CO2 vs. Compressed Air

[Lee Uhrich]

I currently own a older model of the IZH46 (not the IZH46M). I want to purchase a CO2 or Compressed Air pistol. I would appreciate any suggestions on make or model. Also, what are the pros & cons of CO2 vs. Compressed Air. Thanks for your help. Lee

[David Levene]

I currently own a older model of the IZH46 (not the IZH46M). I want to purchase a CO2 or Compressed Air pistol. I would appreciate any suggestions on make or model. Also, what are the pros & cons of CO2 vs. Compressed Air. Thanks for your help. Lee

Can I suggest that you look through past threads in the Pistol section where this has been discussed many times in the past.

Unfortunately you will find recommendations for virtually every pistol ever made.

The common reply on all of the threads is that you should buy the top quality pistol which feels best to you.

As for CO2 v CA, just look at some of the Air Pistol finals on the ISSF-TV site. I cannot remember seeing any CO2 pistols.

[CraigE]

You may get a number of replies advocating either. Warren Potter feels strongly that CO2 is fine for most people....if that is acceptable to the individual. He has said so in literature from Pilkington. Raymac (formerly of Airguns Only) has similar posts. I think the choice comes down to the individual. I shoot CO2 (Steyr LP1) and find it very satisfactory. I shoot at matches with high level shooters also using CO2. But the majority of shooters with higher end pistols have CA. In part, I think this comes from the marketing and pervasive nature of new technology. Either is available as new or in the used market. The CO2 market (used) does not command as high price as CA. If you are shooting a pistol from one of the top mfgrs.....any pistol will likely outshoot the shooter. Many good scores come from IZH-46 or 46M.....my own personal best as well. But it is more comfortable and satisfying to shoot the more elite pistol. This is not an either or answer, but I can tell you I am very happy with a CO2 LP1 and expect to be for quite a while.
CraigE

[Bill Poole]

(assuming your local scuba shop will sell you and fill for you a tank (you get 10000 shots per $5 fill).... If you get a Morini CM162EI or a Steyr LP10 (both are compressed air), you will never wonder if you should have gotten CO2 instead.

Morini has a really great electronic trigger and great compensator, Steyr has a great mechanical trigger and really great compensator. Get one of each!

Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/

[pilkguns]

If you seach the old archives, I am sure will a number of posts of mine advocating CO2. For the average shooter, CO2 has lots of advantages, cheaper initially, cheaper to shoot, cheaper to maintain and easier to maintain, You can do all the maintenence yourself. AND its much safer.

About the only time I would recommend CA over CO2 is an inidviudal at a remote location who needs the self sufficeincy of being able to fill their own cylinders with the handpump. Or a need to shoot in temperature extremes. But the technology tide has turned everybody thinks they have to have CA. The LP10 is still availble in CO2, but I doubt we sell 3 a year in that configuation anymore

[cbpersel]

I personally own a compressed air Morini 162EI. I had never shot a CO2 pistol until my friend brought her FWB C10 over last night for some personal competition. On a lark, I took 5 shots with it and scored a 49/50 (98%). So, like the moderator said . . . CO2 will probably work just as well as compressed air. I have to say that I had a little trouble sleeping last night knowing that I shot better with her $300 used FWB CO2 than my $1300 Morini compressed air. :-)

Craig Persel

[Dan Hankins]

I have a Morini CM 162 EI. It has a feature on it that would be great on a ?CO-2 pistol. The devise that keeps you from shooting when the charge is low.

I wonder why this feature was never used on a CO-2 pistol. The issue of a low charge on a CO-2 gun can be eliminated by counting shots, and I know this and that is why it is not often a problem. But, ever once in a while I find the POI getting a little lower, just a little. Sometimes this could be me, just not holding consistantly. But sometimes and again, this is a fairly rare occurrance, it is the pistol getting low of CO-2.

If there was a devise like the Morini uses, the pistol would refuse to fire when the CO-2 was low.

I think that the only pistols that need to be PCP are the semi automatic pistols the LP-5 and 50. Just my opnion.

Respectfully,
Bubba

[David Levene]

There seem to be several comments in favour of CO2 but can any one tell me why there are so very few, if any, of the world's top shooters using them.

The overwhelming majority use compressed air. There must be some reason for it.

