TargetTalk

jipe wrote:

Richard H wrote:Haven't been to Morini but I've watched the others manufacture the cylinders in house, where do you get your info from?

The cylinders are machined from aluminium billets.

When there was a problem with the Anschutz rifle cylinders, the name of the manufacturer was mentioned. Same in the FWB document explaining the 10 year limit and the process to re-check the steel cylinders.

The use of other suppliers for parts is not limited to the cylinders, many parts are manufactured and sometimes designed by sub-contractors. The most known one is the barrel with Lothar Walther.

This 10 years limit is just a matter of legal protection, the risk of people injuries in case of explosion is high. The risk that some cylinder explode is probably very low but the manufacturers cover themselves by setting a limit. ISSF does the same referring to the manufacturers rules.

About making money with cylinder replacement, if I remember well, I read that Walther offer a free cylinder replacement after 10 years for the new LP400 ?

Walther basically is making money you pay for both cylinders and the give you a second cylinder after you return your first one to them 10 years from now. If you think it's a good idea, send me $300 and I'll hold it for you for 10 years, while you're at it find thousands of others to do it too.

Jipe it about manufactures that didn't do what they were suppose to do, read the history of this thing. There were manufacturing defects that they SHOULD have caught if they were doing what they were SUPPOSE to be doing. Find me the data where they have failed from fatigue. The only other failure I heard of was a gauge blowing off a Morini cylinder ( it was relatively new top).

Jipe I won't believe my own lying eyes, I guess I didn't wath them make them in the plant and actually pick up the cylinders that were in various stages of completion..

Richard H wrote:Which ones David, even which country?

OK I was slightly wrong, it didn't actually get as far as someone being rejected.

I have just checked back through the email correspondence I had at the time with the GBR Pistol Coach at the Munich Airgun Meeting in January 2009.

It was announced at the technical meeting that out of date cylinders would not be allowed. As a result, cylinders were being swapped before equipment control.

I'm not sure whether, having started the panics at that meeting, they have actually checked cylinder dates at Munich at subsequent events. I suspect not but stand to be corrected.

edit note: changed from "...cylinders over 10 years old..." to "...out of date cylinders".

Tycho wrote: It's a revenue generator, nothing else. And there was no problem in Germany with the 20 years of the Morini tubes, so why change? To sell more stuff.

No, this statement I cannot agree with.


It is a saftey issue pure and simple. As a certifed pressure vessel inspector, this is something that I have been advocating since the late 1990s.

I don't know about specific European or Australian costs for cylinder inspection, but for the USA, if you add up the costs of the mandated 9 years worth of visiual inspections and 2 hydro tests, you will have spent more than the costs of the new cylinders. So it is definately not a money thing for the factories. If that was the case, they would be advocating an inspection system that only they could do.

I agree it is a safety issue. A cylinder compressed to 3000 psi can be deadly. The SCUBA tank scene in the movie, JAWS, reflects reality. We cannot afford to be complacent when dealing with high pressure vessels.

Our gun tanks are not standard industrial items so they are few in number. Their small size also requires very specialized pressure testing equipment. This means re-certification may not be practical.

All metal cylinders will eventually fail due to developing metal fatigue. But the design standards are so conservative failure may not occur unless tens of thousands of fill-discharge cycles have occurred.

Cylinders filled with hand pumps require more care. Unless the pump has a drier, each filling introduces moisture into the cylinder. Firing removes the air slowly, potentially leaving moisture behind. This can lead to moisture-based corrosion in the cylinders reducing strength.

The limited life policy is also based on a "population at risk." As an individual, my risk from using an expired tank may be extremely small. But a Morini, or Steyr, or Pilkguns, only needs one failure to put the business at risk. They also don't know the abuse an individual might give a gun. How about the owner that tries to fill a 200 bar tank to 250 bar?

Morini originally gave their cylinders a 20 year life. I think the life of a well cared for cylinder is not measured in years, but in fills. For the occasional shooter who never over fills and who uses dry air, I think this life is reasonable. In a heavy use club environment I think its too long. I don't think the cylinder gauge and valve seal will last that long.

PCP guns should be considered as “tools,” not investments. Unlike firearms, the cylinders, seals, and electronics all will have a limited life span. The cylinders and seals deteriorate, and the electronics become outdated so repairs are unavailable.

Another good reason to buy a SSP perhaps lol

Bob LeDoux wrote:The SCUBA tank scene in the movie, JAWS, reflects reality.

What?

A cylinder of compressed air expolding a big rubber shark reflects reality does it?

j-team wrote:

Bob LeDoux wrote: The SCUBA tank scene in the movie, JAWS, reflects reality.

What?

A cylinder of compressed air expolding a big rubber shark reflects reality does it?

It was a real rubber shark, wasn't it?

The point is that PCP cylinders are under enough pressure that if they fail while the gun is in your hand, shrapnel will be moving very quickly in many directions from a starting point near your face.

