USA Shooting Air Cylinder Policy UPDATED 03-13-13

jhmartin · Post by **jhmartin** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:59 pm

pilkguns wrote: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 exremely expensive.

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

I'll go along with that line of reasoning .... but, when I purchase a "new" cylinder that has been sitting on the shelf for 6 years, do I get a 60% discount? Probably not.

I think you probably need to think about what we are worried about ... the cylinder metal rupturing? If that's the case, hydro-ing a cylinder's tube structure should not be any more than I pay for my most expensive SCUBA tank ... about $80 every 5 years. $160-$200 every 10 years is not unreasonable I think, and fully in line with your argument above.

But if a user buys a "new" tank for $200 and only gets 4 years out of it, then the cost argument starts becoming iffy.

What other pressure controlling items do we also need to worry about? Regulator housings and the threads of a receiver?

I agree we need to make this as safe as possible, but with any airgun/firearm there are failure paths ... it comes down to how likely is there to be a failure.

Scott, you know much more about this than I do, but again, not counting manufacturing defects and abuse, how many cylinders do you know of that have just failed due to fatigue? I think the margin of safety in these cylinders is quite high ... maybe 2-3X or more? I'd be stunned if the cylinders even remotely approach fatigue limits in normal use.
(Put 4Kpsi in a cylinder and yes, it becomes dangerous from then and thereafter)

I think there should be a way to remove the manometer & valve ends, and test them. Then install test ends on the cylinder and hydro it.
Laser mark, replace valve & manometer and done.
OK, this may cost $200-$300, but for rifles/pistols with no replacements, this should be an option.

rmca · Post by **rmca** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 2:19 pm

jhmartin wrote:I'll go along with that line of reasoning .... but, when I purchase a "new" cylinder that has been sitting on the shelf for 6 years, do I get a 60% discount? Probably not.

That's a silly argument!
IF the cylinder has an expected live of ten years, and six have passed, then it can't be sold as new, can it?
Unless the seller is trying to fool you...
If you buy a car with 0 km (or miles), and it has a licence plate from 2007, do you pay as much as you would for a new car? Probably not.

jhmartin wrote: $160-$200 every 10 years is not unreasonable I think, and fully in line with your argument above.

That's the price of a new cylinder... every ten years.

jhmartin wrote:I think there should be a way to remove the manometer & valve ends, and test them. Then install test ends on the cylinder and hydro it.
Laser mark, replace valve & manometer and done.
OK, this may cost $200-$300, but for rifles/pistols with no replacements, this should be an option.

And you can do it. Contact your country certifying body,
http://www.tuv.com/global/en/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technische ... ungsverein
they will perform the tests, remark the cylinders and provide you with a certificate that the vessel is ok... if it passes... Like they do with new ones.

But I don't know the cost of it...

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:03 pm

That's great Rover, but the fact remains that buying a new SSP today is virtually impossible. Can you provide brands, links, something a shooter can use besides 'SSP pistols are awesome and easy to find for sale.'? Fact is that the Baikal 46m is pretty much it. And it's not exactly a top level match pistol, is it? Fine for beginners, even fine for most club shooters, but it won't likely get you beyond that and there's an argument to be made that it'll hold you back because of the excessive weight towards the front, very tiring for many shooters compared to the average 1050 grams or so for the PCP pistols. I'd absolutely LOVE to find a good condition Pardini K58 for a reasonable price. Where? The few I've been able to find online are long-sold before I see them listed, usually years ago. Same for the not quite so desirable Walther LPM-1, with its fragile wooden end on the cocking lever.

So PCP is the default way to go. We're stuck with it unless some manufacturers get off that bandwagon and start making SSPs again, and good ones, which cock as easily as the Baikal or more easily and which are actually built to similar standards weight and finish-wise as the competitive PCP stuff. A really well made SSP with about a 15 pound cocking effort and weighing in no heavier than 1,100 grams for $1,500 would likely sell very well, at least in my opinion.

Post by **pilkguns** » Tue Mar 12, 2013 4:59 pm

I'll go along with that line of reasoning .... but, when I purchase a "new" cylinder that has been sitting on the shelf for 6 years, do I get a 60% discount? Probably not.

ummmmmm..... We have been doing exactly that for some three or four years now.

