USA Shooting Air Cylinder Policy UPDATED 03-13-13

[pilkguns]

Now I'm nervous.

I realize that CO2 cylinders only use about 1/3 the pressure of Air but I will have to have mine checked out soon.

Pete,
I am not going to say that CO2 cylinders are in the same category of concern as CA, as you say, their pressue is about 1/3 that of a SCUBA tank. Additionally most of the CO2 Cylinders were steel, as yours is. I would say that the 10 year rule that I firmly believe is need for CA cylinders has caught up CO2 cylinders in the same net. But even commerical CO2 cylinders require a hydro every 5 years, so lets err on the side of caution with them too.

[jackh]

Lucky me. I guess I have to start over. My 480k I got from Doc Young has mid-late 90s tanks. And even my steel scuba tank is beyond old. Maybe I should get a hand pumper gun. No way do I really want to pump it.

Scott, what ya got that might have tanks available 10 years from now?

[mru]

ok, with all this said, no one has mentioned the term NOS (new old stock). I guess that no manufacturer will stock cylinders for very long as the date will catch up to them and they will be worthless. To that end, will the manufacturers give new buyers any commitment to continued new supply, and for how long? I have a 23 year old FWB that shoots great. I'll bet I can't get a newly manufactured cylinder with a current date, nor could I find NOS at this point. You will say "gee whiz, you have got your moneys worth", and I have. But tossing a beautiful pistol that looks like new onto the trash pile hurts. I read that walther will trade-out cylinders after 10 years. At what cost is not divulged, but at least this seems to indicate that the supply of cylinders for current production will allow the guns to be viable for at least 20 years. Or will walther send us NOS with 10 year old dates, because they don't support the old model.

[jackh]

Unless there is a resolution to this, I bet a lot of US AP shooters will toss it in. There are some in the US that shoot frequently. Enough to justify cyclyng the tanks and maybe the whole gun. In otherwords, people with high AP usage. In Europe I am sure the high usage is much more the norm. I am mostly anNRA Conventional shooter. AP is an aside practice. I would hate to lose it.

[rmca]

There were manufacturers who gave a longer validity, the Hammerli 480 is an example, Morini also had a 20 years validity. By giving a maximum of 10 years, ISSF says that these manufacturers were wrong when they defined a 20 years validity duration.

ISSF and the European manufacturers are only complying with EU legislation, that dictates a 10 year limit to this kind of pressure vessel. There was a discussion here a couple of months ago that covered this point. Read taz's post:

viewtopic.php?t=37099&postdays=0&postor ... e&start=20

I have a 23 year old FWB that shoots great. I'll bet I can't get a newly manufactured cylinder with a current date, nor could I find NOS at this point.

I wound't be so sure... send them an email before you trow your pistol away.

http://www.feinwerkbau.de/en/Service+Do ... d-drawings

[jipe]

I have a 23 year old FWB that shoots great. I'll bet I can't get a newly manufactured cylinder with a current date, nor could I find NOS at this point.

FWB reintroduced new cylinders for most (all ??) of their CO2 and PCP products.

What model do you have ? If it is a model 2, C10, C20 or C25, there are new cylinders (I would better say bottle for the C25) available. Same for the P30, P34, P40 and current P44.

I discovered recently that Walther did the same.

For Steyr, its different, there are no replacement CO2 cylinders but there is a kit to convert the CO2 pistols to PCP. There was no solution for the CO2 rifle (LG88 I think ???) but it seems they found a solution for that too.

So, I think that for the big still existing brands replacements exists, it is "only" a problem of money.

For Hammerli, the company doesn't exist anymore as such and spare parts are a problem not only for old air arms but also for fire arms.

[sparky]

I wonder if the NRA AP will follow suit. The Portland Sectional is coming soon. Chris. do you know. Is my 480k with out of date tanks ok?