This may be another point in favor of the SSP's, but I'm not giving up my Morini just yet. If I have to buy another cylinder ten years down the road, I will probably be so grateful to still be shooting that I won't give a d*mn.

Roger

My only gripe with this is, are the new "10 Years Max" cylinders made under lower tolerances so the life expectancy has been cut in half (used to be "20 Years Max".)

If not, then, what gives? Should I view my "20 Years Max" cylinders as only good for 10 now? Will Morini give me a 50% off deal when I return my older "dangerous" cylinders? Please, a little transparency Morini...

Where does the US "two inches by two feet" rule come in? Under that rule in the US a cylinder holding high pressure air or carbon dioxide and which is both strictly less than two inches in diameter and strictly less than two feet long is exempt from hydrotesting and inspection unless it shows visible defects or damage. All air gun cylinders I know of are small enough to fit (however, a lot of paintball cylinders are not), so that must mean that DOT regards any hazard from them is minimal. At least the risk is small enough to tolerate in normal use, but not transportation through tunnels or on aircraft unless fully discharged.

So why shouldn't we be allowed to use cylinders for a very long time?

Scott, you're the certified inspector. Where am I going wrong? It would sure seem that this is a liability problem rather than a real safety issue.

In the end it's the manufacture's suggested instructions so to do anything other than that is at your own risk. I don't like it but it is what it is and I don't see them changing their minds.

Peter,
from what I have been led to understand about the DOT regulations and exemptions thereof, these were mostly written 60 years ago, when small cylinders were a rarity with only occasional use in the medical industry, which had its own set of regs/guidelines, so they were put in the exemption category. They have remained in that category ever since, while their usage in a number of different categories has grown exponetionally, with competitive shooting being by far the smallest. It was not because of some dimensional safety factor, or less usage. So to use the argument that there is no regulations, therefore it must be safe, is fallacious. It is a mechanical device, and sooner or later it will fail from fatigue. Of course how much use before that failure is the concern. Some people may use a cylinder 3 or 4 times in its 10 year life. Some may fill it 3 or 4 times or more a week. Which is going to fail first? But how do you know which is which?

Sure, there are tests like the visual inspection and the hydro that can continue a cylinders life ad infinitum. But as I already mentioned in a previous post, the cost for doing that, on something as simple as SCUBA tank, are more expensive than the cost of the replacement cylinder. Our airgun cylinders are much more complicated and made in much smalller numbers, and many different variations, therefore the cost of doing something similar in terms of inspections would probably be 3 times as much in cost. So the purchase of a new cylinder every 10 years is a safe and CHEAP solution to the safety concerns, which are very real.

My only complaint about the 10 year rule is when the clock starts ticking. It starts when the manufacture stamps a date on it. Wheras, by the time it gets to the gun manufacturer, (in the case of those gunmakers who do not make their own) and then out to a dealer like me, and then off my shelf to a customer, its not impossible for 2 years to go by. I wish that I could stamp the cylinder as the dealer when the cylinder is first sold and first enters into service, so that the end user could get the full 10 year life span.

We have been talking safety here, but I have not heard of any cylinder bursts (screwups while charging are something else).

I HAVE seen the wall of a dive shop taken out when a tank they were filling burst.

What have you folks heard about defective or tired cylinders?

David Levene wrote:

Richard H wrote:Which ones David, even which country?

OK I was slightly wrong, it didn't actually get as far as someone being rejected.

I have just checked back through the email correspondence I had at the time with the GBR Pistol Coach at the Munich Airgun Meeting in January 2009.

It was announced at the technical meeting that out of date cylinders would not be allowed. As a result, cylinders were being swapped before equipment control.

I'm not sure whether, having started the panics at that meeting, they have actually checked cylinder dates at Munich at subsequent events. I suspect not but stand to be corrected.

edit note: changed from "...cylinders over 10 years old..." to "...out of date cylinders".

David I can confirm that cylinders were not checked at Munich for either last years world championships or this years world cup. Nothing was mentioned about cylinders either at the two respective technical meetings.

Rob.

Yes, the clock on the 10 year rule is the killer. I bought a "short" cylinder for my LP10 when I was in Germany last year. The clock had started 4 years before. No discount given.

I don't know why the manufacturers couldn't find a way to let you add a second stamp that says "Placed in service on ....." but that would affect their legal liability, I suppose.

pete

Morini Model 162 E PCP cylinder in gold The cylinder is in excellent condition and still has the original transfers on End cap is included.


Pneumatic cylinders

Hi

I recently bought à mint condition Morini 162Mi, serial 16xx.
The tubes are marked 20 years starting from 1998

I have not yet attended any competition, but is there a risk that this tube now will be considered unsafe and be rejected?

Does this change to 10 year rule override the date of older tubes, even though they previously was considered safe for an extended time?
Matt

At the recent Canadian Nationals, I did not examine any cylinders for manufacture dates. A majority of competitors were arriving by air with empty tanks, and we provided a manual pump to allow the shooters to get enough air to go through inspection. A compressor was at the range to provide full service.

Dr. Jim