Which means we are very agressive in making sure the oldest dates go out first. Cylinders no longer stay in the gun boxes anymore, they come out and are sorted by date.

and AFAIK, other 10M dealers are doing the same.

Mike M. (as guest) · Post by **Mike M. (as guest)** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:31 am

Rover wrote:And you guys sneered when I pushed SSPs!

I didn't. Given the speed with which FWB 103s get snapped up, there's probably a market for a top-end SSP.

sparky · Post by **sparky** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 7:47 am

jhmartin wrote:
jipe wrote:
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.

And this is a perfect example of where USAS' rule mandating 10 year cylinders could be used to bankrupt them if someone on the firing line were injured when this "in date" cylinder ruptured.
An attorney would point out that by USAS was an expert in the business of determining the safety of air gun cylinders...they even went so far as to promulgate a rule. Unfortunately, they were negligent in their research (or they didn't perform any) and people got hurt. A jury could hold the manufacturer and USAS joint and severally liable and god help USAS if the manufacturer goes out of business and USAS is the only deep pocket left to pay a judgment.

Post by **pilkguns** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:19 am

[quote="sparky
An attorney would point out that by USAS was an expert in the business of determining the safety of air gun cylinders...they even went so far as to promulgate a rule. Unfortunately, they were negligent in their research (or they didn't perform any) and people got hurt. A jury could hold the manufacturer and USAS joint and severally liable and god help USAS if the manufacturer goes out of business and USAS is the only deep pocket left to pay a judgment.[/quote]

An attorney may point that out, but his arguement I think would quickly fall apart. USAS is merely following protocol established by two higher authorities (i.e., more responsible) those being ISSF and the individual manufacturers of the cylinders.

dschaller · Post by **dschaller** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:42 am

[quote="pilkguns An attorney may point that out, but his arguement I think would quickly fall apart. USAS is merely following protocol established by two higher authorities (i.e., more responsible) those being ISSF and the individual manufacturers of the cylinders.[/quote]

That is simply not true. Hammerli and Morini are at least two examples of manuacturers that specifically approved their cylinders for 20 years when they were manufactured, and as far as I know, have not recalled the cylinders.

If they considered them now unsafe (as ISSF is claiming, then why haven't the manufacturers recalled them? Regardless of what the ISSF "gods" have declared, the manufacturers (and dealers) that sold tanks with 20 year life are liable for any injury that occurs before the 20 years expire. One would certainly think the manufacturers would have a recall (like Anschutz did with their defective tanks) to reduce that liability. Clearly the manufacturers don't agree with ISSF about the danger from their well made tanks.

David Levene · Post by **David Levene** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:53 am

dschaller wrote:That is simply not true. Hammerli and Morini are at least two examples of manuacturers that specifically approved their cylinders for 20 years when they were manufactured, and as far as I know, have not recalled the cylinders.

It's about 4 years since Hammerli, and others, said that you shouldn't use their cylinders for more than 10 years (see attached).

I believe that Morini are also now putting a 10 year life on their cylinders.

jipe · Post by **jipe** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:58 am

jhmartin wrote:
jipe wrote:
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.

Yes, I know.

I put that picture not as an example of an exploded old cylinder but to show what happens when it explodes, an old cylinder would explode exactly the same way and causes the same collateral damages.

I definitely wouldn't like to be in the vicinity of it when it explodes ! If you want, it will surely be a kind of ultimate experience.

Note that the main risk is for the aluminum cylinders as steel is less sensitive to metal fatigue and there aren't that many aluminum cylinders older of much more than 10 years.

dschaller · Post by **dschaller** » Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:03 am

I am well aware of the "announcement". That is legally meaningless when the manuals and inscriptions on the cylinders specifically state 20 years. Unless they recall those cylinders, they have not reduced any liability. There are a lot of guns out there not used in ISSF matches, and if people follow their manuals (assuming they even have one) like even your link instructs them to, then they should expect them to work as sold. Clearly the manufacturers don't feel there is much liability there, or they would have been more proactive about replacing them. They are reacting only to legislation, not safety concerns.

sparky · Post by **sparky** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 8:18 am

pilkguns wrote:[quote="sparky
An attorney would point out that by USAS was an expert in the business of determining the safety of air gun cylinders...they even went so far as to promulgate a rule. Unfortunately, they were negligent in their research (or they didn't perform any) and people got hurt. A jury could hold the manufacturer and USAS joint and severally liable and god help USAS if the manufacturer goes out of business and USAS is the only deep pocket left to pay a judgment.

