Ten Year Old Cylinder Rule

[Richard H]

It can be argued that the rule means that it releases the ISSF from responsibility. Now if they choose to check then they resume responsibility again should they misread a date or such.

The shooter is responsible for ensuring the validity date of the cylinder, not the ISSF so if one blows up sue the shooter not the ISSF.

[jimsoars]

So Richard brings up an interesting point. Searching the rules, I cannot find any other instance of anything that is referred to as the shooter's responsibility. So since it is only the shooter's responsibility, does that mean there is no requirement for the organizer to check and verify?

Are there any match organizers here that can answer the question as to whether an official will verify the cylinders?

Who might one contact to get an official position on the interpretation of this rule?

Jim

[Ken O]

I bought a used 8002 from a fellow that got tranfered in his job right after he bought it. It might have only been filled a couple times before, and it sat in his safe for years. When I got it I noticed that it wasnt holding air, I put the cylinder under water and saw bubbles. I contacted Champions Choice about a replacement, he told me to check the Annie website because there were defective cylinders out there. I had a defective one, and got the replacement.

So, I'm thnking there are a lot of guns out there that someone bought, but for some reason didn't have time to shoot. The cylinder gets filled a couple times and when 10 years are up, its somehow unsafe.

The rule makes it look like no matter if the rifle is filled and shot every day, or never shot, the cylinder is automatically no good after 10 years. I still don't buy it!

And, as I mentioned before, the coaches and volunteer helpers will be liable if a defective cylinder lets go past the 10 year time, even if it was the first time the rifle was ever shot.

Just my opinion, but this really stinks!

[Spencer]

So Richard brings up an interesting point. Searching the rules, I cannot find any other instance of anything that is referred to as the shooter's responsibility.

5.6.4.1.1
6.2.2.8
6.4.2.1
6.10.2.1
6.11.1.2
6.11.6.5
7.1.2
8.1.2
9.1.2
10.1.2
10.6.3.15.3

[jimsoars]

Thanks Spencer - I guess I should not have used "shooter's responsibility" as my search... :)
Jim

[jipe]

The problem is that spares will be built and stocked. Every day that they sit on a shelf or in transit is another day off the life of the cylinder, regardless of usage.

I'm sure there are not new runs of cylinders for my P34 so functionally it's obsolete..

Seem like quite the screwed up process.
Jim

Or they just engrave the date on them when they distribute them.

No, the date is stamped on the cylinder when the cylinder is manufactured, not when it is sold or distributed that's why I got a new cylinder (directly from Anschutz, not from a gunshop) with a warranty certficate in 2007 that were stamped 2003 !

For new cylinders, its even more ridiculous: the end of life date is also stamped on the cylinder !

This is a shame, the bare minimum is to have the start date set at the date of purchase just like for the start of the warranty.

But anyway, as clearly explained in several posts, the wear of the cylinder has nothing to do with time but well with amount of pressure cycles and the end of life of a cylinder cannot be defined as a date.

Now let see what will happen, if the manufacturing date will be checked at competitions. This is in fact the only remaining problem. The safety issue can be managed by each shooters, he knows how often his cylinders filled (at least if he bought his pistol/rifle new).

Another consequence of this new rules is for second hand market: we should only consider to buy guns for which compatible cylinders are still in production.

Great for companies like Steyr and Morini who didn't change their cylinders characteristics since many years.

For FWB pistols, I do not know if the cylinders of the last P44 can be put on the previous PCP models. But I am afraid that it means the end for the very good old FWB CO2 models (again, Steyr is in a very good position: any LP1 can be converted to air for an affordable price).

[David Levene]

So yes they have and the only quantitative measure is "validity date". ISSF does not state a 10 year rule, but validity date will be established by the mfr.

It would be unreasonable to expect the ISSF to set validity dates. They are not responsible for the design, materials or manufacturing process of the cylinders.

It will be quite a pain for the organizers to know all of the "validity dates" for every model of every type of gun. I'm sure the blanket statements by the manufacturers will be quoted and applied.

I'm afraid that those blanket statements are the validity dates. It doesn't matter what they originally said, the manufacturers have now said, rightly or wrongly, that their cylinders should not be used after a certain age. If checking cylinder dates the match organiser should look no further than the latest manufacturers' statements.

I say "If checking" rather than "When checking". The strict wording of the rule says it is the shooter's responsibility, whether the intent of the rule is that it should be checked at EC is another matter.

The organisers of the recent airgun match in Munich decided that they should check. I suspect that other match organisers will now do the same on the "CYA" principle.

