TargetTalk

sparky wrote:It doesn't help! :-P
You still have the organizing body setting a standard "...(maximum of ten (10) years)..."

The organization isn't setting a standard, it's only referring that "it is the athlete’s responsibility that any air or CO2 cylinder is within manufacturer’s validity date (maximum of ten (10)years).
I seriously doubt that you can pin the responsibility of a cylinder failure on the ISSF. The athlete and the manufacturer would be first in line in responsibility claims.

Fred B wrote:Back to the original question.
The essential foundation of rational law and rule-making is evidence - not conjecture, not hypotheticals.
Where's the evidence

There may not had happen at a top level match, but pressure vessels, no matter what kind, will eventually fail. I believe the ISSF is just being over cautious on this. A time stamp is the cheapest and most foolproof way of doing this.

How did I ended up defending the ISSF on this!? I got to lay down now...

Hope this helps

Hi. I am from the Philippines. I would like share that a friend of mine had a first owned FWB C-25 (CO2) which uses a tank that is shaped like a grenade. I am fairly sure that the unit was no more than 5 years old at the time that it exploded. It was a usual summer day of about 33 degrees C in the city, but I guess it was over 40 C inside his car's trunk where his air pistol was in its carrying case. It tore through the case and caused half a fist sized dent on the lid of his trunk. I saw the barrel but could not remember how much bent it had. But it was definitely unusable.

In our country, we do subject our industrial tanks to hydro testing. Scuba tanks as well. I have a 1995 Steyr LP-1 (compressed air), the tanks of which I will eventually subject to such at a cost equivalent to about US$18. Meanwhile, when I do use it, I load it to no more than 180 bars, enough too give me at least 70 good shots at 530 fps with R10s. Still shoots a 7mm 5 shot group using a vise. FWIW, I still would not hesitate using it had it not been for an LP10 that I bought 3 years ago.

FredB wrote:The essential foundation of rational law and rule-making is evidence*

* not applicable in California

john bickar wrote:

FredB wrote:The essential foundation of rational law and rule-making is evidence*

* not applicable in California

There are "Entering California - a Rationality-Free State" signs at the borders.

FredB wrote:

john bickar wrote:

FredB wrote:The essential foundation of rational law and rule-making is evidence*

* not applicable in California

There are "Entering California - a Rationality-Free State" signs at the borders.

"Beware of low-integrity DeLeons"

In red below is where ISSF substitutes their judgment for the manufacturer's. Prior to the institution of this rule, many (most? all?) manufacturer's didn't have a "validity date" and only enacted one because of this rule. Also, at least one manufacturer had a date that was over 10 years, which is now artificially reduced by ISSF's judgment call (<-- this is what gets them in trouble).

rmca wrote:

sparky wrote:It doesn't help! :-P
You still have the organizing body setting a standard "...(maximum of ten (10) years)..."

The organization isn't setting a standard, it's only referring that "it is the athlete’s responsibility that any air or CO2 cylinder is within manufacturer’s validity date (maximum of ten (10)years).
I seriously doubt that you can pin the responsibility of a cylinder failure on the ISSF. The athlete and the manufacturer would be first in line in responsibility claims.

Fred B wrote:Back to the original question.
The essential foundation of rational law and rule-making is evidence - not conjecture, not hypotheticals.
Where's the evidence

There may not had happen at a top level match, but pressure vessels, no matter what kind, will eventually fail. I believe the ISSF is just being over cautious on this. A time stamp is the cheapest and most foolproof way of doing this.

How did I ended up defending the ISSF on this!? I got to lay down now...

Hope this helps

sparky wrote:In red below is where ISSF substitutes their judgment for the manufacturer's. Prior to the institution of this rule, many (most? all?) manufacturer's didn't have a "validity date" and only enacted one because of this rule. Also, at least one manufacturer had a date that was over 10 years, which is now artificially reduced by ISSF's judgment call (<-- this is what gets them in trouble).

rmca wrote:

sparky wrote:It doesn't help! :-P
You still have the organizing body setting a standard "...(maximum of ten (10) years)..."