An attorney may point that out, but his arguement I think would quickly fall apart. USAS is merely following protocol established by two higher authorities (i.e., more responsible) those being ISSF and the individual manufacturers of the cylinders.[/quote]
USAS may certainly try to bring in the ISSF as a third party defendant (I'd imagine any manufacturer would already be a party to the suit), but I'd imagine a lot of attorneys would probably roll the dice on the case. Either way, USAS is *still* writing themselves into a lawsuit instead of letting competitors (since it's their stuff) and manufacturers (since they designed it) have the liability.

Pilkguns, to put it another way, would you categorically vouch for the safety and assume legal liability of any particular air pistol or firearm you have never examined based solely on its age?

jipe · Post by **jipe** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:07 am

dschaller wrote:I am well aware of the "announcement". That is legally meaningless when the manuals and inscriptions on the cylinders specifically state 20 years. Unless they recall those cylinders, they have not reduced any liability. There are a lot of guns out there not used in ISSF matches, and if people follow their manuals (assuming they even have one) like even your link instructs them to, then they should expect them to work as sold. Clearly the manufacturers don't feel there is much liability there, or they would have been more proactive about replacing them. They are reacting only to legislation, not safety concerns.

As far as I know, there are only two manufacturers who specified their cylinders for 20 years:
- Hammerli on old models: Hammerli (the company who sold those cylinders, Umarex/Walther took over the brand name, not the old products) doesn't exists anymore and as such cannot take any further action !
- Morini: they are from Switzerland and aren't part of the group of companies who set the 10 years rule. They recently decided to also move to the 10 year rule but I guess that they are confident enough in their old products ?

As already said, there are no legal rules that enforce a maximum validity of 10 years (also not in Europe). The 10 year rule originates from the German air gun manufacturers association (Steyr Sport is also member of this association, even if Steyr Sport is from Austria)

Till 2012, ISSF never said 10 years, only that the cylinders should be valid according to the manufacturer rule.

I don't know why ISSF put this 10 year maximum validity rule in 2013 because ISSF doesn't know nor control the way how the several air cylinder companies manufacture their air cylinders (for those who don't know, not only the air gun manufacturers sell air cylinders, there are also a couple of companies that manufacture replacement air cylinder like 10punkt9).

Post by **pilkguns** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:28 pm

sparky wrote:[Pilkguns, to put it another way, would you categorically vouch for the safety and assume legal liability of any particular air pistol or firearm you have never examined based solely on its age?

No, and this is not an equal comparison. The governing body is not doing that. They are merely acknowledging that the competitor in a match has met the manufacturer's safety guidelines for their product.

Rover · Post by **Rover** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 1:30 pm

Hunt down those SSPs! For the price of three or four cylinders you can get a K58 or FWB 100.

I know the manufacturers look at this site from time to time. Maybe they'll take a hint.

I laugh because I'm using an LP1 I got really cheap, but I'd snap up a K58 in a second.

jipe · Post by **jipe** » Thu Mar 14, 2013 4:47 pm

[quote="Rover"]Hunt down those SSPs! For the price of three or four cylinders you can get a K58 or FWB 100./quote]

Three or four cylinders will allow you to shoot during 30 or 40 years !

sparky · Post by **sparky** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 8:51 am

pilkguns wrote:
sparky wrote:[Pilkguns, to put it another way, would you categorically vouch for the safety and assume legal liability of any particular air pistol or firearm you have never examined based solely on its age?
No, and this is not an equal comparison. The governing body is not doing that. They are merely acknowledging that the competitor in a match has met the manufacturer's safety guidelines for their product.

Not true. The original link in the first post isn't working now, but IIRC, the text did not mention following the manufacturer's specifications, it only the cylinder had to be less than 10 years old.

If all the rule said was this:

It is the shooter's responsibility that any air or Co2 cylinder is safe. If an expiration date is set forth by the manufacturer of any air or Co2 cylinder, it is the shooter's responsibility to make sure all cylinders used are not expired."

I wouldn't have a problem with it and USAS would be off the hook, leaving the maximum age (if any), and the liability for making such a call, up to the manufacturers who designed and manufactured them in the first place.

rmca · Post by **rmca** » Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:46 am

jipe wrote:As already said, there are no legal rules that enforce a maximum validity of 10 years (also not in Europe). The 10 year rule originates from the German air gun manufacturers association (Steyr Sport is also member of this association, even if Steyr Sport is from Austria)

Not true.