[Spencer C]

There seem to be several comments in favour of CO2 but can any one tell me why there are so very few, if any, of the world's top shooters using them.

The overwhelming majority use compressed air. There must be some reason for it.

marketing and fashion, perhaps?

[David M]

Air vs CO2
They work on very different principles, Air on reducing high pressure air to a lower pressure (pressure reducing valve/ precharge chamber etc) and CO2 on a constant pressure when converting liquid CO2 to a gas (Reid vapour pressure).
The easiest one for the shooter to very accurately control for best results is Air.
CO2 has the hassles of cooling cylinders and weighing on filling and often even at World cups not being available. It also has problems with high temperatures, excessive pressure and pistols refusing to work.
Air is defiantly easier to travel with and has fewer hassles.
PS. There is no low pressure lock on a CO2 because it would need a lock that knows when you run out of liquid.

[David Levene]

There seem to be several comments in favour of CO2 but can any one tell me why there are so very few, if any, of the world's top shooters using them.

The overwhelming majority use compressed air. There must be some reason for it.

marketing and fashion, perhaps?

At Olympic and World Cup Final level? I don't think so. These guys want the best, most reliable and easiest to live with.

[Fred]

Without intending any offense to previous posters on this subject, this thread is starting to get silly. No rational person would deny that Compressed Air (CA) performs better at extreme temperatures. Since World Cups and the Olympics may occasionally be conducted under such conditions, and a great deal is at stake, a world-class shooter would be foolish not to use a technology that would work under the most extreme conditions. Therefore they use CA; therefore CA tanks are available at World Cups and the Olympics; therefore it is easier for world-class shooters to travel with CA guns.

All this has no bearing on the question of which technology is better for the average shooter who shoots at home and/or at local matches, or even occasionally regional ones. As long as the ambient temperature remains inside the extremes, CO2 functions every bit as well as CA. Plus it has all the advantages that Scott mentioned above, and Raymac has written about. One other advantage that may not have been previously mentioned, is that most guns will shoot for many more shots on a CO2 fill than a CA fill. In fact - and Bubba might be interested in this - my Steyr LP-5 was originally CO2, I converted it to CA, and then converted it BACK to CO2, just because I got so many more shots per refill with CO2.

Bottom line, there is no one answer to the question, "which is better?" The question needs to be "which is better under such-and-such conditions?"

[Spencer C]

[quote="Fred"]...Since World Cups and the Olympics may occasionally be conducted under such conditions...therefore CA tanks are available at World Cups and the Olympics; therefore it is easier for world-class shooters to travel with CA guns.

quote]

Cannot remember any recent World Cup or Olympics where the 10m range had extremes of temperature, and CO2 is normally available at this level of competition. However, tThe benefits of CA guns (real or percieved) are most likely related to the ongoing development of guns using CA, whereas development of CO2 guns appears to have ceased.

S

[eugenegazda]

Read Don Nygords' comments on CA vs CO2 on his website. It"s all right there.
Scott Pilkington is right too.

[Mark Briggs]

OK, time for a curve ball, folks. I have a fairly good assortment of top-end air pistols - CM162EI (CA), LP10 (CA) and LP1 Co2. I also live in Canada where we do actually get the extremes of temperature. In fact, I shot a match yesterday where I took my CM162 from the cold-soaked car (-5C) into the room-temperature range. And I've shot both CA and Co2 in cold temperatures (more than cold enough to see the vapor on your breathe as you exhale - one of our "indoor" ranges is no more than a fancy tent on a concrete pad, very chilly in October and November!).

To date I've had Co2 fail me ONLY when I overfilled the cylinder. But contrary to what all opinions above might have expressed, I have also had CA fail me when being taken from very cold to very warm. My CM162 often will function for the first five shots or so, then it will produce too little pressure, resulting in shots waaaay down in the 2,3,4 rings, then a couple of shots later will be back to normal. Needless to say, I now warm my pistol up before going into the range, and then I pop off several "shots" of air to ensure the regulator has had a chance to get past this little rough spot.

One thing that's interesting to note as well. Although I have both a CM162 which is my main gun and an LP-10, I carry the LP-1 as my backup gun when I travel to matches. And I still haven't been able to beat my personal best set with the LP-1! (I know, before you ask... I switched to the CM162Short model because of shoulder problems which make it difficult for me to support a nose-heavy pistol.)