[RobinC]

There is some much deeper implications in this situation.
As a previous poster stated after being informed by a FWB engineer, these cylinders are masively over engineered, to blow one, ie to have a dangerous situation not just merely an iritating leak you would have to dramatically over pressure it or physically severly damage it.
Being a wicked old retired H&S manager I'll ask some deeper questions.

1.What caused the known blow ups? Such as the one pictured ealier, I suspect it had been heavily over pressured or severely damaged such as being gripped in a vice whilst under pressure by an idiot with a death wish.

2.As the most likely cause of a failure, how do we or the organisers know that the shooter next to us has not over pressured his cylinder, or crushed and weakened it in a vice or whatever. We have all heard of abuse of cylinders. (this is relevent to point 8)

3.I have never bought a new pistole or cylinder, has anyone ever done so and recieved certification that a cylinder had been tested and was in conformity to any known European or otherwise pressure vessal regulations? I doubt it.

4. If not, how do we know that even the manufacturer has tested it to a satisfactory or officialy aproved standard? I mean the new production ones, not his design prototypes.

5.A date stamp means nothing, is it alongside the stamp of an approved testing house or refered on an independant certificate? I have a set of stamps, it could have been me! and I could have crossed the originals and restamped for another ten years, ( as many probably will if this "rule" is enforced).

6. Point 4 is very relevent, I suspect that the cylinders are so over engineered, and small and low pressured (by industrial standards) that the manufacturers may have tested a few to destruction probably at over double pressure and done visual or perhaps X- ray or scans, BUT, I'll be very surprised if the general production cylinders get any more than a visit with the number stamps, a quick visual and pumped to working pressure.

7. So what if an organiser looks at the date stamp? what does it prove? It proves that some one stamped what ever date on it. Now if the manufacturer produced a certificate statiing that cylinder no xxxx was tested to a recognised standard on xxxx date that would mean that it was ok on that date (no more) but the don't, why not? Could it be because they consider it so over engineed they don't test it?

8. Now, H&S law was another part of my work responsibility, if an organiser checks dates and passes the cylinder, he has just taken some legal liability for his action, (run to the lawyers boys!) so if it then blows he bears a percentage of liability, particularly as the rule states it is the shooters responsibility.

9.I have just retured to shooting having taken part in motorsport for 20 years and have seen vehicle and safety checks go from intensive to cursory acompanied by a declaration from the competitor that it is their responsibility due to liability actions against organisers in the very circumstances as point 8. I believe the ISSF lawyers will have drafted this rule specifically stating it is the shooters responsibility to meet this point and will soon be cursing the Jobsworth who took it upon themselves to check dates, they will not be concerned at the ones failed, it's the passed ones that could come back to haunt them.

My conclusion, this could be a can of worms that some one has opened that the ISSF lawyers and the manufacturers wished they had'nt, this is why the manufacturers have produced their blanket age rule, if one was mischievious I would ask them for proof or certification that the new clylinders are safe.
How will it progress? common sense says it should fade into the background and be forgotton, knowledge of the European burocrat suggests it could become messy.
Best regards
Robin

[CraigE]

While this thread spins on, the thought comes to my mind that in addition to air/CO2 cylinders, we shooters all better fret about the reloads and/or factory ammo, the "tinkered-with" pistols and rifles, the QA of lenses in safety glasses and just about everything else we could encounter at a club or match. In fact, we will need release from liability for traveling to and from....etc etc etc.

Shooting (or woodworking, metalworking, golf, motocross, skydiving ....) has inherent potential for bodily harm. We collectively bear responsibility for our collective safety. That includes manufacturers who will be able to certify the integrity of the products they sell.

Many of the comments here are rhetorical and some are scientific. Almost all are very thoughtful. I simply writhe when some regulatory body issues an edict without the justifying data or one iota of thought to the implications for participants beyond some knee-jerk reaction to isolated circumstance.

Probably $.04....but it's mine. Sigh.
CraigE

[jipe]

The new rule we are talking about in this thread raise not not only safety issues.

It has also severe consequences for all people shooting PCP and even more for people shooting CO2. If the validity check is done at competitions and may be by clubs:
- Almost all CO2 guns will be banned since the bulk was manufactured/bought more than 10 years ago and no newly manufactured cylinders are available. I know a lot of guys shooting with the excellent FWB C20 and C25.
- Many PCP early adopters guns will also be banned (I think to guns like the Hammerli 480, FWB P70, Steyr LP1...) unless new cylinders are bought, for the models for which newly manufactured cylinders can be bought.

How many shooters owner of a banned gun will decide to stop shooting AP or AR instead of buying a new one ?

In Europe at least, a lot of old good CO2 guns became "club guns" used by beginners, many clubs do not have the budget to replace them. Nor do they have budget to buy replacement cylinders unless they increase the membership price.