The organization isn't setting a standard, it's only referring that "it is the athlete’s responsibility that any air or CO2 cylinder is within manufacturer’s validity date (maximum of ten (10)years).
I seriously doubt that you can pin the responsibility of a cylinder failure on the ISSF. The athlete and the manufacturer would be first in line in responsibility claims.

Fred B wrote:Back to the original question.
The essential foundation of rational law and rule-making is evidence - not conjecture, not hypotheticals.
Where's the evidence

There may not had happen at a top level match, but pressure vessels, no matter what kind, will eventually fail. I believe the ISSF is just being over cautious on this. A time stamp is the cheapest and most foolproof way of doing this.

How did I ended up defending the ISSF on this!? I got to lay down now...

Hope this helps

Since manufactures put validity dates of ten (EU) or twenty years (Morini for example that's based in Switzerland), if a cylinder fails within the ten years that you say the ISSF imposes, do you really think that it's the ISSF that's at fault!?

If it fails, it does so WITHIN THE MANUFACTURER'S VALIDITY DATE! Not the ISSF's!

And if it fails after the ten years? Who's at fault there?

Common! Stop whining about this already!

sparky wrote:In red below is where ISSF substitutes their judgment for the manufacturer's. Prior to the institution of this rule, many (most? all?) manufacturer's didn't have a "validity date" and only enacted one because of this rule.

It's such a shame that you do not appear to have read much of this thread.

The marking of cylinders and manufacturers giving a 10 year limit has nothing to do with the ISSF. It's European directives and legislation.

David Levene wrote: The marking of cylinders and manufacturers giving a 10 year limit has nothing to do with the ISSF. It's European directives and legislation.

Hi David,

as jet i have not seen such a European directive and legislation.

There is a story behind this story and the manufacturers have an interest to make it looking like a European legislative but at this time it is (as far as i know) 'only' a contract from the manufactures.

The reason and the beginning for all that mess were some - how much is a good question - accidents and failures from two gun manufactures (Anschutz and Walther) who used cylinders from the same external supplier. As fare as i know all this failed cylinders were at that this time in their 10 year limit. After that the gun manufactures started a product recall and the reason for the cylinder failure was named a material defect. But then these gun manufactures started a initiative for this 10 year use time contract in their sport and hunting gun makers organization JSM to make this contract valid for all air gun makers. At this time there were rumors out from other air gun manufacturers who said that their cylinders were tested for much longer time without failures. But after some 'good' arguments all air gun manufactures adopted this 10 year use time rule and i am sure there was also some influence from this air gun manufactures to the German Shooting Federation and the ISSF.

At least do not understand me wrong here, theses cylinders are really small bombs and danger if they burst. But this hole story has an own taste and there are some questions open after all.

If this rumors about long time tests are valid and i am sure they are, why isn't it possible for all gun makers to use better tested material and build save cylinders? Here in this forum were some serious voices who said, this 10 year rule is only a statistical number, because the probability for failure depends much more from the use cycles - filling and unload - then from the absolute time. We all know there is an extreme difference between an Olympian shooter and an leisure club shooter if it comes to the quantity of shoots - and the re fillings of the cylinders - in a year. But have we shooters and users of this cylinders not all the right of an really save product? Why not tell the manufactures that we will have long time save products and not such a special use time rule with it's own taste?

A little to naive? Not really.


Regards from Germany

Frank

FrankD wrote:

David Levene wrote: The marking of cylinders and manufacturers giving a 10 year limit has nothing to do with the ISSF. It's European directives and legislation.

Hi David,

as jet i have not seen such a European directive and legislation.

From back in September 2012:-

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.

There was also further justification in older posts but I cannot be bothered to search for it.

If people want to complain then that's fine. To blame the markings and 10 year limits on the ISSF does seem to be unjustified. As previously stated in this thread, even the cylinders on non-10m, non-ISSF, airguns also have the same restrictions. Why do you think that would be?

