other pistols do not have very little noticable trigger travel after the sear is released.

I have shot some where 7 is a true statement.

That does bring up a point. Is it better to have trigger travel post sear release or should the trigger stop? It could be an individual pref.

There is more to this as you look harder. Here is my 2 cents because it is a neet subject to think about.

In the case of the Morini 162EI (which I use as well as a Steyr LP1), there are 2 springs for the 2 stages and a contact switch (that you can feel). The first spring is for stage 1, at some point you start to lift the second spring. Somewhere in there is where you seem hit the contact (perhaps Francesco can explain more).

The disadvantage is it isnt a constant force system but a linear pull with a change in spring constant (force-displacement slope) when you pick up the 2nd stage (plus stage 1 force). It continues upward as you pull further. This can flip the shot as there is no trigger stop. David Blankenship figured out how to add a stop for those that like them (as well as many other neat things).

Erich Buljung told me to use a trigger stop for a mechanical trigger as the sear force does drop away as Steve says but there is still some spring force left behind, sometimes a lot depending on stage balance. That is why you dont need a stop with electronic triggers. I also think you need a stop as the trigger gets heavy like in a 45. Dry firing with a RIKA proved it to me.


The real advantage of the 162EI trigger is its adjustability. Daryl Szarensky (sp?) has a heavy 1st stage and a roll like 2nd stage (which I prefer as well) I have a (573) Sr Mens National record with this setup.

John Zurek, is a single stage man, and even had the balls to change to that just before winning the Top Gun at the OTC (yes, I was there).


regards

Just a question, don't take it personally Steve, but when was the last time you shot 590 +. Mikhal and Yifu seem to be able to shoot it with those crappy Steyr mechanical triggers. The electronic trigger is not the anwser to shooting better. Serious training, not practicing will get you far more points than an electronic trigger. That being said the Morini electronic trigger is by far the best trigger on the market, and that's from a Steyr owner (and no I don't shot any where near 590 before you ask).

Bruce Martindale wrote:Somewhere in there is where you seem hit the contact (perhaps Francesco can explain more).

Actually the contact lever holds a NO switch closed until the trigger lever lifts it, causing a voltage drop in the trigger circuit and the release of a pulse to the coil.

This way there is no risk of crushing the switch by pulling the trigger...

As said in another topic the spring for the contact lever gives the second stage weight and it can not be set too low or the switch will not reset.

/Anders

For my own humble two cents, I don't think electronic triggers are a way of buying more points with less effort. The game is in the technique, not the equipment. But we all need to use the best equipment to serve our endeavor of realising the ideal shot execution. (We all use visualization as part of our training, don't we???) So use what serves your concept of the perfect shot! Thankfully, this is a field with choices. (Hence: "free" pistol.)
Electronic triggers have been an inevitable part of target pistol evolution. The Frank Green electronic trigger Free pistol, (as made by Electroarms) is one example from the 60's. His early experiments were built on old Hammerlis, and preceded (inspired?) the 152. He won an Olympic medal using one of these prototypes in '60 or '64(?). Many still confirm it was a great trigger. Another from that era, are the experimental Electronic free pistols made by High Standard. They even made at least two different chamberings: 22 LR, of course, and 38 special, (for some reason!). The decision not to go into production was based primarily on perceived market demands, not performance. If you can find one, it qualifies as a curio and relic by the BATFE. Just some interesting trivia. I think it is interesting that these early innovators were all American based. Sad there are no truly competitive domestic pistols today.
By the way, the only electronic trigger which truly sucked was the Walther FP. (My opinion only)
Given the radical concept, rapid evolution, many successes, and numerous satisfied competitors, maybe the track record for electronic triggers is pretty darn good.
Keep it up, Francesco!!

Hello, Steve.
Thanks for your post. Your aproach to the trigger inquery is a very theoritical one. Happily, the real world shooting is way different from that.

Steve, you are stating: At the moment of trigger release, the trigger resistanse of a mechanical trigger goes to ZERO. No way, Steve! This woul mean that you would have to push the trigger forward before you could start to squeeze it in for the next shot. No pistol works like that.

Steve: are you just a theoretican? Have you ever fired a real pistol?

Ok, almost the perfect AP. Morini grips with Morini mechanical trigger installed into a Steyr LP10.

To Steve and Charles:

I have witnessed 2 failures during competition wit the Morini M162 electronic. These disasters are not that rare, Charles. Believe me.

In my country there is among others especially one female air pistol shooter of international class. A few years back she went, like several times before, to a competition abroad. Her scores were usually well up into the top half of the score lists of international competitions.