I don't think so. USA Shooting is pretty much bound by ISSF rules, being that they are the official international shooting body of the U.S. The NRA has the flexibility of being able to respond to the needs and wishes of the competitors. If there were any doubt, an NRA match director could simply put a statement in the match program, such as, "CO2 and compressed air cylinders may be used regardless of the date."

Adminstrator Scott Pilkington added comment.

I cannot imagine any Match Director sticking his neck in the liability noose by making such a statement. Nor can I imagine NRA as a whole not falling into line with the essence of safety rules that have been the norm in this country more than 50 years.

If USA Shooting's goal was to reduce their liability exposure, they've spectacularly failed. Actually, by making a rule, USA Shooting has arguably *ASSUMED LIABILITY* for injuries caused by cylinder failures that occur prior to the 10 year mark. Without such a rule in place, at a competition, the competitor and the manufacturer are the primary people liable for equipment safety...at best, a plaintiff might try to sue the governing body, but it'd be a tougher case.
By promulgating a rule regarding safety and the max life of a cylinder, a governing body is asserting that they are an expert in determining when a cylinder fails and have determined that cylinders less than 10 years old are safe, and those older than 10 years are not. I hope USA Shooting has the studies to back this up...god help them if someone is injured by a cylinder less than 10 years old failing and a decent attorney is involved.

Ideally, a governing body would say nothing more on the topic in a rule book other than, "Competitors shall be responsible for ensuring all of their equipment is in safe working order and is not a hazard to themselves or others."

As far as safety, the onus should be on each manufacturer (as they would be the main folks liable and most likely to be facing an expensive judgment) to determine a safe lifespan for their cylinders and let them pay for the testing research to make that determination...let the manufacturers retain responsibility and liability for their guidance on cylinder lifespan. USAS should not be putting themselves in harm's way by making up an arbitrary rule.

Everyone is talking about the cost to the competitor not being that great...I agree, swapping cylinders is cheap insurance. I'm more concerned that USAS is opening themselves up to liability that would be disastrous for the organization if/when they are sued when a cylinder less than 10 years old ruptures...think USAS can afford a few million dollar verdicts? USAS is not in the business of making/testing CA cylinders and thus should not make a rule that puts them in the position of being an expert on the subject. Leave safety standards to the manufacturers and the manufactures alone.

[funtoz]

Thank you for the update on cylinder replacement progress. It has always bothered me that I see some shooters taking great pleasure in competing with vintage firearms, but air pistols were throw away after their cylinders expired.

This problem has been around for some time. Scott has not returned expired cylinders when returning repaired/serviced airguns for quite some time. He (IRC) posted a picture of a sectioned cylinder with corroded interior. It probably is in the archive somewhere. Tank life in the SCUBA and industrial gas worlds is controlled by regulation, and the people that fill them are rigid in their compliance. We have gotten away with ignoring this safety issue for too long. The controlling body for our sport has finally stepped in and is now forcing all of us to address safety. It is no more arbitrary than the tank life of the propane tank on the barby... and nobody is being forced to comply, like the fillers of that propane tank. No one has to shoot sanctioned matches if following the rules is too painful.

Lets put the cost into perspective for the air only shooters. Go price a case of 22 rimfire ammunition ( 10 bricks for 5000 rounds), if you can find it. That only lasts a moderately engaged shooter for a few months. Cylinders are relatively cheap on a per shot basis.

The offering of some manufactures of replacement cylinders for obsolete models is welcomed. That does not address the problem of companies that are no longer with us, and no guarantee that the vintage cylinder supply will still be there in the future. I am wondering about an adapter. Every PCP gun is supplied with a brass fill adapter. Why not a slimmed down version that would mate the air gun to a more modern cylinder?

Larry

[jhmartin]

I'm more concerned that USAS is opening themselves up to liability that would be disastrous for the organization if/when they are sued when a cylinder less than 10 years old ruptures...think USAS can afford a few million dollar verdicts?