David Levene wrote: As previously stated in this thread, even the cylinders on non-10m, non-ISSF, airguns also have the same restrictions. Why do you think that would be?

Let's do try to be accurate here. "As previously stated on this thread" the cylinders on non-10M, non-ISSF airguns have the same restrictions when they are actually the same cylinders as the 10M airguns use, usually made by the same manufacturers. Many other non-10M, non-ISSF airguns have fixed or removable cylinders with no restrictions marked on them, and examples were cited of these.

FredB wrote:

David Levene wrote: As previously stated in this thread, even the cylinders on non-10m, non-ISSF, airguns also have the same restrictions. Why do you think that would be?

Let's do try to be accurate here. "As previously stated on this thread" the cylinders on non-10M, non-ISSF airguns have the same restrictions when they are actually the same cylinders as the 10M airguns use, usually made by the same manufacturers. Many other non-10M, non-ISSF airguns have fixed or removable cylinders with no restrictions marked on them, and examples were cited of these.

If we're going to try to be accurate, where were examples cited.

You know something until the ISSF decided to add this business of Dated Air Cylinders to their rules, we had many, many years of AP without anyone worrying and getting their undies all wet over this. Now we have a growing bunch of simpering, supposed reports of each one outdoing the next with the numbers of cylinders that have "totally blown into pieces." Cut the BS and go back to shooting without the constant virginal badinage that is being written in this site....you're all full of crap. At age 83 I have seen and heard all about AP from pneumatic to Carbon Dioxide (g) to Air. I've heard of cylinders leaking , but never "catastrophic failures". Gee I guess I will have to add a Helmet and goggles to the crap I already carry to shoot AP, and add to that a ballistic vest as well ??????---WTF. "Doc"

I didn't say the above....but I shoulda!

David Levene wrote:

FredB wrote:

David Levene wrote: As previously stated in this thread, even the cylinders on non-10m, non-ISSF, airguns also have the same restrictions. Why do you think that would be?

Let's do try to be accurate here. "As previously stated on this thread" the cylinders on non-10M, non-ISSF airguns have the same restrictions when they are actually the same cylinders as the 10M airguns use, usually made by the same manufacturers. Many other non-10M, non-ISSF airguns have fixed or removable cylinders with no restrictions marked on them, and examples were cited of these.

If we're going to try to be accurate, where were examples cited.

Re: Are there reports of catastrophic cylinder failures??

Postby BigAl » Tue Aug 12, 2014 11:04 am

FredB wrote:Thanks for the information, David and robf. It's clear that I was wrong regarding removable cylinders on Euro non-10M PCPs. My experience with non-10M PCPs has been with guns that have fixed pressure containers - not removable cylinders - all manufactured more than 2 years ago. I wonder if the current fixed cylinder PCPs have the same warnings as the removable cylinder ones? Certainly the risks would be the same.

FredB



It seems that in Germany they cannot or do not wish to manufacture air rifles with fixed cylinders. I believe this is related to GERMAN legislation on the carriage of compressed gas cylinders in motor vehicles, which I understand require that the cylinder be empty. I occasionally work for a firearms dealer specialising in "sporting" air rifles. through this I have contact with most of the major UK manufacturers of these rifles. They all have fixed cylinders (except the Air Arms S200 which is made by CZ). None of the rifles have dated cylinders. As stated in my previous post on this subject I was told by the boss of Daystate that they have no concerns about air cylinder life. Actually the comment was to the effect that if we did have to worry it might be an issue for our grandkids, but we would not be around to see it.

I did neglect to mention the one catastrophic cylinder failure that I know of. That happened to a Theoben Mk1. The shooter lost an eye and most of his left hand. It was not the cylinders fault though, he had filled it with O2!!!! The gun exploded when he fired it and the O2 came into contact with oil/grease in the gun's mechanism. I have seen the photographs of the gun after this incident. What is worse is that the guy worked with O2 a lot in his job, so one would think he would have understood the risk he was taking.

