ISSF rule change from 1st January 2013

justadude · Post by **justadude** » Wed Oct 03, 2012 4:37 pm

To some degree the 10 year number is arbitrary but safe. While it does not present the danger of a large industrial cylinder even an airgun cylinder pressurized to 200 bar can be dangerous if it were to fracture.

For larger tanks, so long as they can be visually inspected from the inside and hydrostatically tested every so often (5 years for most tanks in the US) they can stay in service just about indefinitely.

The problem with airgun cylinders is that they cannot very easily be taken apart for the visual inspection and I don't really see a way they could be reliably hydrostatically tested. Unfortunately, the solution becomes take them out of service at some point.

Having worked with compressed gasses much of my professional life I am feeling kind of fortunate they did not pick 5 years because of no hydrostatic check.

'Dude

robf · Post by **robf** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:40 pm

taz wrote:Actually in Europe it is not allowed to make your own cylinders without having the conformity assessed by a Notified Body.
The initial certification of the pressure cylinders (considering most if not all are made in and sold in Europe) falls under directive 1999/36/EC (Transportable Pressure Equipment Directive) and must be marked with the π symbol and the notified body number.

Periodic inspection (which includes but is not limited to pressure testing) for pressure vessels is mandated by each country's legislation.

The periodic inspection is mandated by the above directive as well as ADR and RID (Directives 94/55/EC and 96/49/EC) respectively.
All of the above directives have been incorporated in the legislation of the EU countries.
Contrary to what is a common belief there is no lower limit concerning the volume under which certification is not required.

They don't I believe cover vessels under 50 Bar-L, is that correct?

http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file11297.pdf

This is one of the exemptions refered to in Section 1 of the directive you quote. Simple Pressure Vessels Directive 87/404/EC

taz · Post by **taz** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 1:49 pm

I never quoted SPV or PED

defblade · Post by **defblade** » Tue Oct 09, 2012 6:34 pm

I can't see that target shooting is ever going to make good TV. As someone said, targets that fall over or shatter is good (so watching clays is fun) but for target? The shooter barely moves, then they move one finger about 2mm in shorter stages, without moving anything else and then, when the shot breaks, they don't move for a while. Gripping stuff.

As for flexing rules, see Formula 1 (especially front wings in this case) for just how specificly a part can pass a test while performing completely differently and outside the intent of the test in actual use.

robf · Post by **robf** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 4:37 am

taz wrote:I never quoted SPV or PED

Did you not mention Directives 94/55/EC ?

Is not Schedule 1 of that Directive talking about SPV?

Does SPV only cover 50 Bar-L and up?

Are 50 Bar-L and below not covered by anything?

taz · Post by **taz** » Wed Oct 10, 2012 5:10 am

First of all PCP cylinders are outside the scope of SPV (87/404/ec) directive since they operate above 30bar (Article 1, para 2)
Second, as I said they are covered by TPED (1999/36/ec) as far as their manufacturing is concerned and which refers us to ADR for the periodic inspection.
Of course all this is European legislation and does not concern nations outside the EU.
Taking though into consideration the fact that most competition pistols and rifles are made in the EU, it is not a surprise that they are made to comply with these.

Here is a pic of one of my pistol cylinders, you will notice that it is π marked which means it complies with TPED.

robf · Post by **robf** » Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:52 am

Right, so even though you may have got a rifle from Steyr, you might have fitted a bottle from anywhere in the world and it might not have a stamp. So do you scratch one in yourself?

As i've said before, the ISSF assume everything is off the shelf.

Sparks · Post by **Sparks** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:36 am

By email just now:

Here is the final version of the 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.

This new rule will not prohibit any feature on current rifles and pistols as they are now designed and produced because this new rule is concerned with systems that might be used to control pistol movements BEFORE the shot.
With best regards,
Gary Anderson

jhmartin · Post by **jhmartin** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:42 am

Sparks wrote:Here is the final version of the 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.

This new rule will not prohibit any feature on current rifles and pistols as they are now designed and produced because this new rule is concerned with systems that might be used to control pistol movements BEFORE the shot.
With best regards,
Gary Anderson

Of course it does not include rifle because it only says pistol.

(rant amended as it was pointed out that this is section 8 - Pistol)

John Marchant · Post by **John Marchant** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 5:42 am

Sparks wrote:By email just now:
Here is the final version of the 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.

This new rule will not prohibit any feature on current rifles and pistols as they are now designed and produced because this new rule is concerned with systems that might be used to control pistol movements BEFORE the shot.
With best regards,
Gary Anderson

One interesting part of this rule is where they state "actively reduces etc" this surely means that anything that only passively tunes the barrel or improves the balance etc is perfectly acceptable along with anything that "dampens" the effect of recoil once the shot is released.
And as has been previously mentioned, this section only applies to pistols and not rifles.
I think that the implication is with regards the potential gyroscopic or electronic stabilisation devices that might be created at some point in the future. Which probably means that there is some concern that these devices might already be in existance.
We will have to wait and see how EQ interpret this rule.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Sat Oct 20, 2012 6:33 am

John Marchant wrote:[And as has been previously mentioned, this section only applies to pistols and not rifles.

As was pointed out in a similar thread on the pistol section, there is bound to be a similar rule in section 7 for rifle.

robf · Post by **robf** » Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:16 am

John Marchant wrote: I think that the implication is with regards the potential gyroscopic or electronic stabilisation devices that might be created at some point in the future. Which probably means that there is some concern that these devices might already be in existance.

They are. I've seen one in use in FT.

http://www.betz-tools.com/ken-lab_gyro.php

joerjoe · Post by **joerjoe** » Sun Mar 24, 2013 3:39 am

I would agree to David Levene.

_________________________

Military knife that is intended primarily for use in a role other than combat is typically referred to by their primary role.

joeyPop · Post by **joeyPop** » Sun Mar 31, 2013 2:03 pm

Gerard wrote:yeah, might be a good thing to merge these two threads...

Yeah you're right. Why posting another thread with the same topic...

-----------------
A blowgun is a simple weapon consisting of a small tube for firing light projectiles or darts.