Match trigger evolution?

[ptdunk]

A bit of '100 years of target airguns' video research here, more to come I'm sure.....

So I'm interested in the evolution of triggers in 10m Match air rifles.

It seems to me that you've got the firearms style triggers of early Walthers, Diana's and Weihrauch's, but then starting with the early Anschutz's they begin to change.
They seem to get more complicated and the trigger blocks that house all the components start to elongate, with the early Feinwerkbau trigger blocks being very long with seemingly more parts than say an early Walther or Weihrauch.

By the time you get to the Feinwerkbau 600 series they seem to have thrown out the rule book and given up the firearm approach completely, and with the milled aluminium trigger blocks Feinwerkbau seem to have come at it from more of a product design/engineering approach (something I've always admired about Feinwerkbau)

Can anyone tell me what kind of mechanical advantage led to this developement in Target air rifle triggers?

I don't know much about triggers and would be grateful for any insight anyone has into this side of airgun developement.

Cheers,
Matt

[dvd]

A bit of '100 years of target airguns' video research here, more to come I'm sure.....

So I'm interested in the evolution of triggers in 10m Match air rifles.

It seems to me that you've got the firearms style triggers of early Walthers, Diana's and Weihrauch's, but then starting with the early Anschutz's they begin to change.
They seem to get more complicated and the trigger blocks that house all the components start to elongate, with the early Feinwerkbau trigger blocks being very long with seemingly more parts than say an early Walther or Weihrauch.

By the time you get to the Feinwerkbau 600 series they seem to have thrown out the rule book and given up the firearm approach completely, and with the milled aluminium trigger blocks Feinwerkbau seem to have come at it from more of a product design/engineering approach (something I've always admired about Feinwerkbau)

Can anyone tell me what kind of mechanical advantage led to this developement in Target air rifle triggers?

I don't know much about triggers and would be grateful for any insight anyone has into this side of airgun developement.

Cheers,
Matt

I would think that the transition from 10m springers to PCP (or SSP), would imply different designs due to the different loads imposed on the trigger components.

The forces in a cocked springer and PCP are considerably different. With a springer the trigger components would be designed to be strong enough to hold back considerable spring pressure yet retain enough feel for good shot release. In a PCP, holding back the striker's spring is relatively stress free and much lighter parts are needed to make it work well. The ultimate aim is to reduce the time from when the trigger is slipped to the shot being released.

If one looks at the Anschutz 220 of the early 1960's, they adopted an innovative trigger design similar to that of a modern PCP, where a small wedge like part held back the piston against the spring's force, while it was totally independent from the trigger mechanism. This allowed for a very light and unstressed trigger because the mainspring force was held by another component which was not in contact with the trigger till it was slipped. Pretty much like the triggers of modern PCP's if you like where a striker is released and knocks against another part to open a valve.

If anything, designing a springer's trigger that has Olympic level refinement is no mean feat and I marvel at these erstwhile triggers designed by FWB, Anschutz etc and especially Walther in the LGV series with simpler but nonetheless very predictable triggers.

Good luck in your quest to discover more about the evolution of 10m guns' triggers and get ready to be spoiled when you sample a few

[deejayuu]

Always impressed watching old film of huge ship launches. Same basic principle of enormous force of the ship held on a slope by simple latch.
Released by a hammer wielding puny person.

[Geezer]

Never really thought about this, but I’ll have a go.

There was definitely a mostly German thing in the 1930s about trying to put better triggers on expensive air rifles. The Diana 58’s variants are maybe the best illustration.

After WW2, the Germans invented 10M match, and the guns to go with it.

Their initial focus was, as in the 1930s, on making better, lighter, genuine 2-stage triggers. The standard trigger on the Walther LG51-55 series is a good example. It is a fairly simple design, but well designed and made and works well.

For a brief period, they adapted double set trigger (DST) technology that was still quite popular in high-end sporting rifles for match air rifles. The Walther DSTs come to mind.

(I say sporting rifles because such triggers were not allowed in formal U.K. and US RF/CF match shooting because those disciplines were based on using a lightly modified service rifle, and service rifles didn’t have set triggers.)

I’m pretty sure that the body governing 10M at some point in the (?) late 50s or early 60s decided that DSTs were an unfair advantage. Much as they did a bit later with Tyrolean stocks.

Slight digression. The HW Rekord trigger was originally meant as a match trigger for the HW55. Others will know better, but I’m not sure whether it was intended as just another better two-stage, or a replacement for a DST when they fell from favour. I am sure that HW offered a double set trigger a couple of years before the Rekord. They are exceptionally rare. Just not clear if the Rekord was a replacement for the DST when rules changed, or originally meant as a better economy option than the pre-Perfekt.

By the way, ISSF rules set no minimum weight for the trigger pull on a 10M match rifle (unlike pistols, which is 500 grams). So shooters out a premium on lightness.

Once DSTs were out of the picture, all serious manufacturers invested in making a safe, robust, reliable, consistent trigger that would both hold back the substantial force of a cocked piston and release with minimal pressure and travel and no backlash. And be widely adjustable to shoot shooter preference in every respect. That’s a tough brief, even before you add in the challenges of the Giss contra-pistons or the FWB sledge or the Anschutz oil-damped recoil thing.

And so you get those carefully-designed, very complicated, superbly-engineered, finely-made multiple-lever trigger groups on things from the Diana 60 through the FWB300S. They are works of art that will probably never be seen again on air guns (PCP triggers are much less challenging to design and make).

It would not surprise me to learn that the trigger assembly alone represented 20-25% of the production cost of the old match springers.

In terms of precision, and design and production quality, it is not hyperbole to compare them to the better mechanical Swiss watch movements.

They are also a bit of a sod to take apart and put back together again! The Diana 75 one fills me with dread.

Final thought. Being a match air gun designer from about 1958 to 1970 must have been both exciting and terrifying. Everything (actions, triggers, pellets, sights, stocks) was evolving rapidly and you must have been in continual fear that by the time you got your new idea in production one of your rivals would either have equalled or bettered it.

Sorry that’s a bit long! Hopefully it’s sort of accurate.

[ptdunk]

Thank you very much guy’s, that’s just what I was after.

All the 10m match rifles I have have sublime triggers, and as David said the 220 and 250 are particularly interesting systems.
For some reason I didn’t twig that the 600 trigger is obviously a totally different beast, being a SSP

I suppose then that part of the ‘arms race’ to refine match triggers was to incorporate high levels of user adjustability into them?

My early mod 60 and LG55 have sublime triggers, but maybe are not as adjustable as the later models?

The Anschutz 380 trigger/anti bear trap unit is a scary feat of over engineering in its own right!

I like the ship being held on a ramp by a single peg image too l


Ok, so I have a better understanding for when I start comparing them in detail.
Great stuff,

Many thanks,

Matt