TargetTalk

Good point. This would go over a lot better if we could trade in an old tank for a freshly refurbished and tested "new" one.

Plus these are the great European companies that have embraced the "Green" culture, it seems very funny that they just suggest throwing them in the garbage. If anything they should be destroyed.

What would be useful here is a risk/benefit/cost analysis. Here are the questions as I see them.
(1) how many cylinders are in use
(2) what are the ages of these cylinders
(3) how many (and what percentage) of those less than 10 y/o failed
(4) how many (and the %) of those more than 10 y/o failed
(5) of those that failed what is the history of those cylinders (number of refill cycles, max pressure typically used, refilled from pump or tank, ever been dropped or overheated, other events that might effect cylinder life, etc). Certainly failure rate has to have something to do with level of use, not just age. A gun that has just been sitting in the safe for most of its life is not going to have the same failure possibility as one that has seen heavy use.
(6) was anyone injured by the failures

Without this information all we are doing by retiring cyclinders more than 10 years old is just "playing it safe" without any real data to go by. I would much rather have some data presented to me and be able to make my own decision about whether something is safe or not, particularly if it is my personal safety we are talking about. I have an idea that these company decisions are made more by the lawyers rather than the engineers.

Just a reminder, AFAIK the ISSF have not said 10 years. All they have said is "has been certified as safe and is still within the validity date." If the manufacturer says that their cylinder is safe for 10 years then that's not the ISSF's fault.

It seems that the Jury at the recent Munich Airgun match took the decision to apply a blanket 10 year limit.

Just as an aside, if the rule says "It is the shooter’s responsibility .....", should the jury be checking it. If the intention was that they should check then shouldn't the rule say "Any air or Co2 cylinder must have been certified as safe and is still within the validity date."

My personal view is that the ISSF have (quite reasonably) taken steps to remind shooters that cylinders can be dangerous. Match organisers may take the view that, as the possibility of problems has been raised, they have a duty of care to everyone in the vicinity and should therefore carry out the check. Whether that was the intention of the rule or not, I can fully understand why they would want to do this.

(BTW, does anyone in the UK want to buy a couple of Steyr cylinders stamped "9/97")

David Levene wrote:Just a reminder, AFAIK the ISSF have not said 10 years. All they have said is "has been certified as safe and is still within the validity date." If the manufacturer says that their cylinder is safe for 10 years then that's not the ISSF's fault.

It seems that the Jury at the recent Munich Airgun match took the decision to apply a blanket 10 year limit.

Just as an aside, if the rule says "It is the shooter’s responsibility .....", should the jury be checking it. If the intention was that they should check then shouldn't the rule say "Any air or Co2 cylinder must have been certified as safe and is still within the validity date."

My personal view is that the ISSF have (quite reasonably) taken steps to remind shooters that cylinders can be dangerous. Match organisers may take the view that, as the possibility of problems has been raised, they have a duty of care to everyone in the vicinity and should therefore carry out the check. Whether that was the intention of the rule or not, I can fully understand why they would want to do this.

(BTW, does anyone in the UK want to buy a couple of Steyr cylinders stamped "9/97")

I cant agree more. To My knowlege all gass cylindars have to be tested, and stamped with the date of testing. when that expires you have to re test.

No two cylindars are the same, they have diferent life experience, are exposed to diferent levels corcive element sinder pressure which cause pitting on the inside.. when we inspect diving tanks we check this.

I believe the point is new is cheeper an testing, plus the manufacturer's liability is better covered.

What we are realy talking about is the probability to failure.


Julian

David Levene wrote:My personal view is that the ISSF have (quite reasonably) taken steps to remind shooters that cylinders can be dangerous. Match organisers may take the view that, as the possibility of problems has been raised, they have a duty of care to everyone in the vicinity and should therefore carry out the check. Whether that was the intention of the rule or not, I can fully understand why they would want to do this.

So, does this imply that when I run a cartridge pistol match (and everyone knows that firearms are/can be dangerous), I need to ensure that all the shooters are qualified and have been checked out on the firearm they are using? This is reminiscent of an earlier 'duty of care' discussion on firearm storage. The situations in which you feel it necessary to apply this standard of behaviour are different than mine. You would do it if the 'possibility' has been raised; I prefer a higher bar.

Of course, the above discussion on cartridge pistols is no longer relevant in GB.