I think they feel pretty safe .... please name one instance of a properly maintained ... no wait, one cylinder rupturing in the last 10 years or so, not counting a recalled cylinder.

Manufacturers have a pretty good record there.

[jackh]

I don't have final word on 480k being obsolete.
Is it? Are new tanks unavailable?

If so what gun will still be supported with tanks available in 10 years?

[rmca]

I don't have final word on 480k being obsolete.
Is it? Are new tanks unavailable?

From Wikipedia:

"In 2006 Hämmerli was taken over by Carl Walther GmbH Sportwaffen and they have licensed the Hämmerli brand to Umarex USA."

Write them an email and ask.

If so what gun will still be supported with tanks available in 10 years?

No one can know for sure... It´s a leap of faith :)

[sparky]

I'm more concerned that USAS is opening themselves up to liability that would be disastrous for the organization if/when they are sued when a cylinder less than 10 years old ruptures...think USAS can afford a few million dollar verdicts?

I think they feel pretty safe .... please name one instance of a properly maintained ... no wait, one cylinder rupturing in the last 10 years or so, not counting a recalled cylinder.

Manufacturers have a pretty good record there.

Still, is it worth betting the future of the whole organization on something they don't need to be involved in? Why go out of your way to assume liability when you don't need to?

[Mike M.]

I think the big question will be the fate of the pistols like the Hammerli 480 and original Morinis with fixed tanks. The guns shoot fine.

[RobinC as guest]

I'm more concerned that USAS is opening themselves up to liability that would be disastrous for the organization if/when they are sued when a cylinder less than 10 years old ruptures...think USAS can afford a few million dollar verdicts?

I think they feel pretty safe .... please name one instance of a properly maintained ... no wait, one cylinder rupturing in the last 10 years or so, not counting a recalled cylinder.

Manufacturers have a pretty good record there.

Still, is it worth betting the future of the whole organization on something they don't need to be involved in? Why go out of your way to assume liability when you don't need to?

This has come full circle! The ISSF put it in the rules as an EC issue back in the days when it first arose, and quickly with drew it when their lawyers pointed out the issue raised above, by passing a cylinder they are accepting some degree of responsibility.

As a European I am not aware of a EU law that applies to this size of cylinder, other than a twisting of interpretation by rule pedants.

All the failures which started this fiasco were either caused by manufacturing faults or missuse.

Sadly in this day of rule makers, lawyers and jobs worths, we are stuck with it now.

[rmca]

There was a discussion here a couple of months ago that covered this point. Read taz's posts:

viewtopic.php?t=37099&postdays=0&postor ... e&start=20

[dschaller]

This decision by USA Shooting will cost those least able to afford it multiple thousands of dollars, and does nothing to guarantee safety. All for a potential issue that as far as I know (failure of a tank over ten years old without other contributing factors), has never happened. The only failures I have been able to document happened to tanks that were significantly less than 10 years old. Now we have some bureaucrats declaring that at 10 years, an air tank is no longer safe, even if it sat unused the entire time, while a tank filled multiple times a day is perfectly fine for ten years. Total nonsense!

Other posters have said " replacing a tank is cheap insurance". That may be true for a gun purchased one or two years ago (of course you don't need to replace the tank then, do you?) How many of airguns available today will have new tanks available 10 years from now? And by the way, buying a second tank with your gun is now really stupid - it will be "used up" before you even get around to using it. So now when you buy a "new" tank, I guess we should expect the dealer will give you a discount off the list price for every day your tank was used up before you get it.....

How does an individual (or even worse a school with many older guns like Hammerli pistols) get new replacement tanks today? Oh, too bad, they have to throw out perfectly serviceable guns because newly dated tanks are not available - even if they exist, New Old Stock tanks are useless! Just what this country needs - even fewer schools with precision shooting programs.

We should also stop comparing air gun tanks to scuba tanks, since the energy stored in a scuba tank is over 100 times more than an air gun tank. The danger is simply not comparable. These people apparently think air tanks explode like grenades when they fail. I challenge anyone to provide documentation that this has ever happened.