Of course the second hand value of all those guns, especially the CO2 ones, has from one day to the other dropped to almost zero ! The value of any PCP gun will also drop since the cost of replacement cylinder(s) is between 10% and 20% of the price of a new PCP gun.

So, what is the real motivation behind this new rule:
- safety ? The explanation is not convincing. Did manufacturers found new technical issues with cylinders ?
- increase their revenue ? This seems to me quite stupid, it is definitely not the best time to increase the costs of AP/AR shooting !

[David Levene]

So, what is the real motivation behind this new rule:
- safety ? The explanation is not convincing. Did manufacturers found new technical issues with cylinders ?
- increase their revenue ? This seems to me quite stupid, it is definitely not the best time to increase the costs of AP/AR shooting !

I honestly believe that it's more likely to be the fear of litigation.

In these days of the "compensation culture" every company needs to mitigate their exposure to possible claims.

[RobStubbs]

So, what is the real motivation behind this new rule:
- safety ? The explanation is not convincing. Did manufacturers found new technical issues with cylinders ?
- increase their revenue ? This seems to me quite stupid, it is definitely not the best time to increase the costs of AP/AR shooting !

I honestly believe that it's more likely to be the fear of litigation.

In these days of the "compensation culture" every company needs to mitigate their exposure to possible claims.

I tend to agree with David.

As a note to a previous poster, Steyr cylinders I think state they have been pressure tested to 300 Bar, hence indicating safety at 200. I don't see any reason why the same can't be done by the manufactures / authorised agents and they then become recertificated for another 10 (or 5) years.

Rob.

[GOVTMODEL]

This has been mentioned a few times now as one of the new for 2009 ISSF rules. I don't yet have a copy of the new rules, so have not read it, but does it allow for for cylinders that have been hydrostaticaly tested and passed. like SCBA tanks? If not, it is another great example of ISSF not caring about the great mass of club shooters that support the sport.

Every country has a national agency that controls the use, transportation and maintenance of pressure vessels. Though the laws differ somewhat, they are all pretty similar because the concerns are always the same. In the United States, the Department of Transportation controls pressure vessels. Sounds like ISSF is incorporating checking cylinders for hydro date into equipment control.

When you take your SCUBA tank to be refilled the operator always checks to make sure it's within periodicity. If it's not, he won't refill it. If you asked him to refill the cylinder off your pistol you'd likely go through the same drill.

[Richard H]

Actually most countries, mine and your's in particular exempt cylinders that small.

[jimsoars]

This is a crappy way of dealing with litigation issues for the ISSF. The ISSF should not be protecting the manufacturers. Other sports simply require a liability waiver for participation in their sport. Skiiing is an example. All of the tickets for skiing in Colorado contain a liability waiver where the participant acknowleges that the there is inherent danger in the sport and the by purchasing a ticket you agree not to hold the ski area liable for injury.

I also participate in R/C Glider competitions. These 12 foot wingspan carbon-fiber and glass planes can inflict plenty of damage if they hit someone or something. While rare - it can happen. To participate in a sanctioned event you must be a member of the national organization and sign a liability waiver. In addition there is insurance provided by the national organization to the event organizer and the venue owner for claims for damages by non-participants.

If the ISSF wants to limit liability for accidents, this is a less onerous mechanism.
Jim

[David Levene]

This is a crappy way of dealing with litigation issues for the ISSF. The ISSF should not be protecting the manufacturers.

They aren't, they are protecting themselves.

It isn't the ISSF who are putting a 10 year limit on cylinders. They are simply putting the responsibility on shooters, which is where it always reasonably has been.

If match organisers feel that getting a liability waiver from shooters would adequately protect them, then there is nothing in the ISSF rules to stop them from doing so. The effectiveness of such a waiver could obviously be different from one legal system to another.

[Richard H]

Well if it about protection why not just get rid of shooting in general then everyone is protected? After all it is such a dangerous sport with so many accidents and injuries.

[Fred Mannis]

Here in the U.S. we keep worrying about whether/when the anti-gunners will do away with the shooting sports. To quote Pogo - We have met the enemy and he is us!

[tenex]

Talk about killing the golden goose. How about my Hill pump? It has more cycles than any of my cylinders, shall I toss that too?

The bottom line is that if My son can't shoot his air pistol that gets one cycle every month or two, we will just stop shooting air.

Guess I can donate my air pistol to the extinct gun museum, it can sit next to a Damascus barreled shotgun and a Walther OSP...

Steve.

[GOVTMODEL]

Actually most countries, mine and your's in particular exempt cylinders that small.

I did not know that.

Many thanks,

Richard