Fred Mannis wrote:So, does this imply that when I run a cartridge pistol match (and everyone knows that firearms are/can be dangerous), I need to ensure that all the shooters are qualified and have been checked out on the firearm they are using?

If the rules say that all shooters should be qualified and have been checked out then yes, you should ensure that they have been. If the rules don't say that then, IMHO, you only need to satisfy yourself that they are acting safely.

Yes we are talking about probability of failure and a reasonable safety margin. Neither of which do I believe the manufactures have any information on. Like I said in an earlier post this ten year thing is relatively new and only recently started popping up in manuals in the last few years. You may like getting fleeced but personally I prefer to question and get answers as opposed to rolling over and excepting what ever some authoritarian figures deems to be the case. Steyr to my knowledge still has not expressed any position on this, so their cylinders are good forever I guess.

Yes new scuba cylinders are tested before sale at the manufacutre's and the date is on them, I know for a fact that the Manufacture doesn't test the air cylinders before they sell them. So doesn't it stand to reason that if on part of the criteria is good for the manufacture (replacing after 10 years) so why shouldn't they have to test them prior to sale. Maybe if they did they would have a way to test cylinders at a reasonable cost after 10 years.

So now when purchasing a pistol I should now insist on newer cylinders or the price should be reduced? This is now going to be fun when trying to sell used pistol too.

Quite right, Richard. If Anschutz had had in place a program to test their cylinders before shipment, they wouldn't be faced with the present recall situation. It is a problem of their own making.

Of course, this'll get real fun when the manufacturers decide not to keep making cylinders for old guns and encourage shooters to buy new guns...that way:

1. They'll boost profits off new gun sales.
2. They'll kill resale value of older, otherwise serviceable guns forcing shooters to buy new ones.

JulianY wrote:...To My knowlege all gass cylindars have to be tested, and stamped with the date of testing. when that expires you have to re test.
Julian

not quite - most countries have a testing standards requirement that precludes the regular (re-)testing of gas cylinders IF the max pressure x volume falls under a given factor.
In Australia the minimum is 100 Mpa.L before re-testing is required.

given the comparatively small volume of CO2 and PCP for air rifles and pistols, they are usually under the factor.

Spencer

Here's my take on the whole mess: I work with propane and refrigerant gasses. We have to hydrostatically test our cylinders every 5 years for propane for 100 psi cylinders and smaller IF they are emptied..... which means if they are exposed to cyclic stress. Refrigerant cylinders are hydro'd every 5 years regardless, which I support as I can fill and empty them several times a week. I have never had a refrigerant cylinder fail a test. Propane.... they can fail on visual corrosion inspections, and have.

Corrosion happens outside and inside a metal cylinder. Nail polish, WD-40, gun powder, smog, acid rain, the variables are endless.

Hybrid cars - the batteries will not last the life of the car, but do the manufacturer's buy the spent cells back? Is the replacement cost calculated into the purchase and maintenance price when you get your honey her favorite silver Prius?

Okay, the maintenance costs are not explained by the manufacturer, but that makes them like every other manufacturer. YOU can use your gun with any cylinder you want on it - wear a tank and plumb it in for all I care. Just don't shoot next to me if your cylinder is past the manufacturer's hydro date. And be kind enough to have all those who shoot on old cylinders shoot on their own relay.

I cock my air pistol. It doesn't play all of the games, but I get my fun. this is a great discussion thread, and it all boils down to liability and responsibility. The manufacturers can not support the liability, and we have to treat our equipment responsibly.

Hey, what about if I buy a gun from one of you guys - will you give me a signed statement that assures the quality of the air cylinder and everything it has been exposed to? Do you live in LA or Denver? Or Hudson Bay? The air quality wher eyou live may well make a difference.

Happy shooting,

Tom

Sorry, I meant to say "100 pound" , not "100 psi"

Tom, you made it clear that the problem is corrosion. Could you tell us what corrosion you have found and what caused it in the aluminum cylinders we are talking about here?

I can see the problem in steel, but not aluminum and stainless. How many or what percentage of aluminum cylinders have had a bad hydro or visual? The last time I had the inspection on the Scuba tank I refilled, I asked and he said "never". Thanks, Ken

I just got back from Germany, where I was at several of the airgun factories as well as the IWK match in Munich. I for one am extremely pleased to hear of this rule. I think it is best for the good of the sport, both the safety of the users and match organizers. I have been researching this issue for at least 8 years now, after I found my first aluminum cylinder with corrosion within it. I am also familiar with cylinder incidents from all major manufacturers. I myself and several of my employees have taken the PSI, Inc SCUBA tank inspection courses to have a better understanding of the issues inherent in cylinder usage and inspection. We take apart and do a visual inspection on every used cylinder that passes through our hands. Metal fatigue is totally separate issue that could be addressed in a hydro, but cost of this versus the cost of new is best addressed by the 10 year limit.