[jipe]

This decision by USA Shooting will cost those least able to afford it multiple thousands of dollars, and does nothing to guarantee safety. All for a potential issue that as far as I know (failure of a tank over ten years old without other contributing factors), has never happened. The only failures I have been able to document happened to tanks that were significantly less than 10 years old. Now we have some bureaucrats declaring that at 10 years, an air tank is no longer safe, even if it sat unused the entire time, while a tank filled multiple times a day is perfectly fine for ten years. Total nonsense!

What other method do you propose to find out if an old cylinder is safe, i.e. to find out how many times it was filled ?

Other posters have said " replacing a tank is cheap insurance". That may be true for a gun purchased one or two years ago (of course you don't need to replace the tank then, do you?) How many of airguns available today will have new tanks available 10 years from now?

Steyr, FWB, Pardini, Morini have the same cylinders (or cylinder thread) since many years, more than 10 years for Steyr, FWB and Morini. All the big existing brands, even Walther that changed many times their cylinders, are able to provide a solution for their old pistols.

The prices of new cylinders are between 100 and 150€ (not "multiple thousands of dollars") so between 10 and 15€ per year.

And by the way, buying a second tank with your gun is now really stupid - it will be "used up" before you even get around to using it. So now when you buy a "new" tank, I guess we should expect the dealer will give you a discount off the list price for every day your tank was used up before you get it.....

They do. I bought Anschutz cylinders new but with an older manufacturing date a couple of years ago at a discount price (and received with it a certificate from Anschutz that it was new, never used at the purchase date) and saw several new cylinders with an older manufacturing date on Egun sold at a discount price (for instance FWB AP cylinders from 2011 at 90€ when it cost new between 125 and 135€).

How does an individual (or even worse a school with many older guns like Hammerli pistols) get new replacement tanks today? Oh, too bad, they have to throw out perfectly serviceable guns because newly dated tanks are not available - even if they exist, New Old Stock tanks are useless! Just what this country needs - even fewer schools with precision shooting programs.

The old Hammerli from the "pre-Walther"time are the only problem and the problem isn't a technical problem, it is because the company doesn't exist anymore (bankruptcy, Umarex/Walther took over only the brand name and some of the latest products). All old Hammerli guns have the same spare parts problem, not only airguns, and if your airgun fails for any reason other than the cylinder you also cannot get spare parts.

We should also stop comparing air gun tanks to scuba tanks, since the energy stored in a scuba tank is over 100 times more than an air gun tank. The danger is simply not comparable. These people apparently think air tanks explode like grenades when they fail. I challenge anyone to provide documentation that this has ever happened.

Even if they are smaller, airgun cylinder are dangerous. There are pictures of exploded Anschutz cylinders (no due to age but the result is the same). Would you like this to happen to you or to a shooter shooting besides you ?

[jhmartin]

Above: Disingenuous photo & concept.

This is a photo of a cylinder that WAS IN DATE and failed due to a manufacturing defect. These cylinders were recalled, while they were in date.

Please go find a photo of one that failed (not due to abuse/overfilling) after the 10 year date.

[pilkguns]

"Above: Disingenuous photo & concept"

yes, and no. The fact that the metal failed due to stress prematurely because of a manufacturing defect does not mean that the metal does not fail due to stress caused by extended usage. If the danger exisits, and it does, then the danger must be mitigated in some way. I have already pointed out the costs to mitigate the danger in a common SCUBA tank are comparable to buying a new air gun cylinder every 10 years.

Adding in the extra costs because of the complexity of an airgun cylinder makes mitigating the danger in the same manner of a SCUBA extremely expensive.

Buying a new cylinder every ten years is a safe, sensible and cost effective method to elminate as much danger as reasonably possible from our sport.

[Rover]

And you guys sneered when I pushed SSPs!