The weight above the switch blades just looks weird. Normally the target pulls up on the blades.

Seems that either version works, but the 'below' version is still weird. The long backing blade is there but it doesn't appear to be used at all. So maybe they used that version to get a longer spin, without the extra tension added each rotation by the backing blade. (?)

So wait a sec.... in the 'below' version the switch is being closed by the rod and weight, but in the 'above' version the weight is only allowing the switch to close from it's own tension? Is that correct? If it is, the first version seems like a more reliable switch closure especially for one opening and closing so fast. (?)

Am I seeing things or does that first pic show the switch point(s) is missing?

I'm a little confused by which version is the 'above' or 'below' since it's under the pf and the pics are sideways, so... the version that lifts off of the switch allowing it to close by itself looks like you need to dial in both the actuated switch blade and the backing blade, so neither one pushes up on the rod and leaning the target to one side. And adjusting the switch for good closure and enough gap. The other version seems more foolproof as far as adjusting it.

d5db23ac52b719cf8727be832f684e09d47ff757 (1) (resized).jpg

Here's how Gottlieb showed one in their '78 catalog. Doesn't really help much. That one uses two switches that close alternately, similar to a Gottlieb rollunder.

spinnerrrr (resized).jpg