Yes, I am sure I can be accused of having a vested in selling new cylinders, but I also have a vested interest in seeing the sport survive, and I think this is very sensible and necessary approach, and I would urge all members from different countries to ask their respective federations to follow the lead of the DSB.

My Morini cylinders say that they are good for twenty years.

Ken O wrote:Tom, you made it clear that the problem is corrosion. Could you tell us what corrosion you have found and what caused it in the aluminum cylinders we are talking about here?

I can see the problem in steel, but not aluminum and stainless. How many or what percentage of aluminum cylinders have had a bad hydro or visual? The last time I had the inspection on the Scuba tank I refilled, I asked and he said "never". Thanks, Ken

Ken,

That's a good point, and I'll add some info on steel tanks.

When I got into CA shooting, I purchased a used steel tank from a local dive shop. Several years later, I talked with them about trading it in and getting a new aluminum tank. Obviously, it's lighter (although most of us rarely move our tanks), and I thought it might be a good time to upgrade.

So, I proceeded to try to make the trade-in deal. When I explained my "reasoning" to the owner of the shop, his answer was a real surprise. He said he would be happy to sell me a new tank, but he recommended that I *not* trade in the tank. When I asked why, he explained to me that most steel tanks will last for at least 30 years before they should be ditched. Mine is only a fraction of that age and is showing no signs that it should be replaced.

It was refreshing to run into a business owner who tells you the straight scoop without regard for an immediate sale. As a result, I plan to be a customer of this shop as long as I'm in need of their services. And, I have since referred several others shooters to this shop.

Stan

Ken O wrote:Tom, you made it clear that the problem is corrosion. Could you tell us what corrosion you have found and what caused it in the aluminum cylinders we are talking about here?

I can see the problem in steel, but not aluminum and stainless. How many or what percentage of aluminum cylinders have had a bad hydro or visual? The last time I had the inspection on the Scuba tank I refilled, I asked and he said "never". Thanks, Ken

Sure, most scuba tanks have not had a bad hydro or visual. The ones that do usually do so before they ever hit the public. The problem is, the wall thickness on a scuba tank and the wall thickness of an air gun cylinder are two different situations in their own right, where all it takes is a bit of a nick, scratch, or ding to act as a stress riser in a material where fatigue is one of the most common modes of failure.

pilkguns wrote:I just got back from Germany, where I was at several of the airgun factories as well as the IWK match in Munich. I for one am extremely pleased to hear of this rule. I think it is best for the good of the sport, both the safety of the users and match organizers. I have been researching this issue for at least 8 years now, after I found my first aluminum cylinder with corrosion within it. I am also familiar with cylinder incidents from all major manufacturers. I myself and several of my employees have taken the PSI, Inc SCUBA tank inspection courses to have a better understanding of the issues inherent in cylinder usage and inspection. We take apart and do a visual inspection on every used cylinder that passes through our hands. Metal fatigue is totally separate issue that could be addressed in a hydro, but cost of this versus the cost of new is best addressed by the 10 year limit.

Yes, I am sure I can be accused of having a vested in selling new cylinders, but I also have a vested interest in seeing the sport survive, and I think this is very sensible and necessary approach, and I would urge all members from different countries to ask their respective federations to follow the lead of the DSB.

I think we all agree that safety is an issue and that injuries resulting from tank rupture could hurt our sport. So, what exactly are the airgun manufacturers doing to improve safety? Are they inspecting cylinders, individually or statistically to ensure their safe operation? Are they collecting technical data to use as a basis for setting useage limits? Are they requiring visual inspections on a periodic basis? All I have heard so far is that I cannot use an Anschutz airgun if its cylinder is more than ten years old and that it will cost me several hundred dollars to update the gun. As someone else remarked, sounds suspiciously like a marketing policy.

pilkguns wrote: I am also familiar with cylinder incidents from all major manufacturers.

OK

Let's get ALL the fact out here. Of the recorded failures, how many were due to corrosion or age?

And, how many were in relatively new cylinder (under 10 years) that were due to material/manufacturing flaws?