Alan

So, being accurate FredB, your demonstration of where the examples were cited didn't actually cite any non-removeable cylinder guns.

The only gun named was the Air Arms S200. It's interesting that they say that their cylinder should be inspected every 2-3 years and that they can do it at a reasonable (whatever that means) cost.

It is also interesting that they list the "relevant statutory requirements", see the attached document.

With regard to the comment attributed to "the boss of Daystate", their online manual includes the statement "Every 10 years the rifle should be returned to the factory or approved agents to be inspected and the air cylinder replaced and pressure tested to confirm its safety. Air cylinders are date stamped to assist inspection."

If anyone still thinks that the ISSF have anything to do with the manufacturers putting a 10 year limit on their cylinders then fine, that's up to you. It would be nice to see you produce any evidence though. Remember that the big (at least German) manufacturers had applied that 10 year limit years before it appeared in the ISSF rules.

And Daystate rifles apparently have steel cylinders, not aluminium.

I don't understand the griping, ~$10 a year for air cylinders when no reputable manufacturer of a pressure vessel would set an unlimited life on them.
Maybe a mandatory annual test and inspection by a certified technician at ~$50 a go would be better?

Maybe the ISSF should revisit the high velocity, magnum load and jacketed bullet rules, after all they're just for cissies and serve no purpose at all.

David Levene wrote:So, being accurate FredB, your demonstration of where the examples were cited didn't actually cite any non-removeable cylinder guns.

The only gun named was the Air Arms S200. It's interesting that they say that their cylinder should be inspected every 2-3 years and that they can do it at a reasonable (whatever that means) cost.

It is also interesting that they list the "relevant statutory requirements", see the attached document.

With regard to the comment attributed to "the boss of Daystate", their online manual includes the statement "Every 10 years the rifle should be returned to the factory or approved agents to be inspected and the air cylinder replaced and pressure tested to confirm its safety. Air cylinders are date stamped to assist inspection."

If anyone still thinks that the ISSF have anything to do with the manufacturers putting a 10 year limit on their cylinders then fine, that's up to you. It would be nice to see you produce any evidence though. Remember that the big (at least German) manufacturers had applied that 10 year limit years before it appeared in the ISSF rules.

Sorry I'm not meeting your standards for evidence. There are dozens and dozens of non-removable (and removable) cylinder non-10M PCP models, and they're made by dozens of companies in a dozen countries. Just off the top of my head there's BSA, Daystate, Air Arms, Theoben, Hatsan, Crosman, Benjamin, Air Force, Mrodair, and various Korean and Chinese products sold under several names. I have not checked their current offerings or their websites because I'm not very interested in their products, but a quick look at, for example, Pyramyd's website will provide specifics about the wide range of available products.

I own only one such product, a 2 year old Gamo Dynamax rifle, made in England by BSA. There are no warnings on the cylinder, on the gun itself or in the owner's manual. There may or may not be some warning on the Gamo or the BSA websites, but I didn't bother to look. I believe a generic website warning with nothing on the gun or in the owner's manual is irrelevant to the average owner. When you buy a new product, do you carefully search the manufacturer's website for any safety warnings that might not be in the owner's manual? Well, maybe you would, but most owners wouldn't.

I also don't know which of the many guns I don't own have relevant warnings and which do not. Practically, I'd have to buy them all to find out, as they're not accessible to me otherwise. But clearly some of the guns are lacking the warnings that you seem to feel are universal. Or would you say that I own the only example? As far as speculation about the origin and/or motivation of the 10-year rules, I've never done that; I've only asked why not all manufacturers are as concerned about the alleged dangers as are the dominant 10m makers.

In any case, the current discussion is a diversion (for which I'm partially responsible, sorry OP) from the original poster's question regarding documented catastrophic cylinder failures. To quote you from directly above, " It would be nice to see you produce any evidence."

"The rule is perfect: in all matters of opinion our adversaries are insane." Mark Twain

Surely the rule will make a lot of money for all the manufacturers. Sort of like automobile manufacturers who always motivate people to "upgrade". In this case "newer".