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.

And that is why you have cylinders marked 20 years and "apparently still valid", witch they are not. They were manufactured before that legislation.

Texdance · Post by **Texdance** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:15 pm

pilkguns wrote:(snip)... it becomes obvious that buying a new cylinder every 10 years is CHEAP.(snip)

...I'm sorry, but this is a necessary expense if we wish to pursue CA technology in our sport.

I spend years in manufacturing as a safety manager. I spent lots of company money testing cylinders (fire extinguishers). I would never think of letting them go beyond their expiration date, due to the proven danger to people. So I agree with the rule though I don't like what it means for me at this moment.

I was about to pull the trigger on a Gunbroker purchase of a nice old CO2 gun. It is original owner, with two cylinders and case, and only slightly priced over what I think is right.

During research I came across this thread, and I am glad I did. Since I was buying with formal competition in mind, that GB gun will not be purchased now because the cylinders are well over 10 years old, and buying replacement cylinders would add another $425 USD to my original investment. That is too much money for me at this point for an older air gun. It was to be purchased for a 10-year old who is showing strong promise and wants to make a career in shooting sports, so you can imagine my disappointment that it is not going to happen right now.

It is unfortunate that CA and maybe even CO2 came along, at least from a beginner's price perspective. Two grand for a first-line CA air gun (and why buy anything that is not first line?), another $200 for a spare cylinder, maybe another hundred for some adapter, plus several hundred for a tank or pump of some sort brings the entry fee close to $2500 for just one competitive air gun. Ouch.

Even the promise of an affordable Sporter Air Rifle has been broken with the inclusion of CA rifles: one easily can spend over to a grand on a setting up a CA Sporter, if extra cylinder and adapter and tank and pump are included in the cost.

Living as I do a hundred miles from a dive shop, I don't have easy access to CA but I can get CO2 easily. Too bad my idea of a good used older CO2 air gun is not workable for me. Guess I'll keep looking for that elusive inexpensive competition air gun at an affordable price.

Post by **pilkguns** » Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:40 pm

Texdance wrote:[

I was about to pull the trigger on a Gunbroker purchase of a nice old CO2 gun. It is original owner, with two cylinders and case, and only slightly priced over what I think is right.

During research I came across this thread, and I am glad I did. Since I was buying with formal competition in mind, that GB gun will not be purchased now because the cylinders are well over 10 years old, and buying replacement cylinders would add another $425 USD to my original investment.
Why do you think you need two cylinders?

That is too much money for me at this point for an older air gun. It was to be purchased for a 10-year old who is showing strong promise and wants to make a career in shooting sports, so you can imagine my disappointment that it is not going to happen right now.

I can't think of any removeable cylinder CO2 pistol would be an "ideal" choice for a 10 year old if competition was truly what you had in mind, even shooting PPP.

It is unfortunate that CA and maybe even CO2 came along, at least from a beginner's price perspective. Two grand for a first-line CA air gun (and why buy anything that is not first line?),
Buying a 10 year old a " first line" AP is not only an excessive expense, but one that is truly detrimental to their ability to learn the sport. I do not know of any endeavor where kids are given adult sized equipment and expected to learn effectively or perform well.
another $200 for a spare cylinder, maybe another hundred for some adapter, plus several hundred for a tank or pump of some sort brings the entry fee close to $2500 for just one competitive air gun. Ouch.

Even the promise of an affordable Sporter Air Rifle has been broken with the inclusion of CA rifles: one easily can spend over to a grand on a setting up a CA Sporter,
Sporter rifle is designed as a club sport, so the cost of the fill apparatus is jointly shared.

Living as I do a hundred miles from a dive shop, I don't have easy access to CA but I can get CO2 easily. Too bad my idea of a good used older CO2 air gun is not workable for me. Guess I'll keep looking for that elusive inexpensive competition air gun at an affordable price.

Sounds like you just want to gripe. If you want a CO2 AP, (and I would heartily endorse that idea over CA, have for years!) get it and go shoot it. If you start doing well and attending matches where the tanks are being checked, the your traveling costs are going to far outweigh the cost of a new cylinder.