But this time her name was to be found at the very bottom of the list. The first 10-shot strings were ok, about 94 - 96 I recon. But the last strings were double zeros. And the total score was not written in digits but in letters.
Three very disapointing letters: DNF. What that means? "Did not finish".
She was not able to finish because the electronic trigger of her Morino did let her down. Completely. And no, it was not caused by a weak battery.

A mechanical trigger will not let you down like that!

I will never trust an electronic trigger.

Stan Pace wrote:As a Morini 162 EI owner, it would be good to have the grip adjustment capability of the Steyr.

I have always thought it a shame that the electronic module is not just fixed in the bottom of the grip with a flexible connection to the rest of the gun. The grip adjustments could then be a possibility. Francesco?

I'm not the above guest who wrote before, I just wanted to state how interesting it would be to combine some of the best parts together to form one outstanding AP. These chats and archives are full of what pistol have the best balance, adjustability of grips, no recoil and especially trigger.

Everything from what I have read and I own a LP10, I would be curious to know what a Morine mechanical trigger, with grips installed into a LP10 would yield. Thats all, maybe someone has already.

I'm sure Steve will answer for himself but he is a very good pistol shooter. Was on the USAF pistol team I believe. I briefly met him a couple of years ago at he Crosman's in Toronto I beleive. Very nice guy to boot.

To Guest II, a mechanical trigger can break too or any number of things can happen to make an airgun malfunction and be unusable. I've been at matches where seals have gone in the middle of a match. I find it hard to beleive a competior at that level doesn't have a back-up gun ( ijust always assumed they would). I'm not at that level but I even have a back-up AP (an LP5) don't shoot aswell with it (because I don't train with it) but it is better than zeros. So I wouldn't fault a whole series of guns just because there was a failure, it can happen to any gun and has.

Wow! Lots of traffic on this topic (again). Guess it's been a while. Some observations:

1) It appears as though while the advent of Caller ID has certainly put a damper on some folks social lives, there's always the internet! Hilarious!

As to the substantive and thoughtful posts, I humbly offer the following:

2) I agree with David (and others) about the trade-off with Morini's design and not being able to get the electronic trigger. Yes, the Morini trigger in an LP-10 would be "Da Bomb." Maybe we *would* have to create a new class just for that gun!

3) While it is currently a toss-up as to which "device" (or shooter, for that matter) will be on the firing line when the first 600 is scored, obviously the mechanicals have been in the hands of world class shooters for a lo-o-o-o-o-ong time. Stating something like "more records have been set with mechanicals, therefore mechanicals are better" is somewhat of an obvious logical fallacy. There was a time when "most pistol records [sic] were shot by revolvers" also. Or subsitute Black Powder. Or iron sights (for NRA Bullseye). Whatever. You get my drift.

4) Excellent point Bruce on the force curve; however, I would disagree that the spring resistance increases "significantly" (more on that later) during the travel over a single stage. Yes, of course I realize the force curve is a "step function" with one force for first stage and one for second stage. (There is also a "speed bump" you can feel when the power is off that corresponds to when you have to pick up the sensor). O.K., to get real specific here, I would posit that you have a first stage force, that "increases only slightly" over the first stage travel. This is followed by the step up to the second stage, which is also constant/"increasing only slightly" over it's travel, unitl you hit the stop well beyond release.

5) To continue- the release point "speed bump" actually occurs *after* you pick up the second stage (perhaps I misread you, but I got the impression you suggested that the speed bump occurs before you pick up the second stage?).

6) As to the point about "flipping" shots due to the resistance increasing during/after release I'm not sure how that could happen- please explain. I can certainly understand how the presence of an overtravel stop set close to the release point could do that- but do not see how having the stop set well beyond the constant force/"increasing only slightly" (if at all) second stage would result in "flipping" a shot. I guess we disagree on whether or not/by how much the spring resistance changes over the length of travel. This can be easily settled, however- I *KNOW* there are mechanical engineers out there with something to say on spring force over distance??? Perhaps Francesco could weigh in here???

A related (perhaps interesting?) note:

I am somewhat familiar with the practice in the BE community of setting the overtravel stop so close to the release point that the stop itself adds force required just prior to release (you are effectively compressing the stop in order to achieve legal weight). I don't recommend the practice, but it is certainly one way of avoiding the characteristic of a mechanical trigger to go to zero (yeah, ok, "almost zero" for those quibblers who believe slack or take up is actually the zero-th stage of a three stage trigger) immediately at the moment the shot is being fired.

Heck, why not just add a spring? =8^)

Steve Swartz